Sitting of 21 June 1984

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

    PORTSEA HARBOUR COMPANY BILL
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered upon Thursday 28 June.

    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered upon Thursday 28 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Television Licence
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received any proposals for increases in the television licence.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): No, Sir.
    Mr. Winnick: As an application may be made, will the Minister accept that the BBC has a duty to provide an adequate amount of current affairs coverage on its main television channel? There is quite a lot of discontent over recent happenings. Will the Government accept that if there is an increase in the licence fee it will be all the more necessary to have a much smaller licence fee for retired people living on their own?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman's first point is entirely a matter for the corporation.
    A free licence for all pensioners would cost £250 million and that would put up the fee for others to about £70 for that purpose alone. That is too much.
    Mr. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend think it is correct for the Home Office to go on being the tax collector for the BBC when not one right hon. or hon. Member, nor even the Committee of Public Accounts, can question how the BBC spends the £700 million which the Home Office so kindly collects for it?
    Mr. Hurd: The system has been criticised and examined many times over. All I can say to my hon. Friend at the moment is that we have no plans to change it.
    Mr. Kaufman: Following the right hon. Gentleman's unfortunate interview with The Sunday Times a little while ago, will he give the House a categorical assurance that the Government have no plans for the privatisation of the BBC, no plans for the introduction of commercial sponsorship of BBC programmes, and no plans whatever for the introduction of commercial advertisements either on BBC television or on BBC radio?
    Mr. Hurd: I have done so in the House before, and I did so again a minute ago.

    Domestic Nuclear Shelters
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish information on domestic nuclear shelters.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): Information on domestic nuclear shelters is in the booklets "Domestic Nuclear Shelters" and "Domestic Nuclear Shelters—Technical Guidance" which were published in 1981 and are in the Library. We hope to publish information next year on a wider range of shelter designs and materials and on protective measures within the home.
    Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that most of the designs which he has so far brought forward and are so far available are far too expensive for the average householder?
    Mr. Brittan: A range is referred to in the existing literature and some are specifically designed to be as simple as possible. Research is being undertaken into new designs for improvised shelters, some of which have been tested in simulated nuclear explosions in America.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister consider publishing examples of less expensive designs to augment the publication which has been prepared?
    Mr. Brittan: The booklet "Domestic Nuclear Shelters" provides a brief guide to three basic kinds of shelter, one of which is a simple one for short-term indoor or outdoor use, which can be built from materials already at hand. Secondly, there are shelters which can be assembled from kits. Therefore, it is not right to say that the existing material is designed just for the most expensive kind of shelter. We shall consider the point made by the hon. Gentleman when it comes to the new publication.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the considerable expertise that has been gathered on this matter by firms in France and the fact that they are able to offer a package deal to communities in this area? Will he make himself aware of these experiments to see whether we might learn something from them?
    Mr. Brittan: We are always willing to learn. My hon. Friend has particular knowledge of these matters, and I shall be happy to consider the point that he has made.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: In view of the Home Secretary's answer to a previous question, will he tell the House how one simulates a nuclear explosion?
    Mr. Brittan: I think that the information about that will be given when we publish the new design. It will explain the basis of the simulation.
    Mr. Terlezki: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider introducing legislation dealing with nuclear shelters as they exist, and have existed for many years, in Switzerland?
    Mr. Brittan: I think that circumstances in Switzerland are different from those in this country, and I am not sure that to go along the Swiss road would meet our own particular needs.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: This is all realy a bit of a farce, is it not? It is a fantasy, a bit of propaganda. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman really believes that the mystic nuclear shelter can offer a substantial degree of protection in the event of a nuclear war, why does he not make them available for everyone, instead of leaving them, as they are at present, an option available only to the rich, while the poor in high-rise flats, like those in my constituency, will be left unprotected?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could conceivably have read "Domestic Nuclear Shelters", and the description of the basic kind of shelter, for him to put forward that proposition. To introduce the class war into the question of nuclear shelters is really straining the imagination a little too far, even for the hon. Gentleman.

    Association of Chief Police Officers
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what subjects he discussed at his last meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers.
    Mr. Brittan: Apart from social occasions, I last met the president of the association on 27 March when he reported to me, on behalf of his colleagues, on the police operation in relation to the miners' dispute.
    Mr. Canavan: When will the Home Secretary tell the chief constables to put a stop to police brutality during the miners' strike, otherwise public confidence in the police will be completely destroyed? How on earth can any Home Secretary justify a situation where millions of television viewers can witness a policeman repeatedly lashing out with his truncheon against a miner and be told that the policeman will not face criminal charges? Why is that policeman not being treated like a common criminal, because that is precisely what he is?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not accept the view that the hon. Gentleman has put forward about the conduct of policing operations, and the House had an opportunity last Tuesday to consider the matter at considerable length. Any allegation that a police officer has abused his power or exceeded it must, and should, be looked at properly, in the right way, through the proper channels. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that that includes coming to a conclusion on the basis of the limited facts that he has.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that on this side of the House at any rate, and in the country, there is warm support for the police in the difficult work that they are trying to do in allowing people to go peacefully to their place of work?
    Mr. Brittan: I am aware of that. That support was expressed forcefully in the House on Tuesday. I am sure that it will have greatly assisted the police in the difficult job that they have to do.
    Mr. Mason: Does the Home Secretary agree that the policemen on the picket lines are under great stress and strain at the moment? Does he agree that that was anticipated when he met the Association of Chief Police Officers? Did he inform the members of the asssociation that at the conclusion of the miners' dispute a national independent inquiry into law breaking by the police is likely, especially because of the activities of a nationally organised police force, into the prevention of free movement on the Queen's highway, into picket control methods and into the likely cost in compensation to the injured picketers? Did he tell them that?
    Mr. Brittan: I did not. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that is called for, but I certainly did not discuss it.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: May I revert to the specific incident mentioned by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it crystal clear that when the Director of Public Prosecutions, in the proper pursuance of his duty, determines independently that a case should not be brought, it will be either because he judges that the evidence available is unlikely to produce a conviction, or that there is some other public matter within his purview which requires him not to prosecute? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is wrong for an hon. Member, with the privilege of the House behind him, to seek to try an accused man?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree. I find it impossible to understand how any hon. Member can take it upon himself to be judge and jury in a case of which he has limited knowledge.
    Mr. Dubs: In his discussions with the association, will the Home Secretary raise the question of the way in which the police use firearms? In particular, will he tell the association and the House when he expects to have the result of the inquiry into the recent shooting at Tottenham? Will he give an undertaking that the results of that inquiry will be made known to the House?
    Mr. Brittan: I announced last December that changes in the selection and training procedures for the use of firearms were required and that I would be discussing them with the Commissioner. The Commissioner's report describes the areas for improvement, and some of the changes have already begun to take place. For example, tighter screening procedures for officers who apply for firearms training has already been implemented. Some of the changes recommended require resources and cannot be made overnight; for example, increasing the length and extending the content of the basic firearms training courses. That is under way.
    The report into the use of firearms at the post office in North London on 14 June and the report of the second inquiry into whether offences were committed by the people arrested will go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, reports to the DPP are not published, but the consequence of such reports can be considered further.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the police operations to ensure that those who wish to go to work during the current coal dispute have been able to do so.
    Mr. Brittan: Major policing operations have been necessary to ensure that people who wish to go to work may do so. Neither I nor the police welcome the need for these operations, but those who believe in the rule of law will be very gratified that they have succeeded in enabling all those who wish to go to work to do so.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that only hon. Gentlemen in the Labour ranks do not have admiration for the police for the courageous and efficient way in which they have safeguarded the going to work of 50,000 miners, despite the fact that in many pits they are under criminal siege? Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making the dangerous tasks which the police have to do less dangerous by putting a legally enforceable limit of six on the number of people who may picket, in line with the agreement by the TUC and the National Union of Mineworkers when they undertook to make that part of a voluntary code? They have not lived up to their promise.
    Mr. Brittan: I welcome the opportunity once again to pay tribute to the truly remarkable achievement of the police in making it possible for 50,000 people to go to work. I do not think that at this stage it would be useful to introduce legislation to limit pickets to six—which was included in the code of practice—because the police have powers in common law to limit the number of pickets where necessary to prevent or deal with breaches of the peace. They have used those powers in appropriate circumstances.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it the rule of law when a car load of striking miners are refused permission to leave the M1 to go to the county council headquarters in Nottingham to talk to Labour councillors about free school meals for their children, and are then sent back up the M1 and again refused permission to leave it to go to their homes? Was it the rule of law when seven car loads of plain clothes policemen invaded houses in Meden Vale, Warsop this week and arrested miners sitting in their homes—including one miner who was not on strike—and took them away for questioning for several hours? Is that the rule of law in Nottinghamshire today?
    Mr. Brittan: If the police seek to stop any vehicle and it is alleged that they are going beyond their power to prevent a breach of the peace, that can be challenged in the courts. If people are suspected of having committed a criminal offence, the police are entitled to arrest them in their homes.
    The hon. Gentleman should ask himself whether it is in accordance with the rule of law to organise the descent of thousands and thousands of pickets on a place where it is clear that their presence in such numbers is bound to lead to a breach of the peace.
    Mr. Conway: In view of the pressure on conventional policing during current operations, has any thought been given to extending the role of the Special Constabulary to help with conventional police operations?
    Mr. Brittan: The numbers in the Special Constabulary have increased recently. It has an important role to play in supporting the police by taking on certain duties to release police who need to be committed to a certain task.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Home Secretary aware that the cost so far to Merseyside for policing the dispute is £4·7 million? What comfort can he offer to the hard-pressed ratepayers? Does he agree that it is a scandalous misuse of money for Keeva Coombes, the leader of the Merseyside county council, to hire a double decker bus to send 70 people to Point of Ayr for illegal secondary picketing? Does he further agree that that will not help to settle the dispute, that it will not contribute one iota to doing so?
    Mr. Brittan: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's second point, and I am inclined to agree with him.
    On his first point, there is no doubt that many police authorities have incurred a substantial financial burden as a result of policing operations. For that reason, I announced special Government assistance of 90 per cent. of costs incurred above a 1p rate. I recognise that that may still lead to some difficulties for certain forces which have made representations to me. I am considering those representations and hope to make a further statement shortly.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Would it not be helpful if the Leader of the Opposition could get into his head the difference between violent disorder and the legitimate use of force to suppress that?
    Mr. Brittan: That is a distinction which we would all be wise to bear in mind al all times.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Home Secretary aware that his assumption that picketing miners are blacker than coal and that picket-line policemen are whiter than snow is naive and foolish? Is it not also dangerous, because it polarises both sides in the dispute? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not judge the issues so simply.
    Mr. Brittan: I refuse the temptation to equate those who break the law with those who preserve and maintain it. It is a spurious equality to try to say that there is one and then the other. As I said earlier, there is no doubt that the weight of sheer numbers—thousands and thousands of people—is bound to lead to breaches of the law. Those responsible for that have a heavy burden on their consciences.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the integration of voluntary members of police forces from other areas into the areas where picketing takes place? Have they not contributed a great deal to the keeping of order in those areas? Has my right hon. and learned Friend any idea of how they have integrated with the local forces and what contribution they have made?
    Mr. Brittan: The aid given by forces from other parts of the country to those who are at the cente of the areas in dispute has been substantial and deeply appreciated. It has been successful in the sense that policemen going from one part of the country to another have been able to make a most effective contribution.
    Mr. Concannon: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the time is right to try to gel the

    465
    police back to performing their normal duties? It depends, of course, on where one lives and whom one represents what view one takes of the activities of the police at present. Will the Home Secretary use his influence in the Cabinet to get it accepted that now is the time to start getting reconciliation instead of confrontation, so that the police may return to their normal duties?
    Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sooner the police return to their ordinary duties, the better. I assure him that as soon as there is no threat of a breach of the law by obstruction and by the other criminal acts that take place the police will return to their normal duties. The most useful step that any of us can take to bring that day nearer is to call on those who have been responsible for threats to breach the peace to desist from doing that.

    Criminal Justice Strategy
    Mr. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to carry forward his criminal justice strategy.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): My right hon. and learned Friend is taking a wide range of administrative measures to increase the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and public confidence in it, and he also plans to bring forward legislation on a range of other issues—for example, on prosecution arrangements, sentencing and the treatment of victims—during the lifetime of the present Parliament.
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What plans has he to extend the neighbourhood watch scheme? Is he aware that this seems to be one of the best ways of maintaining public confidence in the police, with members of the public working side by side with law enforcement officers?
    Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The neighbourhood watch scheme has been a striking success in the metropolis, where there are 390 schemes in operation and a further 590 planned. The House may be interested to know that in one scheme alone—in the Hurlingham part of Fulham—in the quarter from September to November of last year there was a decline in burglaries of about 50 per cent. compared with the same three months of the previous year. I am glad to say that the scheme is now being extended outside London. One is planned in Cumbria, in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: When will the Government's criminal justice strategy include a response to the overwhelming and reasonable demand by judges that they be given power to pass suspended youth custody sentences?
    Mr. Mellor: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has strong feelings about this issue. It is a matter about which, I am aware, a number of members of the judiciary feel strongly, and the subject is under consideration.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the alarming and worrying increase in the carrying of firearms by criminals, and the consequent issuing of larger numbers of firearms to the police, will consideration be given to the possibility of bringing in a mandatory strong sentence for criminals carrying firearms in the pursuit of robbery?
    Mr. Mellor: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, at a convenient time in the lifetime of this Parliament, we shall propose that the maximum sentence for the possession of firearms be increased from 14 years to life imprisonment.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Home Secretary, as part of his criminal justice strategy, is considering increasing the penalties for child sex offences? If not, will he consider doing so for those who commit such vile offences?
    Mr. Mellor: We share the hon. Gentleman's concern about those offences, but we have no reason to think that the law is inadequate in that area. The matter is under consideration by one of the committees which consider these issues, and we shall bear in mind what it says.

    Industrial Disputes (Intimidation)
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to strengthen police powers to combat intimidation of those not on strike carried out away from picket lines.
    Mr. Hurd: We do not believe that the present law is inadequate. The acts of intimidation which have been reported involve the commission of offences under existing law. The problem often lies in obtaining evidence. My right hon. and learned Friend reported to the House on 17 May the steps taken by police to strengthen there efforts on this.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he at least undertake to keep the law under review, bearing in mind that to the majority of British people the extension of intimidation to miners at home, to their wives and to their families is especially nauseous?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, but the horrifying scenes that we have all witnessed on television are not dealt with by Parliament changing the law. They will be dealt with by the National Union of Mineworkers and its members stopping their systematic defiance of the law.
    Mr. Flannery: Let us also consider intimidation by the police, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), against those who are on strike but away from the picket lines. We have given example after example of the police pulling out people who have lodgings for the night and attacking them because they happen to be on strike. Can we consider that intimidation, or can we look only at the other side?
    Mr. Hurd: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made plain again and again, including today, there are procedures for dealing with complaints that the police have exceeded their powers, and these procedures are being used. It is not right—this is what is done by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues constantly—to equate the efforts of the police with the efforts of the strikers in breaking the law.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend realise that last Friday, at the Cadley Hall pit in south Derbyshire, pickets descended in their hundreds in what was clearly a well co-ordinated programme? These pickets came from all areas of Britain. As a result, the local villages were full

    467
    of police vans. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the atmosphere of fear that was prevalent and tangible in those villages was not fear of the police, but fear of what would happen if the police were not present.
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. That is why the police have, unfortunately, to spend so much time which they would wish to spend otherwise in trying to protect the public from this sort of intimidation.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister comment on the slogan that is now doing the rounds of mining communities, which is, "Do yourself an injury—save police time"?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that it is ludicrous.

    Richmond Fellowship
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much, in grants, was paid by his Department to the Richmond Fellowship in the last financial year.
    Mr. Mellor: Just over £142,000.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Before my hon. Friend grants any more public money to the fellowship, will he consider its suitability for receiving it? Will he bear in mind our experience in Peterborough, where a so-called cured and model patient was sent by the fellowship to reassure my constituents about a proposed halfway house? A few weeks later that "model patient" stabbed and strangled his companion to death and has now been sentenced. We were assured by the fellowship that its halls were well supervised, yet the body lay in one for three days before it was even discovered.
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has raised this matter with the Department and the fellowship. His remarks will be given the most careful consideration. It has been our experience that the fellowship deals effectively with many difficult resettlement cases. It has been on that basis that successive Governments have granted it money, which sum presently constitutes about £142,000.

    International Terrorism
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Council of Europe Ministers of Justice in their study of international terrorism plan to seek to consult other involved countries, including the United States of America.
    Mr. Brittan: The conduct of the study will be a matter for the Council of Europe, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will remind our colleagues in that organisation of our related initiatives, including the declaration at the London economic summit, to which the United States of America subscribed.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that international agreements, because of reciprocity problems, are becoming more and more difficult to achieve, not least in the reform of the Vienna convention? Will he accept that this is not the best news that I can give him, but these problems are coming more and more on to his desk? Will he comment on whether concerted national action that is internationally concerted with his colleagues in various countries is perhaps the best way of achieving progress, bearing in mind that action is expected?
    Mr. Brittan: I agree that the process of agreeing changes in the Vienna convention is likely to be a difficult one. Progress might be made more effectively and rapidly by agreeing internationally on the application of unilateral national measures which are not inconsistent with the convention; for example, what is to be done if it is found that a diplomat has plainly acted in support of terrorism.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that there is little attraction for the United States of America in signing such an agreement when at least one of the countries in the EEC—the Republic of Ireland—has not yet ratified the convention on terrorism?
    Mr. Brittan: I note what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend's belief in the sanctity of diplomatic immunity, expressed at the time of the siege of the Libyan embassy, been dented by the Foreign Office admission that it had, after all, the power to search Libyan diplomatic baggage?
    Mr. Brittan: Not in the slightest. It is true that the Libyan Government entered a reservation with their signature to the convention in 1977 which would allow them, in certain circumstances, to have a bag opened, but they never operated that reservation. Such reservations are intensely undesirable, and that is why it has always been our practice to respect the inviolability of diplomatic bags in order to protect our own diplomatic bags.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Home Secretary expect European countries to take seriously our protestations of concern about international terrorism when for three years the Libyan Government proclaimed that they were using their premises in St. James' square as a base for terrorism and the British Government did nothing about it?
    Mr. Brittan: The action of the British Government compared very favourably with that taken by other countries that I could name, where there were incidents of great gravity involving the grave abuse of diplomatic immunity by countries other than Libya. The hon. Gentleman has only to travel across Europe to find how wide and recognised a response there has been to the lead that this country is taking in securing international cooperation on terrorism.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Waldenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that civil defence resources are adequate to deal with the consequences of a possible terrorist nuclear attack.
    Mr. Brittan: Our main aim must be to become aware of any impending such attack and be in a position to avert it. If an attack none the less occurred, effective civil defence and emergency service planning would play a vital part in minimising and alleviating its consequences.
    Mr. Walden: Is my right hon. and learned Friend sure that the county emergency planning officers are aware of all the contingency plans?
    Mr. Brittan: It is very important indeed that the police and all other agencies involved in countering terrorism in all its forms, such as the officers to whom my hon. Friend refers, should have the appropriate contingency plans. Certainly I am anxious to ensure that they do.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Home Secretary agree that his answer shows that there is no clear defence against nuclear attack, whether by terrorists or in any other form? The shelters, which I prefer to call personal crematoria, are certainly no defence. The only defence is to work as hard as we can here and in other Parliaments to rid the world of all nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Britton: I agree that progress towards arms limitation is by far the best route. However, a terrorist nuclear attack would be the sort of attack against which a substantial measure of protection could be provided, and there can be no doubt that the proper use of our civil defence mechanism would greatly mitigate the consequences of such an attack.
    Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the new regulations, and in particular the 100 per cent. grants, are making a useful and prudent contribution to the improvement of civil defence? However, why did my right hon. and learned Friend drop the provision for local authority staff to participate in the training exercises and all the other activities associated with improving our civil defence effort?
    Mr. Britton: Because we had received very strong representations to that effect from the local authorities themselves.
    Mr. Haynes: When will the Home Secretary wake up to the fact that if we did not have nuclear weapons terrorists could not get their hands on them? On the question of the resources devoted to civil defence, when will the Home Secretary persuade his Government that there is no need to spend money on civil defence because no defence against nuclear weapons is possible?
    Mr. Brittan: It might have occurred to the hon. Gentleman that terrorists would not necessarily help themselves to our nuclear weapons—they could conceivably get hold of other people's.

    Prison Statistics
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and how many women are in prison at present.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): On 15 June 1984 there were 42,743 males and 1,537 females held in prison department custody in England and Wales.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. and learned Friend think it necessary or desirable to lock up so many people in prison?
    Mr. Waddington: It is obvious that we should always examine alternatives to custody. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in the Criminal Justice Act 1982, the courts were given new powers to impose non-custodial sentences.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Would not any reforming Home Secretary be absolutely determined that, except for capital offences—which women do not normally commit—women should not be put in prison? Does the Minister agree that it is pointless putting men or women in prison for drugs or drink offences and that what we really need are far more facilities in the community to keep women out of prison?
    Mr. Waddington: As I have already said, we should always examine the possibility of non-custodial forms of treatment, but it is unrealistic to imagine that we shall swiftly arrive at a state of affairs in which it will not be necessary to send some women to prison. That is inevitable.
    Mr. Rowe: When my hon. and learned Friend examines alternatives to custodial treatment, will he see how much scope there is for extending the requirement for people to report for a number of hours during the week, as that is often a much more effective way in which to deal with people than taking them out of employment for long periods of time, thus creating the problem of how they use their spare time?
    Mr. Waddington: That is obviously one of the many matters that ought to be considered and kept under review.
    Mr. Corbett: Is it not the case that one reason why there are more men than women in prison lies in the burgeoning crime that has occurred under this law and order Government? When will the Government take real steps to bring down the level of crime?
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. He should be aware that, on 1 July this year, there will be a reduction in the minimum qualifying period for parole, which might mean 7,500 additional adults and 2,700 young offenders getting parole. The hon. Gentleman knows that the courts now have great powers to impose non-custodial sentences, and efforts have been made to reduce the number of fine defaulters who go to prison. That is not the record of a Government who do not recognise that we should try to reduce the prison population wherever possible.
    Mr. Couchman: What progress has my hon. and learned Friend been able to make to empty prisons of alcoholics, inadequates and the mentally ill?
    Mr. Waddington: It is most important that we always consider the possibility of non-custodial forms of treatment. It is our job to put as many forms of treatment as possible at the disposal of higher courts and magistrates.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: As there are many mentally ill people among the 46,000 who are in prison, does the Minister agree that it is scandalous that there are only about 25 registered mental nurses employed in the prison service? Will the Government undertake a thoroughgoing review to ensure that proper mental nursing provision is available in the prison service?
    Mr. Waddington: I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point, but it goes far wide of this question. Perhaps he would like to table a question on the matter at another time.

    Radio Stations
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the independent radio operators since his decision to permit foreign based stations to broadcast in the United Kingdom by means of land lines.
    Mr. Hurd: Officials have had a number of discussions, and I met representatives of the Association of Independent Radio Contractors on 13 June. Among other matters, we discussed their continuing concern over the question mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Taylor: Is it not clear that companies such as LBC, Radio Essex and others, which contributed more than £6 million last year in levies and rentals, and the programmes of which are strictly controlled by the IBA, are now to face unfair competition from offshore companies such as Radio Luxembourg, which do not pay one penny and are not controlled by the IBA in any way?
    Mr. Hurd: The decision flowed mainly from the larger decision taken by the House and the Government to abolish the monopoly in telecommunications in this country. We understand the strongly held anxieties that are felt about the matter. Despite the difficulties, we are considering whether we can find a way of meeting those anxieties.

    Civil Defence College
    Mr. Wallerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Civil Defence college, Easingwold will be offering courses for the volunteer training officers who will be required to train local authority civil defence volunteers required under the new civil defence regulation 1983.
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir. The working party on the training of civil defence volunteers is now considering how that should be done, and it will report soon.
    Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for volunteers to come forward and to be trained, under the provisions of the 1983 civil defence regulations? If he thinks that it might be helpful for college staff to go into the field to meet volunteers on their own ground, will he encourage them to do so?
    Mr. Hurd: That is an excellent idea, which is put into practice already to some extent. When we have received the working party report, and when a new principal of the college has been appointed, we shall consider how to take the matter further.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Prime Minister aware that, to many, the miners' dispute seems to be going from bad to worse? We have all viewed scenes that bring fear to those of us who believe in democracy. Can the Prime Minister, from her great office of state, think of any initiative that could be taken to prevent this desperate dispute going on into the winter months?
    The Prime Minister: The strike will end when the miners return to work and accept the very good offers that have been made, as 50,000 miners have already done. More are returning each day. Two of the three unions are already sitting down with the National Coal Board and are prepared to work out a revised "Plan for Coal". If more would follow their excellent example and take advantage
    472
    of a very good pay offer and the best-ever redundancy terms—already some 16,000 people have inquired about redundancy—the strike would be over. That would be a great relief for everyone.
    Mr. Hanley: Is my right hon. Friend broadly satisfied with the performance of Ministers at the Department of Transport? If so, does she believe that they could do a better job than the GLC in regulating traffic in London, especially in the Talgarth road-North End road area, where motorists from my constituency are being caused much disturbance?
    The Prime Minister: The Department of Transport is doing an extremely good job. I do not think it is the Department's task to sort out the Talgarth road problems.
    Mr. Hattersley: As the Contingency Reserve that was announced in the February public expenditure White Paper is being so rapidly depleted, how does the Prime Minister propose to meet the Government's commitment when the reserve is finally exhausted? Will that be done by increasing taxes, increasing borrowing or, as we fear, by another public expenditure review?
    The Prime Minister: I am not quite certain, if the Contingency Reserve were to be exhausted—which it is not—which course the right hon. Gentleman would be recommending. The Chancellor laid out the choices in the Budget very effectively. The Government believe that they must contain public expenditure within the plans that we have already published. The Contingency Reserve is not exhausted.
    Mr. Hattersley: The frivolous way in which the Prime Minister deals with this does nothing for international confidence in the British economy. She must know, that the dispute in the coal mines has already cost £1 billion. She must know that there is a substantial payment to be made to the EEC which was not anticipated when the Contingency Reserve was set up. She must know that the Government's estimate of public expenditure, pay, and unemployment payments has already been exceeded. How do the Government intend to meet the shortfall?
    The Prime Minister: Our intention is to keep public expenditure within the planned totals. The Contingency Reserve is not exhausted. I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do or say, but he must be pretty desperate to have asked his second question.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some 30 pits have already suffered serious physical damage as a result of the strike in the coal, industry? As we plan to invest £2 million per day in the future of coal, is it not a tragedy that so many pits and jobs should be put at risk in that way?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is. Three faces have already had to be closed—one at Rossington, one at Bold and one at Tilmanstone—and others are in danger. One hopes that the miners will return to work before any more faces have to be closed. So long as they stay out, more jobs will be in jeopardy, because strikes destroy jobs

    473
    not just in the coal industry but in steel and other industries and in British Rail. Indeed, strikes are the greatest job destroyer of all.
    Mr. Concannon: The Prime Minister constantly prays in aid the 50,000 miners who are at work, as though they believed in her policy, or Mr. MacGregor's policy. Is she aware that that is not so and that their problem lies elsewhere? [HON. MEMBERS: "Put it to the vote."] It has been put to the vote in my area. Is she further aware that some of us are not against Government interference in the dispute but that it is the way in which the Government intervene that matters?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit, the miners in his area put the matter to a vote and abided by the result. In our view that is because they believe, as we believe, that coal has a very good future and that this Government have done more than any other to improve the prospects for that future, having invested £2 million for every day that we have been in power.
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkins: After due reflection on the results of the European election, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the Conservative party achieved 13 more seats than the Labour party and half a million more votes? Does she agree, therefore, that in a general election the Conservatives would be returned to government and that only the Labour party leadership could describe such a defeat as victory?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would add just two things to his excellent list. First, it was the fourth parliamentary election in a row to be won by the Government. I refer to the general election of 1979, the Euro-election of 1979, the general election of June 1983 and the Euro-election of June 1984. That is a first-class record. Secondly, the margin by which we won the Euro-election was greater than that in seven of the past 12 general elections.
    Dr. Owen: In view of the fact that British Steel now risks losing customers and its workers risk losing their jobs, and in view of the massive cost of the police operation and the growing strain on the police of having to resist picketing action, will the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the country why she has not suggested to British Steel that it is time it invoked the provisions of the civil law against secondary picketing?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has asked the same question two or three times in one form or another and he will receive the same answer. Those in charge of the nationalised industries are free to invoke the law when they so choose. It is a decision for management to take.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members have been writing to trade unions inviting them to take additional steps, including industrial action, to clinch victory for the miners? In the light of the Government's record on investment in the mines, the new pits that have been opened and the NCB undertaking that there will be no compulsory redundancies, does my right
    474
    hon. Friend agree that victory for the miners and their families would be a return to work in face of the political activities of Mr. Scargill and his bully boys?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The pay award keeps the miners 25 per cent. above the average industrial wage, which has always been an important point for them; our investment in the industry exceeds that of any other Government and shows great faith in the future of the mines, and for those voluntarily leaving the industry redundancy payments are better than ever before. Therefore, for all those involved in the coal industry there is a good future if they will only seize it and return to work, thus assuring the future of the industry and those who work in it and in associated industries such as steel and the many engineering industries.
    Mr. O'Brien: In view of the recent report by the NEDC, which described Britain as becoming a Third-world industrial nation, will the Prime Minister consider the fact that there must be more investment in industrial development, especially in areas where coal mining has been run down and mines have been closed? Will she consider that report and agree to invest more capital in areas that need industrial development?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware that Mr. MacGregor has set up an organisation to achieve jobs in areas affected by closures. He will be pleased to note that total fixed investment grew by 10 per cent. in real terms between the first quarters of 1983 and 1984. It is productive investment that matters.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of the importance of the Ravenscraig steel plant to the Scottish economy, which was highlighted by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs some time ago, any move to put it at risk may lead to substantially more unemployment in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: Moves to put any of the steel plants at risk will lead to substantial unemployment, not only in the steel industry, where it is easy to lose customers to the continent, but in the pits, because the steel industry takes 4 million tonnes of coal a year from the National Coal Board. Such moves would also lead to substantial unemployment in the railway industry, which carries coal from the pits to the steel plants. Unless those plants are kept working, we shall have widespread unemployment. It is interesting that Opposition Members often express anxiety about unemployment, yet they support strikes that increase unemployment.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: As the height of the tourist season is approaching, will the Prime Minister spare time to give attention to the harassment and frequent delays that beset lawful visitors to the United Kingdom at Heathrow airport? Is she aware that a constituent of mine waited from 3 o'clock one Sunday afternnoon until 1 o'clock in the morning for three Indian sportsmen who had come to take part in a tournament? Does she recognise that that is unworthy treatment and brings the country into ill repute?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the service at Heathrow airport is good, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will write to me about that specific case, I shall look into it.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend find time to study today's reports, which describe how the activities of picketing teachers at a school in Kent have resulted in 400 pupils being turned away from school in the middle of their examinations? Does she agree that to jeopardise the educational future of children in that way is unacceptable?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is utterly disgraceful to jeopardise the future of children in that way. It is an appalling example to children when teachers go on strike. The children will think that they can do the same to get their own way.
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that tomorrow I shall attend the funeral of Mr. Joseph Green,
    476
    a picket who was killed on the picket lines last Friday? Will she bear in mind that she has the power to bring the two sides together and help them to come to a satisfactory and honourable settlement? If she fails to do that, does she realise that the mining industry and others will hold her responsible for future injuries and deaths?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not true. He will have a sorrowful occasion tomorrow, as will the family concerned, and he knows that everyone deeply regrets such a death.
    With regard to what he said about the coal industry, he knows that two out of the three unions of mineworkers are already prepared to sit down and negotiate with the National Coal Board on the "Plan for Coal". He knows that 50,000 miners are at work. He knows that there is a good prospect for the coal industry. He knows full well that uneconomic pits have always had to be closed. He knows full well that 330 pits were closed by Labour Governments over 11 years and that we have closed only 92 pits in nine years. He knows the facts and the prospects for the industry, and I hope he will urge people to return to work.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:—

MONDAY 25 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the London Regional Transport Bill. At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.

TUESDAY 26 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Rates Bill. Completion of remaining stages of the Roads (Scotland) Bill (Lords). Remaining stages of the Animal Health and Welfare Bill (Lords). Motions on Northern Ireland orders on Education, University of Ulster and industrial training.

WEDNESDAY 27 JUNE—Debate on a motion to take note of the Government's reply (Cmnd. 9140) to the First Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1982–83 HC No. 32, on the Representation of the People Acts. Motion on the British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order. Motion on European Community Document 8018/83 on industrial technologies.

THURSDAY 28 JUNE—Opposition Day (17th Allotted Day): there will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

FRIDAY 29 JUNE—A debate on the problems and needs of disabled people, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

MONDAY 2 JULY—Debate on the report of the New Ireland Forum and other documents. Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.

[Debate on 27 June: European Community Documents and relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:
Document

8018/83

Research action programme on

industrial technologies.

Relevant Reports

HC 78-xxvii (1983–84), para 2 (23 May 1984) and

HC 78-ix (1983–84), para 6 (7 December 1984).]

Mr. Hattersley: I thank the Leader of the House for his response to our request for a debate on the New Ireland Forum. Can we take it that during the debate the Government will make a definitive statement on their attitude to the proposals?
Secondly, we take it for granted that the Prime Minister will make a statement on her return from Fontainebleu. Can we also be assured that the House will be given an early opportunity to debate the outcome of that meeting?
Thirdly, will the Government arrange a debate on the latest OECD half-yearly forecast? The Opposition are especially concerned by the suggestion that unemployment is likely to increase even more, and we would welcome the opportunity to advocate the clear course that the western European countries should combine to reflate their economies and reduce unemployment rather than increase it.
Mr. Biffen: Perhaps I might respond to the right hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order. The usual channels
478
can be employed to consider a debate on the OECD half-yearly forecast, although I should have thought that the Opposition day debate on Thursday would cover many of the economic issues which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on the meeting of European Heads of Government at Fontainebleu, and there will also be a debate on the European Community in the near future.
Finally, I note with appreciation the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the decision to have a debate on Monday week on the New Ireland Forum report and other documents. In that debate the position of the Government will be stated.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend recall that two Estimates days, on which important debates may take place, have to be taken before 5 August? Will he agree that it would be unfortunate if both those days were taken towards the end of the period before the recess? Therefore, if he cannot arrange for one next week, will he bear very much in mind the need to have one the following week?
Mr. Biffen: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. He will appreciate that we are getting to the time of year when there is some inevitable congestion in the programme. He makes a valid point, and I shall see what can be done.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: How can it be justifiable to include in the business for next week a motion to approve a draft Order in Council, which has been found to be a hybrid order, before the date has passed for the submission of petitions against that order?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman was characteristically courteous and kind enough to give me notice of the point. It has not been in my possession sufficiently long for me to have undertaken the appropriate consultation to give an authoritative reply. Therefore, I should like to deal with it through the usual channels.
Mr. Powell indicated assent.
Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the fact that the controversial Warnock committee is due to present its report next week, I believe, on the subject of human fertilisation and experimentation on human embryos, will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that there will certainly be a ministerial statement on the subject before the House rises for the recess, but preferably that there will be a full parliamentary debate on a matter of the highest importance?
Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the interest and, indeed, the authority with which my hon. Friend speaks on this subject. I shall of course refer his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Dr. David Owen: In view of political opinion in the country, whether one takes the European elections or the Portsmouth, South by-election, how does the Leader of the House justify a 17 : 1 ratio in the allocation of days to the Labour party versus the alliance as opportunities to criticise the Government? Since this is a totally corrupt system, is it not time that it was changed?
Mr. Biffen: The system is one prescribed by the Standing Orders of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman——
Dr. Owen: Corrupt.
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman cannot just sit there and say, "Corrupt." As a good democrat, he should seek to alter the system through the processes of the House.
Sir David Price: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 817 on the virtue of brevity in debate?
["That this House recognises that for a speech to be immortal it does not have to be eternal and that the standard of debate would be greatly improved if all back-bench speeches were limited to 15 minutes and all front-bench speeches to 30 minutes without the specific permission of the House."]
Will he introduce my proposal this coming week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that Front Bench speakers should not speak for more than 30 minutes and Back Benchers for not more than 15 minutes?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, Sir; and no, Sir.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Leader of the House recall that a week ago today he announced the business for yesterday, Wednesday, as being non-divisive Scottish business? Does he recall that this was coupled with Scottish questions which meant that it was a 100 per cent. Scottish day? Yet the Secretary of State for Education and Science made a very important statement which was 100 per cent. related to England and Wales. Since Opposition Members had notice of the statement from only 1 pm yesterday, will the Leader of the House ensure that any subsequent statements which have been a long time in gestation are made with informal notice to those who would like to be present?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot believe that there is anyone in the House who would be so innocent as to describe Scottish business as non-divisive. Therefore, I cannot accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman. I believe that it is up to hon. Members to treat this House as a place of full-time work if they wish to be here to hear statements.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend allow time soon for a debate on the many changes that are occurring in the financial institutions in the City of London today and the measures that are required to safeguard the public interest?
Mr. Biffen: I realise that there is a real and growing interest that the House should have a debate on this topic, and although nothing has been announced for the week ahead, I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Leader of the House recall that I raised the matter of the dissatisfaction with the way that the Boundary Commission operated before the last general election, not in a narrow political sense but in the wider sense, and I asked some months ago whether there could be an inquiry? It was suggested that it would be better to wait until the European elections were over. May I nudge the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that the Home Office, which I love dearly, moves with its customary speed?
Mr. Biffen: I accept the nudge and will do my best to transmit it to the Home Office.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will the definitive statement by Ministers in the debate on the New Ireland Forum make it clear that, while the views of overseas countries are always taken seriously, the paramount consideration of this House is the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Biffen: I would not wish to anticipate the speech which I know that my hon. Friend will want to make on that occasion, but I note what he said.
Mr. A. J. Beith: What happened to the second half of the 12th Opposition Day? When it was given over by the Labour party to the Government, was some undertaking given that it would be returned in kind at a later date, or was this another of the cosy arrangements by which the Government secure that they have indefinitely an Opposition that cannot win?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman properly perceives all this in the language of cosiness. I cannot immediately answer him, but I will have a look into the matter.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Might it not be wise to have a debate about the finances of the EEC before the meeting at Fontainebleau? Might there not be some misunderstanding if the Prime Minister committed this country either to a loan or to an increase in own resources without the authority of the House?
Mr. Biffen: I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister understands the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) only too well, and as we are having a debate soon on the European community I hope my hon. Friend will think this is a reasonable deal for the House.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Has the Leader of the House had time to read the report in The Guardian that the food industries are trying to pre-empt a Government report on food labelling, and thereby divert legislation, and as the health of many people has been damaged, and this subject has been neglected, can we have a debate on it shortly, please?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says, and as he is a seasoned campaigner on selective issues, I would have thought that he might have tried his chance with an Adjournment debate to give this subject wider ventilation. I shall refer the point that he makes to the relevant Ministers.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Following the question of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will my right hon. Friend accept that what was non-controversial yesterday was the education statement, to the extent that the hon. Gentleman was here for an earlier statement but he and his colleagues managed to leave the Chamber, even though four Labour Members asked questions on that statement? Can we have an early debate on improving education, as well as on the examination system, because both the hon. Gentleman and I should be able to contribute to that?
Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for referring to the previous question, because it enables me to have a quick second thought and say that I would not wish the preponderant majority of this House to be full-time Members. I return to my hon. Friend's point. I shall bear in mind the request for a debate on education, but my hon.

481
Friend will realise that there are many pressures on our time at this time of the year. I hope that he will feel that yesterday's statement made a start.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: The Leader of the House is alleged to be one of the more sensible and perceptive members of the Government, which is not saying much. Can he persuade the Prime Minister to make a statement next week in which she acknowledges that there are no winners in the miners' dispute, that we are all losers and that the language of triumph and victory that she uses, is inappropriate and offensive? Are we not all part of the same community and interdependent, and do we not have to live together? Therefore, in that statement will she, for the first time, act as a Prime Minister rather than as the leader of the Tory party?
Mr. Biffen: I must repudiate the hon. Gentleman's premise. I stand here clothed only in gut Tory prejudice. I am happy to refer the hon. Gentleman's second point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that the House of Commons Library acquires at the earliest possible moment the forthcoming biography, of the Leader of the Opposition by Mr. Robert Harris? It seems from leaks that it might be a most important document of record.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate ahead of us. That question has nothing to do with next week's business.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House recognise that many of us acknowledge that his responsibilities transcend those of bring a member of the Cabinet and include responsibility to the House and to the nation at large? We are now approaching the period in which we are thinking of the summer recess. Will he concede that it would be disastrous to continue the vexatious and divisive dispute in the mining industry without an attempt either by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Energy to bring the parties together to resolve the dispute in the interests of the nation and the industry? Will he prevail upon the Secretary of State for Energy to do the job that he is paid to do?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the House again that questions must be directed to next week's business and must not be questions that might be asked of Ministers.
Mr. Timothy Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will pay no attention to the requests of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) for more time to be given to the alliance, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's habit of requesting debates in other people's time only to show contempt for the House by not attending?
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Allen McKay: Taking into consideration the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), the fact that the Government have not been able to start, talk or force the miners back to work, the fact that Ian
482
MacGregor has now decided that the strike could go on into next year, and the information that we have had today on the conditions of pits and the probable escalation of the strike, does not the Leader of the House think that it is time the Government initiated a debate on the mining strike and its effects? Would it not be wrong not to have a debate before we go into recess?
Mr. Biffen: We are still quite some way away from the recess. Clearly, the business that has been announced for next week does not make provision for a debate on the dispute, but we have to review the situation week by week.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to my namesake's question, in the light of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been reported as saying that Mr. Scargill is single-handedly destroying the mining industry, and as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has suggested that Mr. Scargill is on a suicide mission, is it not vital that we have a debate on the mining industry next week? Does not my right hon. Friend think that that would be extremely helpful to clarify the views of the Opposition?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has made succinctly the very points that he would have made if the debate had been held, and he ought to take comfort from that.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware of the answer given to me yesterday by the Home Secretary in which he admitted that cars used by NUM pickets were being entered on the stolen vehicles index by the national police computer? Is not that an attempt to make all pickets into criminals, or at least to call them criminals, an example of the police state methods that are being used against the NUM, and yet another reason for an urgent debate on the future of the mining industry and ways to end the dispute?
Mr. Biffen: The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is a serious one, and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a full day ahead of us with an important Opposition debate. I propose to allow questions to continue until five minutes to 4 o'clock.
Mr. Stefan Terlezki: Since the NUM has £35 million in its coffers, would it not be appropriate for Mr. Scargill to advocate to his members——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new Member, but business next week has nothing to do wih Mr. Scargill.
Mr. Terlezki: Thank you for your help, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the leader of the NUM is advocating that there are uneconomic pits, will he not consider taking them over into co-operatives, and release the taxpayer of £2 million per day investment?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get some order into these exchanges. The hon. Gentleman did not even mention the business next week.
Mr. Greville Janner: Can we have a debate next week upon the evidence given to the Select Committee yesterday of the horrific number of serious criminal offences committed by diplomats in this capital? If not, can we have a statement by the Foreign Secretary

483
or by the Home Secretary which will at least repudiate the implication of a remark made to the Select Committee yesterday by a witness to the effect that the Government do not after all, despite their promises, intend to try to have the Vienna convention amended?
Mr. Biffen: I think that it would be a wise courtesy to await the report of the Select Committee.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: My right hon. Friend, I imagine, expects that in the next week or two he will be receiving some rather interesting and constructive amendments to Government business sent to us from another place. In order to make it easier for him and for the Government in the House, will he look with favour upon some of those amendments coming from another place?
Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend would expect of this Administration, everything will be judged on its merits.
Mr. Allen Adams: Since you have correctly reminded the House, Mr. Speaker, that questions should relate to the business next week, against the background of the recent European election results, which show that the people of Scotland think very differently from the people of England, may I ask the Leader of the House whether time can be made available next week to discuss home rule for Scotland and the establishment of a parliament in Edinburgh?
Mr. Biffen: No provision has been made for that topic next week, but, should it arise, I think that it would be more embarrassing to the Labour party than to anyone else.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that, following my Adjournment debate on television licensing, I have been approached by a large number of Members on both sides of the House asking for a full and thorough debate in the House on the financing and financial control of the BBC? Could he find time, if not next week, very soon in the future, for the House to debate this most important subject?
Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge at once that this is a most important subject. Equally, I have to confess that no time has been made available for such a debate next week, but of course I will bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend makes.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Could the Leader of the House make some provision, if not next week, some time in the near future, for a debate on drug abuse in view of the widespread concern in places such as Merseyside—and, indeed, in other areas—which is
484
beginning to affect whole communities, given the apparent disregard that the Government have for these problems? Would the Leader of the House not agree that this is an urgent matter, and that time ought to be given for the House to debate it, and to take the sort of actions that need to be taken?
Mr. Biffen: I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Indeed, it touches upon a topic which goes much wider than Merseyside.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) as helpfully as possible? My right hon. Friend will be aware of the fact that early-day motion 367, which says that there should be no increase in own resources, bears the signatures of 103 Members, more than half the Conservative majority. Will my right hon. Friend not agree that it would be wise to clear the principle of an increase in own resources before agreeing with our European friends because, were the House later to throw out a proposal from Brussels, it would be embarrassing and difficult for the European Community?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be happy to be reminded of that.
Mr. Bob Clay: Has the Leader of the House read the report in this morning's Daily Mirror, which gives a further example of intimidation against strikers and pickets in north Nottinghamshire, where the National Coal Board is effectively threatening to evict coal board tenants who accommodate strikers? In view of the hypocrisy that we have heard from the Government Front Bench about so-called intimidation by strikers, should we not have a debate next week, or at least a statement by the Home Secretary, about the intimidation of strikers and pickets in Nottinghamshire?
Mr. Biffen: I think that the best way that I can help the hon. Gentleman is to refer his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Report stage of the highly controversial Repatriation of Prisoners Bill is taken on die Floor of the House instead of in Committee, since both previous stages have been taken in Committee and the full House has not had an opportunity to debate the measure?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly consider that, and be in touch with my hon. Friend.

Parliamentary Language
3.58 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that, as reported in column 289 of the Official Report yesterday, I raised the question of parliamentary language and in particular the remarks reported in column 286 about miners being "common criminals". You will have seen the quotation—
"because"—
said the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone)—
"that is what they are."—[Official Report, 20 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 286.]
Have you, Mr. Speaker, had the opportunity to reflect upon that, or have you received a request by the hon. Member to apologise to the House?
Mr. Speaker: I undertook yesterday to look at the Official Report, I have studied it with care. I say again to the whole House that when we discuss these matters we must do so with extreme care because of the sub judice rule. Having studied the Official Report, I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing)—in column 292—went very close indeed to drawing attention to an individual case. I can only say again to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that when we deal with such matters we must exercise extreme caution.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were kind enough to mention my part in the exchanges yesterday when I referred to an individual case as one of the 736 cases to which the Solicitor-General for Scotland had referred. I claimed that each of the 736 cases' had been prejudiced by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone)—a lawyer who should know better—who described the people as "common criminals" before they have been tried.
I must put two matters to you, Mr. Speaker. First, some restrictions in Scots law do not apply in English law, particularly in relation to cases before they come before a court. The matter has been compounded by the BBC which this morning—in bad judgment, I believe—transmitted verbatim the question put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. There can now be no doubt that the trial of every one of the 736 people to whom the Solicitor-General for Scotland referred yesterday has been prejudiced as a result of what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said.
You, Mr. Speaker, have not ruled that this case is sub judice, but there will be other cases in future. It would be in the best interests of the House, since the House has sole control over the broadcasting of proceedings, if you rule that the BBC should not transmit what you rule to be sub judice. Such transmissions merely compound the felony such as that committed yesterday by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. We should have your guidance on that.
Secondly, in the presence of the Leader of the House and of the Solicitor-General for Scotland, may I ask the latter to come to the House some day next week, when he has had time to consider the matter, to make a statement about the position of the 736 miners, and some of their wives, to whom he referred yesterday?
Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for the
486
fact that you have given some thought to this matter. As you will be aware, the position in Scots law is that prosecutions are considered by the procurator fiscal. I am sure that no one in the House would want to challenge his independent right to apply the criterion of sufficiency of evidence to an incident reported by the police, and then to decide whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
There is an enormous distinction between a man charged and a man convicted. In the intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), it appeared that he was making a fundamental confusion between the two positions. He made what appeared to me to be a rash and unpardonable assumption—surprising from one of his experience as a solicitor—that someone charged was a common criminal, that he was assumed to be guilty and should be treated in the same way as someone who had been convicted.
Two points arise. One, which has been fairly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), is that trials are pending. The High Court of Parliament is the last place where such assumptions of guilt should go unchallenged. I accept that it is possible to argue that no sheriff is likely to be influenced by a passing intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and that, therefore, we are going over the top on this issue. However, the matter is of fundamental importance. There is nothing more important in the courts of Scotland than the presumption of innocence, and I believe that applies in the courts of England. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is important that you rule on the matter.
The second point is personal to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, and relates to his subsequent attempt to clarify the matter. He suggested that he had not made the conclusion to which I referred and that he was being wrongly challenged. It is clear from Hansard that he said to the Solicitor-General for Scotland
"Can he also assure the House that they will be treated in the same way as other common criminals, because that is what they are?"—[Official Report, 20 June 1984, Vol. 62, c. 286.]
The challenge was perfectly fair; it is on the record and was on the basis of what had happened.
I accept that, on occasion, people say things in the heat of the moment and perhaps do not formulate their thoughts accurately. It is unfortunate if, after that, they refuse to accept the reality of what they said. I give the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South credit for not wanting the confusion to remain on the record. I am sure that the House would be grateful if he made that clear and accepted the distinction that I have made, which he singularly refused to accept yesterday.
Mr. Gerald Malone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The intended meaning of my intervention during questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland yesterday was, in my view—I hope—made perfectly clear in my subsequent intervention finally allowed by you during points of order. In the absence of any indication from you, Mr. Speaker, that I was in breach of the sub judice rule or any of the Standing Orders of the House, I see no need to withdraw or qualify any of the remarks that I made yesterday.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very heavy day in front of us, with an important debate. I have looked very

487
carefully at this matter and I am satisfied that nothing was said by the hon. Gentleman yesterday to contravene the sub judice rule.
Nevertheless, I am bound to say to the House and to the hon. Gentleman—he is, after all, a Scottish lawyer—that the language that we use in this House and the allegations that we make under privilege should be made with extreme care.
Mr. Malone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I did not make the position crystal clear to Opposition Members, I wish to take this opportunity to say that miners who have been convicted of offences on picket lines are, in my view, common criminals; miners who have not yet been so convicted are not. There, I believe, the matter rests. I do not think that I can make my views any clearer than that.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an interesting precedent for exactly the same sort of incident. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), when he was Prime Minister, referred to the arrest of two criminals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—two people who were arrested, who, as subsequent events proved, were criminals. They were arrested following a chase. My right hon. Friend said that the two guilty men had been arrested. He later apologised forthrightly. I suggest that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) simply and directly apologises to the House, especially for the implications for the 736 people involved.
Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to persuade the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South to do that. The whole House has heard what he has had to say on the matter.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Could I seek your clarification on remarks that you made on this matter yesterday, Mr. Speaker? You said in Hansard that you were
"concerned only with accusations that are made about hon. Members."—[Official Reoprt, 20 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 289.]
The accusation yesterday was made about people outside the House. Therefore, are we to presume—I hope that I am wrong—that there are first and second-class citizens in these matters and that hon. Members cannot be accused but that people outside can be accused? There is no doubt——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman, as he is straying into rather dangerous territory. I remind him that I said yesterday:
"I listened with great care for reference to sub judice matters, but no individual names or cases were mentioned at all in the exchanges this afternoon."—[Official Report, 20 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 289.]
There is no question of first and second-class citizens.
Mr. Hamilton: I want to ask for clarification, because this matter will be raised during the next few weeks and months. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and others can get away with making a charge and accusation about a group outside the House, however extravagant the language——
Mr. Allan Rogers: They are a bunch of crooks.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is under no obligation either to moderate his language or to withdraw his allegation. He is still adhering to the view
488
that the miners are common criminals. That was the undoubted implication of what he said yesterday. It is a scandal that he does not have the guts to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the point of first and second-class citizens, during your study of column 286 did you notice the remarks of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who referred to
"bloody pitched battles provoked by hooligans in uniform ', sing truncheons and horses' hooves to beat the miners into submission?"—[Official Report, 20 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 286]
That appeared to raise a number of questions not dissimilar to those being raised by the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker: In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the next debate, it would be a pity if we were to pursue a matter on which I cannot really say any more.
Mr. Dennis Canavan rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) has given his explanation and said that he is not prepared to withdraw. There is no way in which I can force him to do so. He must take his own responsibility.
Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. "Erskine May" is quite clear on the matter. It states on page 343:
"By a resolution of the House matters awaiting or under adjudication in a criminal court or a court martial, and matters set down for trial or otherwise brought before a civil court may not be referred to in any debate or question."
Therefore, it is clear that what I referred to, and what was said by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) does not fall within the sub judice rule because, unfortunately, none of the hooligans in uniform have been charged.
"Erskine May" continues:
"If the subject matter of the question is found to be, or becomes, sub judice after notice of the question has been given, the Member is asked to withdraw it."
Surely, it is within the spirit of that resolution of the House that if, during a supplementary question, an hon. Member refers to a case or a collection of cases—the number and whether the names are mentioned are irrelevant, although there are 736 cases—he should be obliged to withdraw.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) made some attempt to explain himself today in an unsatisfactory manner, in the same way as he tried to explain himself in an unsatisfactory manner yesterday. You, Mr. Speaker, seemed to gain the impression that he had withdrawn his statement yesterday, as you will see if you look at your remarks in column 292 of the Official Report, when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) suggested that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South be made to withdraw his remark. You said:
"The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) has already done that."
Clearly he did not, for in his statement reported in column 291, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said:
"I made no allegation about people who have been arrested and are awaiting trial."

489
That is an untruth because earlier, at column 286, the hon. Gentleman said in reference to the prosecution of miners arrested while picketing:
"Can my hon. and learned Friend"——
the Solicitor-General for Scotland—
"assure the House that they will be treated in the same way as other common criminals, because that is what they are?"—[Official Report, 20 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 286, 291–2.]
As other hon. Members have said, the fact that his words have been widely reported in the media in Scotland will possibly prejudice the trials of those 736 miners. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that he withdraws the remark because I am sure that if I or other Opposition Members had made a similar statement about people awaiting trial, we would have been forced to withdraw it.
Can a communication go from your office, Mr. Speaker, to the office of the Lord-Advocate, who has responsibility for all prosecutions in Scotland, pointing out the possibility of the trials of these 736 miners being prejudiced by the intemperate remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South in referring to them as common criminals before they have even had the opportunity of a fair trial?
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The principle behind the sub judice rule as it applies to prosecutions in Scotland is to protect the presumption of innocence, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said. The ratio of how that law is applied is to prevent any further discussion which advertises what may be thought to have been a contradiction of the presumption of innocence, and the more that it is discussed in this House in the sort of language just used, the more the presumption——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I agree with those wise words, and I think that we had better leave it there.

Ministerial Statements
4.10 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on a different subject. May I draw your attention to the arrangements in the House for the notice that is given of ministerial statements? Hon. Members will appreciate that it is within the power of a Minister to seek permission to make a statement at any time, and we understand why, some days at 3.30, only short notice is given when a statement is to be made about events which have occurred very recently.
Yesterday there was a statement about a matter of great importance to the whole country, a statement which had been in preparation not for five hours or five weeks but for nearer five years. The time chosen for that statement—it was within the power of the Government to make the request—was a day which was not convenient to hon. Members.
My understanding is that the arrangements of the House, and those of the Chair, frequently result in the use of the phrase "for the convenience of the House". The notified business for yesterday was clear, and it was not until 1 pm that the intention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to make a statement was made known to hon. Members, certainly on these Benches.
Can you give guidance to the House, Mr. Speaker, about who gives permission for statements to be made? Is it the House, is it yourself or is it entirely at the request of the Government? If it is the latter, I hope that the Government will accept that the convenience of the House, particularly on matters about which there may be no great controversy or urgency, should be borne in mind. I hope that you can give guidance to the House on that matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The business of the House must be predicated on the assumption that all hon. Members will attend and perform their duties in the House. It is not satisfactory, surely, to suggest that some business is second-class and can be ignored, whereas other business must be attended by some who have a greater interest in it. I hope, therefore, that any ruling you give on the matter, Mr. Speaker, will be based on the assumption that all hon. Members—as is the case on these Benches—are full-time attenders, and not part-timers as apparently is the case on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is referring to a situation in which statements are a long time in preparation. The suggestion that was made by the Leader of the House that either my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South or other Opposition Members were not full-time Members was outrageous, given the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, (Mr. Skinner)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—in a debate which I was unfortunately not able to attend—[interruption.]reminded the House that 300 hon. Members were directors and that many Conservative Members had full-time jobs outside. The moonlighters on the Conservative Benches——
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Banks: Is it in order for the moonlighters on the Conservative Benches to cast aspersions on my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South, who, like me, if he is not in this House, is in his constituency, where some Conservative Members should spend some of their time?
Mr. Speaker: In terms of good order, it is not in order for any right hon. or hon. Member to cast aspersions on anyone else in the House. To answer the serious point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), the timing of statements is a matter not for the Chair but for the Government. The phrase to which he draws my attention—I say this with deference to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)— "with the leave of the House" is a courtesy, and "Erskine May" adds:
"Prior notice to the Speaker is necessary, but neither his permission nor the leave of the House is required."
It is therefore entirely a matter for the Government. I realised the importance of that statement, and I hope that, in that realisation, I was able to call every hon. Member who was anxious to put a question on it to the Secretary of State.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 9 JULY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. David Ashby

Dr. Brian Mawhinney

Mr. Allan Rogers

Opposition Day

  INMOS
  4.17 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move,
  That this House, concerned at the continuing fall in the United Kingdom share of the rapidly growing world market in information technology and particularly disturbed by reports of the impending disposal to foreign interests of Inmos, the only independent British firm with a major capability for developing the semiconductor technologies crucial to the economic and strategic future of the United Kingdom, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure the continued rapid development of Inmos and its products and to maintain it as an independent company under majority United Kingdom ownership and control.
  The main focus of my remarks will be on the dangers that I foresee for the future of INMOS, a danger that the Government have a clear interest and duty to avert. Their amendment, clearly—I might say, almost notoriously—fails to deal with the major substance of the motion. It gives no guarantee whatever that, in transferring INMOS to private ownership, there will be any safeguard to ensure that the company is not broken up and that it remains under British ownership and majority control.
  I will, at the outset, set my remarks both in the context of our publicly stated objectives for the development of semiconductor technology in Britain and in the wider context of the development: of information technology, in which advanced semiconductors play a vital part.
  Few will dispute three crucial issues that are expressed in the motion. First, there is the overriding importance of Britain's ability successfully to compete in the world market. This essential objective
  "will become increasingly dependent on the ability to incorporate electronics into the products and services on offer and the use of electronic techniques in design, manufacture, quality control and in management."
  Those words appear in the report last year to the NEDC of Sir Ievan Maddock, a man nurtured by the Atomic Energy Authority, who from 1971–77 was the chief scientist at the Department of Industry and from 1977–81 secretary to the British Association.
  Still more recently—only last month—Professor John Ashworth, chairman of the information technology committee of Neddy, outlined the significance of information technology, a major part of electronics, when he asserted:
  "Information technology is not just a new industry but a new way of conducting industrial, commercial, educational, administrative and even aspects of domestic and political business".
  Information technology covers the acquisition, transmission, processing and presentation of information in all its forms—video, audio, text and graphics—and brings into its industrial scope telecommunications, hardware and software, the peripherals of computing and a vast range of advanced office equipment. So much for the importance of information technology.
  Secondly, no one would dispute IT's enormous, feverish rate of growth. It has grown by 18 per cent. to 20 per cent. per annum in the United Kingdom for most of the past decade and by up to 35 per cent. in the economies

  493
  of our principal competitors, the United States and Japan. Thirdly and sadly, there is the grim fact that we are falling behind, in spite of all our natural endowment of inventiveness and scientific intelligence, the performance of our rivals.
  I shall illustrate my argument by the use of six quotations from the paper presented by Professor Ashworth, the chairman of the little Neddy on information technology. The paper was presented to the recent meeting on 22 May of the NEDC. What does he say about the facts? The paper states that our share of the aggregate output of the five leading nation's information technology industries has dropped from 9 per cent. to 5 per cent. since 1970. More recent figures show that
  "in 1982 UK IT Industry had an output of £3·3 billion, a trade deficit of £460 million and import penetration approaching 50 per cent."
  Last year, in spite of a leap forward in output and exports, imports
  "increased to take some 54 per cent. of the UK market and the trade deficit is now £800 million."
  Professor Ashworth's second point is:
  "every one of our industrial competitors gives high levels of support to this industry. The most recent programme to be announced is that of West Germany, which will provide about £800 million over four years for research and development support, public awareness and public procurement. Given this, and the fact that many of our competitors start from a stronger industrial or economic base, the competitive threat to the survival of an independent UK IT industry is now acute."
  The third and most serious point in Professor Ashworth's statement is as follows:
  "on present trends the UK will not have an independent, broad-based IT industry by the end of the decade. It will have a mixture of inward investment, UK owned companies employing licensed technology and specialised niche and applications companies. If this happens, the ultimate losers will be those concerned with the manufacturing and service industries which could rise from or be influenced by IT."
  Those are the words of the man who presumably enjoys the greatest confidence of the Government. They appointed him the chairman of the little Neddy in charge of IT.
  Professor Ashworth's fourth point is that, while welcoming the moves that the Government have made to put
  "the UK firmly in the starting blocks",
  it is unfortunate that
  "in the race that follows there are stronger runners than ourselves and we are falling behind."
  We surely all agree that we cannot be content. We shall not accept that the United Kingdom should become, as Sir Ievan Maddock warned us,
  "a technological colony of large offshore companies which will determine what products are made where and when and how high or low the national standard of living should be."
  So much for what the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House would surely agree upon. I do not deride what has been done by the Government and their predecessor, but it was especially disturbing to discover only a few days ago that less than £8 million of the Government's five years £350 million Alvey programme, intended to produce a British version of the computers of the 1990s, is actually being spent, although we have now entered the second of the five years. It is even more worrying to learn, as we did only yesterday, that science research faces a 25 per cent. decline in expenditure over the next decade. That was the evidence given by Professor
  494
  Sir David Philips, chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and by Dr. Derek Roberts, director of research at General Electric to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. When we add to this the lack of trained personnel, the smaller proportion of our young people enrolled in full-time higher education than in the countries of our principal competitors, the actual reduction in facilities and in intake in a number of our high technological universities, the need for a new, much more energetic and much better directed national effort becomes abundantly plain. So much for the general background of electronics and information technology in the United Kingdom.
  I turn to the achievements and prospects of INMOS. The background is well known. In 1978, the Labour Government decided that it was essential for Britain to have its own source of mass market microchips. As the private sector was not manufacturing them and as America and Japan were roaring ahead, it was decided that public enterprise would have to take the initiative. We decided to invest £25 million of public money in the launch of INMOS, based upon three brilliant innovators, one British and two American, in silicon chip semiconductor technology, with a further £25 million to follow. Initially, the enterprise was started in Colorado Springs, but the purpose was to shift the centre of gravity to the United Kingdom—at Bristol the headquarters, research and development and at Newport the most modern and sophisticated manufacturing plant, and as soon as possible.
  The strategy of INMOS was threefold. This was reiterated in the evidence given to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The first part of the strategy was to establish a viable memory business. The second was to enter the microcomputer business, using the memory business as a vehicle. The third part was to combine the two capabilities using advanced computer-aided design to compete in the market for silicon systems.
  INMOS has already established itself in the mass memory business. Its first development has been in random access memories, where its development of the 16K static RAM has already brought it 70 per cent. of that specialised world market, mainly in the United States.
  Its second development, at both Colorado Springs and at Newport, is the manufacture of 64K fast dynamic RAMs, where it is now achieving a major position in the world economy. It is moving ahead extremely fast. In just five years INMOS has become a major success. It is Britain's—and Europe's—only independent company in the world business of making general purpose microchips.
  This is far from the complete story. INMOS appears poised to repeat its achievement in the other major market for microprocessors, using its revolutionary transputer. It has also created leading edge processes, significantly including those in the category that I am advised will be the most important in the next decade, which is CMOS. This is an area where the Japanese predominate, which makes today's news that a Japanese company, NMB, as I am sure I heard it confirmed only a few hours ago this morning, has purchased INMOS's CMOS technology—a remarkable endorsement of the calibre of INMOS's present capability.
  This is, of course, the second phase in the INMOS strategy. The INMOS transputer, due for sampling later this year, is recognised as a major technical advance in microprocessors. Its performance and ease of use will

  495
  make it a major competitor in the conventional microprocessor market, while the ability to interconnect large numbers of transmitters to build more powerful systems gives it a unique opportunity in the future market for fifth generation computer systems.
  INMOS has developed one of the most advanced design aids in the world in which rapidly to create and test its products. I was glad to read that this has been taken up and will be exploited by Racal.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in accepting that the company's technical prowess is no longer at issue. It has put in place the building blocks for the next generation—the system on a chip. It is against that background that the House should now confront the serious threat that now exists—with the Government's connivance, if not instigation—first to break up INMOS into two separate parts and then to sell one half to the American giant American Telephone and Telegraph and the other to International Computers Ltd., which has just signed a new technological and sharing agreement with the Japanese company Fujitsu. If that were allowed to happen, Britain would cease to have what it has tried so hard and so successfully to achieve in the past six years—the possession of a world-class capacity, based and owned in the United Kingdom, to produce semiconductor hardware and software, which is crucial to our economic future.
  The implications of such a decision are serious. I hope that the House will bear with me while I briefly tell the story of what has happened during the past few weeks and months, which has given us and should give the Government so much concern.
  The company is now surging forward. With the rapid build-up of output at its very modern Newport facility, the company moved into profitability in the final quarter of 1983. My information is that that profitability has been more than sustained in the first quarter of 1984 and that the company now expects to make a profit in 1984 of at least £12 million.
  There is a need for further expansion, and new investment in 1985 of the order of £60 million to £70 million. At least two thirds of that will come from internal profits, leaving considerably less than £20 million to be raised from external sources.
  The merchant bankers who advise INMOS had carefully constructed a British consortium which was expected to provide some £30 million this summer, but the terms and the arrangements had been largely designed before INMOS surged into profit at the end of last year. The Minister for Information Technology and the Treasury decided therefore that £30 million was not a good enough deal. And the Treasury, greedy to make the maximum possible from the sale of publicly owned assets, has insisted upon alternative and more profitable arrangements.
  During Question Time on 6 June 1984, the Minister for Information Technology confirmed the story as I have told it so far. He then said:
  "A group of investors had proposed to make a placement of £30 million in new shares in the company, but in the light of Inmos's current performance and its improved prospects the Government have withheld signature of the British Technology Group to this proposal. The BTG is actively exploring other options for the transfer of the company to the private sector".
  Pressed by other hon. Members and indeed by myself about what these other options might involve, and in
  496
  particular whether the Government were seriously thinking of selling INMOS to AT and T, the Minister gave this apparent assurance:
  "There is no proposal of which I am aware for the outright purchase of Inmos by an overseas firm."—[Official Report, 6 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 291–293.]
  At the time, the House must have concluded, as I did, that no takeover of INMOS by AT and T or any other company was in prospect. However, I have subsequently discovered—if I am wrong, it is up to the Minister to deny it—that while the Minister was linguistically correct in saying that there was no proposal for outright purchase by an overseas firm, there was a proposal, of which he was aware, for AT and T to buy the total assets of INMOS and to leave nothing but the company shell to its present owners. I do not think that the Minister was frank or open with the House. As we shall see—and this is more serious—the criteria laid down by the Minister in reply to questions about the conditions that might attach to the sale almost exactly fit the AT and T package proposal.
  The Secretary of State and his Minister have apparently persuaded the Treasury that it would be just too embarrassing—as well as financially absurd—to allow for a straight AT and T takeover. They have there fore prompted the coming together of AT and T and ICL to make a new proposal under which AT and T takes over the ultra-modern plant and facilities at Newport and Colorado Springs while ICL acquires the crucial research establishment at Bristol.
  I am reliably informed that an ingenious package for financing has been put together whereby AT and T would acquire both the assets and liabilities of INMOS. All that AT and T needs to do is to pay £58·5 million in three instalments of £19·5 million—the first upon contract, the second 12 months later, and the third two years after purchase. On my calculation—and the calculation of those inside INMOS—the greater part of the purchase price would be paid from the surging sales and profitability of INMOS itself. That apart, AT and T proposes to invest an additional £70 million, mainly but not exclusively in the Newport operation.
  ICL would assume responsibility for Bristol. AT and T agrees that, as part of the overall deal, it would negotiate transfer of the assets and liabilities of Bristol, and the rights to the transputer, to ICL. Precisely what that negotiation would involve I do not know. But the arrangement would be bound to be complex because any development of the transputer into manufacturing would require the use of the Newport facilities, which AT and T would then exclusively own.
  I can see why these arrangements would, in general terms, appeal to the short-term cash thinkers in the Treasury and to the Secretary of State and the Minister. The Treasury would get more money back, and it would be relieved of the responsibility of assisting Britain's major semiconductor firm to develop in the future. The Secretary of State would be able to say that at least the Bristol facility and the transputer remained under British control.
  However, the House should be very much aware of the damaging consequences that will flow from such arrangements. First, if AT and T takes over the Newport facilities there is no guarantee at all for the future. We have had experience of paper guarantees before, and the

  497
  guarantees that the Minister for Information Technology sought to give—those carefully tailored and carefully worded quasi-guarantees—lack real substance.
  The plain truth is that AT and T is not interested in INMOS technology. AT and T willingly confesses that that is so. It has no intention of pursuing its strategy or of continuing to produce its products. It has its own range of products and services and its own corporate strategy. What AT and T wants—this is why it is in the market place—is, first, to use the ultra-modern facilities at Newport and Colorado Springs, secondly, to get under the 17·5 per cent EEC tariff by establishing itself at Newport, and, thirdly, to get close to major British consumer companies. In short, the 64K RAM will be discontinued and the transputer will depend entirely upon ICL.
  Secondly, ICL for its part has no experience in, and no manufacturing capacity for, the transputer. It would have to lease capacity from Newport from AT and T, to redesign the transputer to use AT and T's processes and to accept a delay of at least a year in its entry into the world market. Meanwhile, ICL has just signed a co-operation and technical agreement with its Japanese partner Fujitsu, which will be only too happy to manufacture in Japan the revolutionary transputer developed in the United Kingdom.
  The extremely innovative and important design work done at Bristol is dependent on intimate links with process development at Colorado Springs and with manufacturing at Newport and Colorado. It is utterly unrealistic to believe that transputer development could continue successfully following the split being proposed by AT and T and ICL. The links to AT and T technology would be too remote and uncertain and ICL would not be able to provide the necessary environment or background, other than through its Japanese partner, to maintain INMOS's transputer in its path. In addition, INMOS's worldwide sales organisation would be broken up and, far worse, there is good reason to believe that many of the brilliant team who are now at Bristol would disperse to find jobs elsewhere.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: I have followed my right hon. Friend's comments closely. Does he agree that he is making a strong case for INMOS remaining wholly in public ownership, as that would be in the interests of the nation and protect the interests of the work force at Newport?
  Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right. We share a strong belief that when public money is invested and there is a great public benefit to be gained, it is only sensible to keep the concern in public ownership. That view is not shared by the Conservative party, and it is in government. The issue is not just whether INMOS should remain publicly owned, but whether it should remain in British ownership. It is whether the company should be available for development by British interests according to British strategy.
  As a result of the sale, Britain would lose its major independent capacity in semiconducters. INMOS would be broken up, its strategy would be abandoned, its products would be discontinued and its great achievement and its prospects as a worldwide exporter of RAMs and still more advanced systems would be aborted. We should be dependent for economic and strategic uses on American extra-territoriality legislation and American presidential
  498
  policies—a point which ought to weigh especially heavily with the Secretary of State after his unhappy experience in the United States recently. It would not be good enough to say that, as part of the package for obtaining the Newport and Colorado Springs facilities, AT and T was prepared to bring with it, as dowry, some new technology of its own. We must ask whether, in two or three years' time, it would choose to repeat this with the next leading edge capability. That has not happened with other multinational plants, and there are good reasons for that. Even if AT and T wished to make such technology available, would it be allowed to do so by the American Government?
  What makes all this utterly unacceptable is that it is totally unnecessary. The success of INMOS has reached the point at which Thorn-EMI is offering £10 million for a stake in the enterprise, the Dutch are willing to finance a £50 million facility at Linberg and there is no need, given INMOS' cash flow this year, for more than a £10 million to £20 million recourse to additional capital.
  The Government's proposals are strongly opposed by the work force, the management, the directors and the very innovators who made INMOS a reality. The Government are opposed by them all. The sale of INMOS now would be financial folly; to abandon its public stake would be no better than ideological spite; to break up the company would be little short of lunacy and to put it into the hands directly of the Americans and indirectly of the Japanese would be little short of technological treason. This is an issue that should be judged on its merits and against the criteria of major British interests. I call on both sides of the House to support our motion and to resist the Goverment's amendment, which fails to give even one assurance that the House should be demanding.
  4.43 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'recognises the importance of the United Kingdom establishing a strong position in world information technology markets; welcomes the substantial contribution made by the information technology programme of Her Majesty's Government to the international success of the industry; and supports the objective of Her Majesty's Government of transferring Inmos to private ownership.'.
  I welcome this chance to debate the new technologies and INMOS. I welcome, of course, the fact that the Opposition have been kind enought to use one of their half Supply days for this purpose. I even welcome the efforts that have been made by Opposition Whips to drag some Opposition Back Benchers in to listen to the debate. By their efforts, they have more than doubled the number present from three to seven—a triumph indeed—to show how important the Labour party's Back Benchers regard this subject.
  I shall deal immediately with some of the points that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) raised.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: When did the Secretary of State do anything but act like a semi-house-trained polecat? What a nerve he has.
  Mr. Tebbit: Yes, I do have a nerve—sufficient nerve to denounce the brazen impudence of people such

  499
  as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who was dragged in by the Whips to make up the numbers.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney had great praise for the German programme. He said that it was £800 million over four years. I remind him that Department of Trade and Industry support for research and development and product development in 1983–84 alone amounted to more than £200 million. That represents a fourfold increase on the approximately £50 million for 1978–79. It is in sharp contrast to the programme that we inherited from the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with the so-called Ashworth report.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps my hon. Friend will leave me for a moment, as I should like to get on a little further with my speech.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Tebbit: No. I am sure that I shall return to the point that my hon. Friend wants to make. I suspect that I know what it is, as I heard quite well what he said from a sedentary position.
  In regard to the Ashworth report, at least the right hon. Gentleman had the understanding to know that it is not a secret report that has been suppressed, as has been suggested by some parties. It has been available ever since it was discussed at the National Economic Development Council office, and I am extraordinarily surprised that anyone should have believed that it was secret or would not he published. The report made some criticisms and gave great support for what the Government are doing.
  Typically, the right hon. Gentleman judged the Alvey programme by the amount of money that has been spent in the first year—£8 million. That is typical, as his only criterion is how much we spend. I remind him that, by the end of this year—1984–85—about half the total programme—roughly £175 million—will have been committed.
  The right hon. Gentleman went into the typical opportunism of the Opposition by risking harm and causing prejudice to INMOS with some of the most flatfooted partisan blunderings into matters that he does not understand that even he has ever committed. He quoted estimates of profits and the like. He must know from his time as a Minister, when he had some shreds of responsibility, the risks that he is taking with the company by doing that. He must know that I cannot comment on those forecasts. An implication could be read into my not commenting on them, because I could be construed by other authorities as talking up the price. It is easy, and irresponsible, for the right hon. Gentleman to bandy figures, and it is impossible for me. In much the same way, he bandied around a lot of rumour, talk and prejudice about possible terms and understandings and about offers that are or are not being made. It would be irresponsible for me to become involved in a discussion, across the Floor of the House, on these most delicate commercial negotiations which the right hon. Gentleman is busy putting at risk out of prejudice and partisanship.
  Mr. Shore: We know that it is a very hot day. That has had some effect on the right hon. Gentleman, especially
  500
  with his general temperament and disposition. I must say that it is not good enough to try to avoid the responsibility of replying to a serious debate by saying that it is not possible for him to discuss the matter, although the public and open finances of INMOS have come before the Public Accounts Committee. We know exactly what those are.
  Nor is it enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he cannot comment upon documents that have been submitted to him. If he inspected them, he would see that they mean the breaking up and smashing up of INMOS and its handing over to foreign industrialists. The right bon. Gentleman must be responsible.
  Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not refusing to discuss confidential negotiations that are directed towards getting the best possible deal for INMOS, the taxpayers and this country. That is something that the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten.
  Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman is thoroughly confused about the matter. At one moment he was welcoming the INMOS-NMB link, and at the next he was deploring the ICL-Fujitsu link. He could not even manage to distinguish between patriotism and xenophobia.
  Mr. Shore rose——
  Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman had better sit down. I did not interrupt his speech. He can wait a little before he interrupts my speech further.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a great issue of extraterritoriality. He must be having trouble with his random access memory today. The Labour Government based the whole INMOS strategy on risks of extra-territoriality. The firm is based on the technology of two American firms and one British firm and the importing of United States technology from a United States base. Could there be anything more prone to risk than that? Indeed, the Labour Government based their strategy on that, although we do not take too much notice of that.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On the issue of extraterritoriality, I am sure, although I cannot speak for the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), that the key issue to which he alluded—I am sure that he will be able to confirm this in a moment—was not that of extra-territoriality in the sense used by the Secretary of State, but rather, the issue of the Americans seeking to impose United States law and to make the writ of that law run in Britain. That is a totally different matter. The Secretary of State knows that perfectly well.
  Mr. Tebbit: I know that the fear in the hon. Gentleman's mind is that the Americans——
  Mr. Ashdown: And the fear in the industry.
  Mr. Tebbit: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman fears that the Americans might control the secondary export of technology, but he should fear that they will control the primary export of technology as well. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney totally ignored that factor.
  I know that the right hon. Gentleman has reaffirmed the Labour party's commitment to technology, but what he has really affirmed is a commitment to spending on technology. It is certainly not a commitment to the effective use of technology. That it has never had.
  The ideal of the right hon. Gentleman and of his right hon. and hon. Friends, many of whom are in the trade

  501
  union movement, is to have a vast and expensive collection of mint, unused technologies of the sort seen in Fleet street, and never to use them at all. The Labour party always votes for taxpayers' money to be spent on technology and always supports the strikes that prevent that technology from being used when we attempt to introduce it. That is entirely consistent. The right hon. Gentleman is a closet Luddite. If we followed the programmes that he has put forward, we would have too many exhibits in his museum.
  The right hon. Gentleman was a little strong on his business acumen today in telling us how to manage negotiations and so on. He comes from a tried and tested team, I must say. Just look at them. There they are, the team that brought us De Lorean, telling us how to manage INMOS. It took a bit of skill to land that one, did it not?
  That was not the only one. There was NEXOS which was a mere £31 million; there was Aragon, which has cost £4·5 million in cumulative losses to date; there was Insac, which cost just another £7·2 million and which went into liquidation in 1982; there was Alfred Herbert, which was just a light-hearted £75 million mistake. The record of the NEB, which is the record of the right hon. Gentleman, is outstanding in only one case. If we examine the trading results, the NEB made a loss in every year of its existence, except in 1976, which was its first full year, when it had not really got going.
  Mr. Budgen: Can my right hon. Friend explain how the Government's investments in high tech are likely to be better than those of previous Governments?
  Mr. Tebbit: I shall come back to that in a few moments.
  I shall not go into some of the sad stories of heel-dragging over the introduction of the new technology which has been so expensively bought. I shall not go on for too long about the overall losses of the NEB and the fact that cumulative losses at the last published result are £105 million.
  We share the right hon. Gentleman's interest in a commitment to new technology, not as a commitment to public expenditure but as a source of wealth and prosperity. It is hard to overstate, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the importance of the new technologies, not so much in their own right as in their pervasive effect throughout the economy. In printing, it is not so much the mechanics of the process when it was invented as the effect of that technology on a myriad of activities and the creation of myriads of others hitherto unknown. The new technologies are pervasive. They are available to us to cut costs and to improve traditional products. They will allow us to create new products, services and activities. Economic survival demands that we should embrace the new technologies and leave behind the obsolete restrictions.
  Dr. David Owen: The right hon. Gentleman is off the INMOS point, having indulged in a good deal of badinage, and is now on to wilder flights. Will he reassure the House that he will return to the central question of the debate—that he will arrange whatever deal is open to us and, whatever the Trappist secrecy vows he deals under, do his utmost to safeguard the British
  502
  interest in INMOS and not allow AT and T to walk away with the technology that has been aquired at heavy cost already by this country?
  Mr. Tebbit: Like the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), I know when to be silent about the private affairs of my patients, among whom I number INMOS. I know what I should and should not say in public. I shall return to the policy on INMOS before I sit down.
  Mr. Flannery: Come back to it? The Secretary of State has not even started to talk about it.
  Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Hillsborough is not really bright enough to notice what is being said in the debate.
  We accept that there must be changes in education, training, apprenticeships, products, services and techniques, and in industrial relations. Government policies have changed to that end. For example, my Department—this is putting together the spend of the two previous Departments and correcting for the loss of activities of the transport section—spent in 1978–79 just over £2 billion in money of the day. Of that, nationalised industries and state-owned companies consumed more than £1 billion—more than a half of it. Some 5 per cent. of the total spend went on scientific and technological assistance. That was the position that I inherited from the right hon. Gentleman's technologically active Government.
  In 1984–85 we plan to spend £1·5 billion in money of the day—a 25 per cent. reduction, which will doubtless please my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and indeed all my hon. Friends. Of that, however, less than a quarter is scheduled for the support of state companies and nationalised industries, and 25 per cent. of the total spend will be on scientific and technological assistance. In the light of all that, does the right hon. Gentleman still have the sauce to defend his record and attack mine? I shall be very surprised if he has.
  Mr. Shore: I have indeed. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that we are discussing probably the fastest-growing industry of our time, on which not just Britain but all countries have been spending far more in the late 1970s and the early 1980s than they were 10 or 12 years ago, because that makes sense. It is nonsense for the Secretary of State to suggest that, because he is spending more, he must be doing well, when Britain is losing its market share and the great possible advantage that we had.
  Mr. Tebbit: The market share was being lost on the very industries that the right hon. Gentleman was supporting with £1 billion per year expenditure on nationalised industries by one Department alone.
  We recognise that microelectronics is a key to competitiveness in world markets. The market is massive. It is forecast to be about £50 billion by 1990. Unfortunately, very few people have even troubled to get the facts straight. On the "In Business" programme last night on BBC Radio 4, it was said that INMOS was the only chip-maker in the United Kingdom. Perhaps the BBC and the right hon. Gentleman are unaware that Ferranti has pioneered uncommitted logic arrays and for the past two years has been the fastest growing manufacturer of semiconductors in the world. Moreover, STC has announced a £60 million expansion of its plant at

  503
  Footscray to provide memory products, and two weeks ago Plessey announced that it intends to build a £50 million integrated circuit plant at Plymouth. The right hon. Gentleman should encourage his friends to take a broader view. Investment in the industry is growing rapidly, helped by the second microelectronic industry support programme which I announced in the Budget debate, which means a further £120 million to encourage investment.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having visited Newport as a guest of INMOS, I understood that Ferranti was not competitive with INMOS in memory products. Is the Secretary of State saying that that is no longer true?
  Mr. Tebbit: No. I was suggesting that in debating new technologies we should take a broader view. They are not in competitive fields, but both manufacture chip devices, albeit of different kinds.
  Foreign investment, too, has flowed in. In 1981, Motorola announced a £60 million expansion at East Kilbride. The Nippon Electronics Corporation of Japan announced a £31 million semiconductor production facility in Livingston to employ up to 650 people, and National Semiconductor has announced a £100 million investment at Greenock leading to 1,000 extra jobs in the next five years. I know that they are wicked foreign multinationals, but when a wicked foreign multinational, such as Ford, wants to close a small foundry, we find that labour Members love multinationals and want more investment from them.
  Mr. David Crouch: My right hon. Friend has talked a great deal about the new technologies and the advances that we must make. Is he confident that new technology of this kind will develop in the United Kingdom if we lose the making of process silicon entirely to the United States so that the Americans can cut off our supplies if they wish?
  Mr. Tebbit: I shall return to that matter.
  Our semiconductor base also attracts related operations, such as the silicon slice plants being introduced by Monsanto and Shin-Etsu Handotai. Major world producers of the product are coming to Britain. But we do not have to get hooked just on making chips. What counts is using them in industries, both new and old—in printing, textiles and packaging, as well as in making video-recorders and televisions. That may well be where the real reward comes.
  The United Kingdom, as a market, has seen rapid growth in output of microcircuitry, which doubled between 1978 and 1982. There has been equally rapid growth in the use of microchips. For instance, Germany's share of the use of integrated circuits in Europe fell from 32 per cent. in 1980 to 26 per cent. in 1983, but the United Kingdom share has risen from 20 per cent. to 29 per cent. That puts rather a different gloss on the unrelieved gloom described by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. The United Kingdom market for semiconductors grew by 40 per cent. last year, and we now have the fastest growing integrated circuit industry in Europe. European comparisons, however, are not enough. The international market in IT products and services is very competitive indeed. American and Japanese firms especially have attacked overseas markets with great determination and success.
  504
  The Government's commitment in supporting research and development in this area is evidence of the importance that we attach to producing the most highly competitive technology. The Alvey programme, which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney tried to badmouth, is aimed at keeping Britain in the forefront of IT research and development and up to £200 million of the total five-year cost of £350 million will come through the Government.
  We must also press for the European market to be as far as possible a single market for IT products. The little Englander approach simply will not do. The United Kingdom has been a major contributor to the development of international standards, especially in Open Systems Interconnect and the recent European Industry Council meeting established a high level group to co-ordinate and promote this.
  As I have said, the United Kingdom is increasingly favoured as a base for American and Japanese firms looking to supply information technology products to the European market, including IBM's decision to manufacture its personal computer in Scotland, Hewlett Packard's investment in Bristol and plans by other firms such as DEC and Microdata. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney sometimes welcomes these developments and sometimes does not, but never faces the fact that, if we followed his advice and left the European Community, there would be a darned sight fewer of them.
  Despite all that, however, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Government for setting up INMOS. They were right to do so. The company has been a success, albeit a rare one, and it is only fair to give credit where credit is due, even if it leads one to believe that there is some truth in the suggestion that if a troop of monkeys were left to jump on the typewriter keys for long enough they would eventually produce a Shakespeare sonnet.
  Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he was one of the most enthusiastic attackers of the National Enterprise Board, which set up INMOS, and a vehement opponent of industrial intervention of this kind?
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is quite right. I attacked the NEB because it got things overwhelmingly wrong. It deserves a mark of about one out of 10. It has been disastrous. Nevertheless, by firing the shotgun into the bushes often enough, it managed to get something right. I am a fair-minded man, and I am willing to give it credit for that.
  Over the years, Governments past and present have put £65 million into INMOS. The company is now beginning to make a profit, and its prospects are good in a notoriously volatile industry. It has established itself as a credible supplier of high quality microchips. It is set to become the largest semiconductor company in the United Kingdom and was rated eleventh in the world on sales of VLSIs—very large-scale integrations. It is a world leader in fast static random access memories, and it has a good position in so-called dynamic RAMs. It also intends shortly to enter the important business of electronically erasable memories. I shall recommend one of those to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney so that he may be more effective in future.
  The most exciting potential product of INMOS is the transputer. It is a computer on a chip which promises fast and flexible operation in a computer architecture, Which

  505
  offers new ways of organising processing. As a precursor to the transputer, INMOS has been promoting its programming language Occam, which has been well received. These developments are reflected in the compliment which the Japanese paid to the company by seeking a licensing agreement, and by the company's financial results. Naturally, INMOS took a while to establish itself.
  Mr. Roger Stott: Held up by the Government.
  Mr. Tebbit: Propped up by us.
  After a loss last year on sales of £38 million, the company made a profit in the first quarter of 1984 of £1·2 million on sales of £19 million, and there are prospects of more to come.
  The centre of gravity of the company is shifting to the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made another of his random access mistakes. He said that the Labour Government established the company at Newport. They did not. They had not decided where it would be established or made any arrangements about it. They had not firmed things up when they collapsed in a heap in 1979. It was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales who was influential in establishing the company there. Production was deliberately started in Colorado, because the object of the exercise was to acquire United States technology. Production in Newport is growing, and at Bristol the company has a world class design centre for microchips.
  The press has been confused and contradictory about INMOS, and that was well reflected today. It is said that Ministers are determined to sell to the Americans for peanuts. It is also said that they are confused and divided. It is further said that they are wilfully refusing golden offers from would-be buyers, who are flushed with cash.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman should tell us the truth.
  Mr. Tebbit: I always do.
  The reality is more prosaic. INMOS is a good firm with good prospects, springing from its product development and market strategy. It has benefited from changes in the market, but it will need substantial additional capital investment. I shall not trade guesses with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney about that. I find myself in the embarrassing position of not being able to put right many of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. That is a pity, because I should love to take him apart on the realities as opposed to his fantasies. My responsibilities for the company's future prevent me from doing that.
  I am certain that the right course is to transfer the company to the private sector and to let investors put up the cash needed to advance the enterprise. It is nonsense to suggest that we are abandoning the company. The company's management would not wish to remain for ever in the public sector. After all, two thirds of its founders were good American capitalist venturers.
  The British Technology Group and INMOS are pursuing various possible options for introducing more private sector capital into the company. The House will be aware of the interest of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and of the offer that was announced
  506
  by Thorn-EMI to invest £10 million for a minority stake in the company. There are other possibilities—for example, the option of a flotation in the United Kingdom, in the United States, or in both countries.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney must realise that he is not increasing the prospects for a successful outcome to these discussions by tabling today's motion. It may be that he does not wish to improve those prospects. He may want to make it impossible for the Government to sell the company to the private sector, and to ensure that it remains for ever as a state company. That would be compatible with his philosophy, but it would not be in the best interests of the company or of Great Britain.
  I shall not conduct discussions in public at fourth hand about the future of the company. BTG and INMOS are responsible for the conduct of the negotiations, not the Government. BTG must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, under the statutory guidelines, for the disposal of shares in INMOS.
  Mr. Shore: The Secretary of State made it clear that he has responsibility. Will he guarantee not to permit the sale of that majority Government interest to foreign investors if and when INMOS is brought into private ownership?
  Mr. Tebbit: I shall deal with the matter in the best national interest. The right hon. Gentleman is free to argue whether what I decide is in the best national interest, but I shall not guarantee to exclude any potential purchaser. If he has two penn'orth of common sense, he would know why.
  The House is entitled to be told the factors that the Government will bear in mind when they consider the request of the BTG for consent.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose——
  Mr. Tebbit: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has found time to attend the debate. I thought that he would be commiserating with his brother, who lost his post in the National Union of Mineworkers, or preventing his constituents in Bolsover from working in the coal mines.
  Mr. Skinner: Far from losing his post, my brother has been nominated by the Nottinghamshire NUM to be the Labour candidate for Sherwood. Far from weeping, he is looking forward to the next general election and to kicking out the Tory Member. Then there will be two of us instead of one.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We should return to INMOS.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that the brother of the hon. Member for Bolsover will do as well in the next election as he did in the one in which he has just been defeated.
  The price that BTG will receive for the shares depends on the value that prospective investors place on the company. It must take into account the cash requirements of the future company, its current performance and improved prospects, and it should be fair to the taxpayer. It was with those and other considerations in mind that the Government withheld the BTG's signature to a proposal, which I thought interested the right hon. Gentleman for Bethnal Green and Stepney but which apparently does not any more, from a group of investors to put £30 million in new shares into the company. The offer was turned down because it was not good enough. I was not willing to

  507
  recommend it to my colleagues or to defend it in the House. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman made such a meal of it in his speech.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his understanding of the term "best national interest" means that we shall not sell INMOS at bucket shop prices, and that we shall not sell it to a company which would strip it of the expertise that it has gained?
  Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) should also mention the technology that the company has gained from overseas, especially the United States. I shall not sell it at bucket shop prices. Had I been prepared to do so, I should have accepted the £30 million deal towards the flotation. I shall look after the British national interest. I am not prepared to eliminate some contenders and to favour others in a way which would be contrary to the objectives that I have set out.
  Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the legitimate interests of the House will be served by knowing what criteria he will apply to the sale that will protect British interests. That is the central question in the debate, and I hope he will not try to escape it in this great farrago of badinage, which I admit he is doing rather well.
  Mr. Tebbit: That is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman, who often does it well himself. That is why he is overshadowing the other fellow who used to lead the alliance. The right hon. Gentleman must understand the implications of what I am saying, and I am sure that, on mature consideration, he will not wish to press me further.
  The price of any commodity, including a company, must be determined by the market. I cannot conjure up an enhanced value for INMOS beyond what the market will bear. However, money is not the only measure of the return on the taxpayers' investment. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology said on 6 June, the Government must also bear in mind the future development of INMOS technology and the benefits thereof to the United Kingdom. I should not on this account rule out a foreign bidder. Foreign investment has much to offer the United Kingdom in terms of new technology. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and his friends are not adamantly opposed to investments made here, for example by IBM, although there is the risk of extra-territoriality and the buying of British brains by a foreign multinational.
  The transfer of technology is a key part of INMOS strategy.
  Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State said that money was not the only criterion in judging this matter. I was interested to note what Lord Cockfield said in the other place on 11 June in relation to the three criteria for the sale of INMOS:
  "The third is to secure a price which adequately reflects the taxpayers' past investment in the company."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 11 June 1984; Vol. 452, c. 884.]
  Is the Secretary of State now withdrawing that statement?
  Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is overstraining on this point. My right hon. and noble Friend said that there were three criteria, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned one. I, too, have said that price is only one criterion. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is getting into such a lather about.
  508
  Other projects in this area demonstrate that the United Kingdom is regarded as an attractive location for microelectronic projects. An excessive chauvinism, descending, as it sometimes does from the Opposition Benches, to outright xenophobia would do untold harm to employment and the creation of wealth in Britain. Nevertheless, I assure the House again that in considering any proposal for disposal, whether to a United Kingdom or a foreign bidder, the Government will bear very much in mind the technology spin-off effects for the United Kingdom.
  I hope that both sides of the House share an awareness of the importance and pervasiveness of the new technologies. I hope that even the Opposition accept that the Government are strongly committed to bringing those new technologies into being, not just as museum pieces but as steps on the road to prosperity. We are determined that the market and the private sector should play their part, although we accept that on some occasions Government support is important. But technology is useless unless it creates wealth, so the market, above all, is important. All the schemes and incentives that we introduce to promote research and development are important, but it is essential above all to get those products on the market, and only the market and the private sector can do that effectively.
  For those reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: The Secretary of State has been his usual self—rude, arrogant and partisan. Can one imagine him as a general practitioner? He would kill more patients than he cured. The Secretary of State is living proof of the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
  The Secretary of State always confuses issues. He tried to reprimand my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about his knowledge of the microchip industry, but my hon. Friend obviously knew far more than the Secretary of State, who tried to compare Ferranti with ICL. They operate in completely different areas. INMOS, which operates for mass production, is different from Ferranti, which is a specialist company. The Secretary of State gave the House a series of half-truths, which were all designed to cover up the central theme. Despite being asked repeatedly, the right hon. Gentleman would not give an assurance that he would not sell INMOS to a foreign bidder, whatever might be the consequences for British technology.
  The Secretary of State also showed the pathological hatred felt by him and some of his hon. Friends about public ownership. They dislike any publicly owned company, however well it may do.
  INMOS began by acquiring new technology in America—there was nowhere else to get it then—and in the past five or six years it has progressed so rapidly that it is recognised as one of the most advanced companies al its sector. However, despite the fact that we are now getting a return on the £100 million or more invested in the company, which is just beginning to make a profit, the Secretary of State intends to sell it, even though that may mean breaking it up and losing the transputer technology that is wanted by the rest of the world, especially by the Japanese. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that Bristol is a design centre and Newport has the manufacturing capacity, and

  509
  that ICL could not manufacture the transputer in Bristol. It needs the Newport factory. However, what will happen is that, with ICL's connections in Japan, the production will go there. The Secretary of State does not seem to be worried about that.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about getting value for the taxpayer, but the present offer—he did not deny this—from the Americans is £58 million. That does not get back the £100 million that we invested.
  In his highly partisan speech the Secretary of State did not say that there is a world shortage of microchips, and that they are being rationed. His proposals would place us firmly in the hands of the Americans and the Japanese. Is that what we want? He talked about the need to use microchips in industry, but if microchips are rationed, it must be sensible—even the Secretary of State can see this—to have an indigenous supply. From what he said today, he patently does not understand that. Nor is he worried about it. He is simply concerned about the market and about getting some cash back to Britain, whatever the consequences.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who is far more sane in these matters, asked what would happen if INMOS was sold to foreign sources, but, like the Opposition, he received no reply. The matter was clouded in secrecy. I should have liked a clear assurance that INMOS will not be sold to a foreign company, especially not to a company such as American Telephone and Telegraph, which has no intention of developing the technology.
  The development of INMOS has been a remarkable success story. It started from scratch and dominated the world market in the 16K static RAM. It is producing the 64K dynamic RAM in volume capacity, and it is going on to the transputer, which, as the Secretary of State said, is a microprocessor on a small quarter-inch silicon chip. The important thing is that it is being designed in Bristol and would be manufactured in Newport.
  The Secretary of State also failed to refer to the fact that, while manufacture started off in the United States at Colorado Springs, a labour force is being built up at Newport and the future of the new development will be more and more at Bristol and Newport rather than in the United States. That is the strength of the company. That is what it offers us for the future. There is hope for the future so long as the company remains in British hands.
  The Secretary of State should have told us why he wants even to hive the company off to the private sector. Surely it would have made more sense, 75 per cent. of the equity being in public hands, for the taxpayer to reap the reward of the initial investment, which would not have been undertaken by the City or by the private sector. Having taken the risk, surely the taxpayer is entitled to reap the reward when profits are to be made. It would be bad business to begin to sell off a highly successful company at this time.
  If we go out of the market in mass-produced chips, it will cost three times as much to get back in. Two of the South Korean companies that are trying to enter the same market will have to spend up to $500 million to get in. Is it not stupid even to contemplate selling INMOS at the moment?
  One cannot rest easily when a bovver boy like the Secretary of State is responsible for administering new
  510
  technology and for British industry. In view of his delicate touch, one fears what will happen to the rest of British industry. One can only hope that wiser counsels will come from the Minister for Information Technology, who has prided himself on going about the country boasting of our achievements. I think he would recognise that, welcome though foreign investment is, the problem is that the research and development are not based in this country. We need an indigenous base.
  The Secretary of State has said that we must not believe all we read. When we consider press speculation, I hope it is right that the Minister for Information Technology is resisting the sale of INMOS to the Americans. We may hear his opinion later. Perhaps he will either give us an assurance that this is what he is standing up for or, because his position would be jeopardised by what the Secretary of State has said, he might consider resigning, a very rare occurrence on the Government Benches. Usually Ministers are sacked by the Prime Minister.
  Let us come to the Prime Minister, because I am told that when science and technology are talked about she claims to be the voice of science in the Cabinet. She even claims to be a scientist. When I examine her record, I find that she was a laboratory assistant washing vessels. That does not fill me with hope for the future.
  Where is the pressure coming from? It is coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Luddite in the pinstriped suit who could not tell a computer from a commuter. All he is interested in is the pressure that is being put on him by City interests. He thinks that we must get money back as soon as possible. It is a very shortsighted outlook and it is in line with the narrow, blinkered outlook that the Cabinet has had since 1979. It relies on market forces.
  If we had always relied on market forces, INMOS would not have been created, and Ferranti, which the Secretary of State has told us has a high volume of microchips, would not even have been here. It was rescued by the National Enterprise Board. If the Government say that INMOS must go, what about ICL? It would not have been here either if it had not been for the intervention of the NEB. I remind the Secretary of State that important successes occurred under the NEB.
  I make a final appeal to the people of good reason, the more moderate and far-sighted Members on the Tory Benches. I hope that they will join us in the Lobby tonight in view of the fact that we have not had any assurance from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that INMOS will not be sold off to a foreign buyer, whatever the consequences. I hope that those Tory Members who are more reasonable in their outlook will put the national interest and the future of high technology in this country before a narrow, partisan, political approach which says that we should sell off regardless of whom we sell to, foreign or otherwise, regardless of the national interest, and regardless of losing the sole company that is publicly owned and that is mass producing the microchip. This is the only company that could enable us to compete with the Japanese and the Americans.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Warren: I wish to declare an interest as a practitioner in information technology on both sides of the Atlantic.

  511
  In debates on science and technology in the House over the years one thing is certain—the terms of reference always tend to be the same. Indeed, we can say that over a period
  "we have not as a nation been able … fully to harness the resources of skill and ability we should be able to command. We have been falling steadily further behind our competitors … Successive Governments have striven to correct these deficiencies". Those are words that one could use today but, in fact, they are drawn from a document that is 10 years old, the White Paper on "The Regeneration of British Industry", published by the Labour Government in August 1974.
  The problem is that over the 10 years since then—indeed, one could look back 10 years before that time—nothing has changed. Learning about how in politics we should try to progress in innovation and manage science and technology has not moved ahead nearly as fast as the process of technology itself. In a report that I was privileged to present to the House last week on behalf of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, we drew attention to the fact that the problem of competitiveness has been with us throughout the centuries. It is not a decline that can be blamed on Governments of either party.
  It is a decline that we have failed to notice. We have worked our way out of many of our traditional markets. Therefore, when we bring technology to this place, one of the problems is that we are looking upon this place as one of the few sources of funds of sufficient timeliness and volume to make it possible to fund high venture new types of technology such as electronics or genetic engineering.
  One can trace the basic problem over the last 20 years to the steady decline in the rate of return which it has been possible to achieve on investment in manufacturing industry. We are now down to about one third of the rate of return that could have been 20 years ago. Because the return is so small—it is now running at below 4 per cent. per annum on average—there are many places where banks, private individuals and institutions of all kinds find it better to place their money on behalf of their clients. Because of this, the Government have found themselves very much in the forefront as an investor. The only other investors tend to be large conglomerates like ICL, GEC or Racal, which can generate the funds required to undertake the ventures.
  The basic problem is not just that of money. Under successive Governments, we have to learn that we must express confidence in a target that is often on a horizon some five to 10 years ahead. That target means confidence in people and in leading edge technologies, such as that being practised by INMOS. The judgment has to be not just about money, but about whether the people involved in the leadership of that company are capable of getting to that target with a product in a timely fashion.
  The problem has been thrown back to us in that Whitehall has never been a reservoir of entrepreneurs, and should not be required to be. It has had to take on that task, particularly in the past four years, without the tools to make the required assessments. We have asked Whitehall to make investment judgments and character judgments of individuals and teams wanting backing, and asked it to be able to travel across the long time span to win markets that are just glimmers in the eye of management. Therefore, that problem has become one of the hallmarks of most of the industrial endeavours in nationalisation.
  512
  If, 20 years ago, the late Frank Cousins and his advisers—at that time Frank Cousins was working under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—had not turned down but had understood what Mr. Drummer and his colleagues had brought out at the Government telecommunications research establishment at Malvern—the integrated circuit—we would now be the prime exporter of electronics in the world. In that category, I have a somewhat similar message on the transputer development of INMOS. Today, we are talking about the same kind of judgment. With that product and that team, is it worth continuing to back that company?
  I have known lain Barron for 20 years, and I worked with him at one time. He has established a fiercely independent industrial capability. Professionally, lie is more than halfway to sound success, and his products, after tremendous problems at the beginning, are on time in terms of market, quality and price. The figures that we have heard today show that proper generation has started. It is true that professionally I can find some faults with the INMOS operation, but that is not unusual in the information technology industry, where there are many fierce jealousies. I can remember a case in the early days of INMOS, when one valiant company wanted to buy it to close down its production line. One should always look at bids and ask why they have been made and whether they are good for the company and its products.
  Now is the time for confidence in INMOS, and I believe that in my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Information Technology we have established a creative and sensible vision of the position of Government and what they can do in practical terms to develop companies such as INMOS. There is a requirement on Government to sow the seeds of investment when others are fearful of stepping forward.
  I appreciate that probably behind the scenes in the great secretiveness of British Government there is a great tussle going on between my right hon. Friends' Department and the Treasury. The Treasury looks upon INMOS in an entirely different way to that which I have been describing, which is the style presented by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. The Treasury always needs cash and sees denationalisation as a cash generator and the sale of INMOS as a means of generating that cash. Courageously, the Treasury, on behalf of the taxpayer, never wants to see more public money invested in any form of national enterprise. However, both sides of the House must keep up their courage——
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: With the experience that I know the hon. Gentleman has of the industry, and his detailed knowledge of INMOS, which is rather greater than that of most Conservative Members, would he agree that the worst solution would be to break the design capability within INMOS from its production capability?
  Mr. Warren: I am just coming to that very point.
  We must retain our courage to hold on to this company at this critical time, to see it through to the success that it can achieve. That is most important. One vital factor for a science/people-based company such as INMOS is that we should not leave its leadership with the uncertainty that is enveloping it now. That is bad. While the work force and management are worried about the future, they cannot be creating, and the creativity of that company is its major asset.

  513
  I come now to the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). This company is ripe for technical plunder, in whole or in part. It is at the most critical part of its generation as a successful enterprise. Therefore, the terms and conditions of any sale at this stage—if the company is to be sold at this stage—must be that the control remains in the United Kingdom. There is no question about that, because otherwise we shall be throwing away all the tremendous investment that has been made in the company by the House on behalf of the taxpayers, and by qualified scientists and engineers who have devoted their time to the success of the company.
  If INMOS is sold now or in the future, it must be sold at a price that reflects its worth. To be accurate, that company is worth £100 million—there is no question about that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can do the sums far more effectively than I.
  Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to see me behind the Speaker's Chair immediately afterwards and put in his bid, backed by a suitable consortium.
  Mr. Warren: My right hon. Friend is a dear friend of mine, and if he has not got information that the company is worth £100 million, he should change his advisers.
  Mr. Tebbit: I am not discussing the price in public, but if my hon. Friend, has a clear view of the price, I am sure that he will be able to bring together, with his knowledge of the industry, a group of people who will make an all-British bid at the sort of price that will be compatible with what he says.
  Mr. Warren: My right hon. Friend is skilled in these matters. I said that the control of the company should remain in the United Kingdom. That does not preclude outside investment in part, but the control must remain here. That company is worth £100 million, not only in terms of its current ability but in terms of its prospects. We must look to the future of companies in businesses such as this.
  I end by commending to my right hon. Friend the words that I had already written before he intervened. He should not undersell our faith in our investment on behalf of the taxpayer.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Roy Hughes: This is a most worthwhile debate and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) on his initiative in securing it. As for the Secretary of State, I thought that he was evasive and that he demeaned the high office that he unfortunately holds.
  Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt agree that it is essential for the United Kingdom to keep up with developments in the important sector of information technology. It cannot be denied that the previous Labour Government made every possible effort to bring INMOS to this country. Huge sums of public money were invested in it before the headquarters and research centre were established at Bristol and the production unit was established in Newport.
  When I met one of the founders, Mr. Petritz, some time ago, I got the impression that he was amazed at the amount of support that had been received from the Government
  514
  and the local authorities in Gwent. It was recognised from the start by the National Enterprise Board that this was a high risk venture but that the rewards could be substantial. United Kingdom expertise could be established in the key field of technology. It was reckoned that, by the mid-1980s, some 4,000 jobs could be established. That in turn would save about £20 million annually in imports and could generate £100 million in exports.
  It is significant that when INMOS was up for grabs, no independent investor would put up the money. But now, one can see the carrion crows hovering, ready to swoop at any time—encouraged, of course, by the Government. The Minister for Information Technology confirmed in an answer on 6 June that the Government are ready to sell off this important public asset. The Government have made a fetish of selling off important public asset. Now the Government are apparently considering selling INMOS to American Telephone and Telegraph. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney pointed that out in his original remarks, and he was not refuted by the Secretary of State.
  The sum of £50 million—a derisory figure—has been speculated about in important financial journals. That is only half what the taxpayer has already put into this concern. In turn, it is suggested that there would be a deal for AT and T to transfer the design team at Bristol to ICL, the computer concern which, despite the remarks of the Secretary of State, was another business saved by the previous Labour Government. Yet the company has signed a wide-ranging agreement with the Japanese company, Fujitsu. Where, then, is the protection for British interests if INMOS is to be linked up in that way?
  On the price, referred to by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), it is worth pointing out that an independent American consultant has valued the company at over £200 million. What the Government seem to be proposing is little short of criminal. Anxiety has already been expressed about American attempts to strangle the flow of high technology to Europe. Those attempts are really about commercial considerations, but they come under the guise of stopping goods with military application from reaching the Soviet bloc. The plan that is allegedly being proposed by the Government could severely hamper plans for Newport. Jobs there could be in peril after so much money has been spent in the town to bring the factory to fruition. The work force at Newport must realise that its future livelihood is at stake as a result of the Government's proposals. The Government are putting the jobs in jeopardy. The Government are merely espousing a doctrinaire attitude.
  The selling off of so many of our public assets is in line with the Government's plans to cut regional aid. Together, those policies could cause havoc in south Wales, which has already suffered so many thousands of redundancies due to steel and other factory closures. There is a certain incompatibility between the jobs lost in coal and steel and the type of work provided by INMOS. INMOS is not likely to take on many of the redundant workers from those two important basic industries. Nevertheless, Britain must have the new techology if we are to have any future as an industrial nation. If the Government really wished to assist INMOS they would accept that it is extravagant to have factories in Newport and a headquarters and design centre in Bristol. That is illogical and inefficient. Why should not the whole enterprise be centralised at Newport? I say

  515
  categorically, in the interests of our nation and the work force whose future livelihood is at stake, that this enterprise should remain in public ownership.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Mark Robinson: The INMOS factory in Newport is in my constituency. I visited it only this week on Monday. I could not help but be impressed by the expansion and progress that has taken place over the past 12 months. That factory was completed in 1982 and it is no mean achievement that in 1983 it has realised sales amounting to £37·8 million. We have already heard the figures for the first quarter of this year. I understand that there is a possibility that at the end of 1984 profits may rise to over £10 million. If it is £12 million, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said earlier, projections have changed in the four days since I was at INMOS on Monday.
  INMOS has become the largest semiconductor company in Britain with an annual turnover likely to be in excess of £100 million. It has also become a significant employer in my constituency. The number on site at present is over 700. By the end of this year, that figure is likely to have risen to over 1,000. There is every prospect that in 1985 that figure will rise still further.
  The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) always talks about job losses, but in INMOS in Newport we are talking about job gains and the prospect of further job gains.
  Mr. Hoyle: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if INMOS is sold to a foreign bidder, the prospect of the increase in jobs in Newport will be severely curtailed?
  Mr. Robinson: No, I would not agree. I shall say something about that later.
  Judging from some recent comments, the suggestion that INMOS should move towards private ownership seems to be new. The contention of Opposition Members that the privatisation of INMOS is being foisted on the company is untrue.
  I quote from the National Enterprise Board guidelines published in 1980 under "Disposals":
  "The board shall exercise their powers with a view to disposing to private ownership, as soon as commercially practicable, of all of their securities and other property and their subsidiaries' securities and other property."
  It is, therefore, not new that INMOS is to be put to the private sector. What is more, in my view it is right that, once INMOS has become profitable, it should go into the private sector.
  As INMOS moves towards maturity it is important that, in transferring it to the private sector, we get the transfer right. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology said in answer to a question that I put to him:
  "The BTG is actively exploring other options for the transfer of the company to the private sector."—[Official Report, 6 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 291.]
  The House should note the words "other options". The House has heard Opposition proposals that sounded as though they were Government proposals based on speculation that has been mounted in the financial press. There is the possibility not only of options that may be on the table but also of options that may still be in the pipeline. This debate is not the time to leap to conclusions as to what will happen in the context of the future of INMOS.
  516
  It is fundamental that, in disposing of INMOS, two things must be protected. The first is the taxpayer's investment in the company, and the second is the continuing transfer of technology to the company and the gains in technology that have been made by the company. Of equal importance, as my right hon. Friend said on 6 June, is the question of access to technology by British companies. Whatever happens to INMOS, it is vital that it continue the role that it has started to play in high technology industry in the country.
  Mr. Shore: Surely the essential role is the capacity to carry forward into new and developing technology. It is not a matter just of continuing a transfer from outside or of maintaining what we have; it is a question of having the creative base from which to advance further into the future unimpeded by whatever restraints may be put upon us by external influences. That must surely also be in the hon. Gentleman's mind.
  Mr. Robinson: It is of course in my mind. It is important that we should be able to carry forward these advances. What I think the Minister was saying when he gave the reply to which I referred is that, in terms of a transfer of INMOS to the private sector, that very advancement must be protected. I believe that to be correct.
  Since its inception, INMOS has been beset by doubters and sceptics who would not have given it any chance of reaching even its present levels of profitability. In 1983, it was ranked number one in Europe and number 11 in the world in the sales of large-scale integrated circuits. It has become a world leader in fast static RAMs and has a leading position in fast dynamic RAMs. It is also making an entry into the important future business of EEPROMs. I understand that the development of the INMOS transputer is also an important technical advance in microprocessors.
  It has also been claimed that INMOS's early investment and employment opportunities were biased towards the United States. That may have been true, but it was because the necessary advance process technology was available only in that country. Since the establishment of the Newport plant, that technology has been transferred to the United Kingdom. Now that the transfer has taken place, it has been possible, with the help of research and development in Bristol, to achieve considerable design advances. Indeed, INMOS has succeeded in moving into a position where it is ahead of the world market.
  There is high morale in the company and a great belief among the work force in its ability to perform. It would be tragic if INMOS were to suffer from prolonged uncertainty and speculation. At the same time, it is clearly necessary for the Government to explore carefully all the options available to them so that the potential that INMOS represents, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, will be developed not just to the full but to the maximum advantage of the country which has been responsible for its inception.
  INMOS, with its dramatic architecture in Newport, is a visible example of the high technology industries that have come to south Wales. This debate takes in not just INMOS, but that new technology also.
  At a time of industrial change and worldwide economic depression, the high technology industries offer considerable hope in the south Wales region. Many of my

  517
  constituents who work in INMOS came into the company with no knowledge of high technology industry. They have been trained into it, and they now have a permanent job in it. They have been effective and successful. That is important in terms of the Government's policy of creating new jobs in the region. There are other examples of that in the south Wales region, including Mitel, the new Comdial plant, and the major expansion at National Panasonic. Controlled Data is also carrying out a considerable expansion. New high technology industries have been established at Llantarnam and Cwmbran, and the importance that the Government attach to these enterprises in south Wales can be seen by the decision of the Welsh Development Agency to establish a special agency called WlNtech, which is expected to be fully operational by the autumn. But the purpose of that body is to stimulate the application of technological development by firms in Wales, and it is just another sign of the Government's commitment to the new technology industries.
  Mr. Allen Adams: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, had it not been for the farsighted policies of past Labour Governments, the company that we are debating would not have existed, because it was public funds in the first instance that created the entity? What has he to say about public investment in the future against the background of public investment in the past which obviously created jobs, and we could go back to 1929 when Ramsey MacDonald bailed out——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the first Front Bench speaker will seek to catch my eye at 6.30 pm, and a number of other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend has already referred to the point that the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) has raised.
  I believe that it was the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) who said that most doctors could not have killed as many patients as my right hon. Friend has done. I would make the point that most doctors would not have inherited as many incurable patients as we have from the last Labour Government.
  The developments amount not just to jobs in high technology industry. They are also important for the services industries on whose support the high technology companies rely. Thus, there are two sources of new jobs of equal importance.
  There can be no doubt about the value of the high technology industries in terms of overseas markets, and it is important to be able to maintain competitiveness in this important sphere. INMOS is an example of that competitiveness. It was started as a commercial company and its decisions have been made on a commercial basis. It is only right that INMOS should be afforded a proper basis for its future development. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will come to a conclusion on the future of INMOS only after a most careful review of all the options available to him, including those that may not yet be on the table.
  Whatever the final outcome, I have no doubt that the new technology industries in South Wales are there to stay. They have provided an important opening for the future
  518
  economic well-being of the region. INMOS has played a central and important part in that, and we must continue to allow it to do so.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) said that the Government should keep all the options open. That is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the house, although the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) expressed a different view. The one option which we must not keep open is that of allowing INMOS to pass to foreign hands. The hon. Member for Newport, West did not dismiss that as an option, nor did the Secretary of State. We could consider many other options, but that option must be written off. We hoped that the Minister would dispose of that fear adequately and unequivocally.
  I shall not waste time talking about the need for new technologies. I pay tribute to the Minister for Information Technology because he and his Government have a greater recognition of the need to develop the new industrial revolution than previous Governments of any colour. I do not diminish the importance of previous Governments' perception of the need for new technology. They have done a great deal to bring the subject to the political forum. Unfortunately, we do not judge a Government by how important they believe an industry to be, but by how successful they are in doing something about it. The Minister and the Secretary of State have painted rosy and inaccurate pictures of how things are. Appropriate action springs from a correct perception of what needs to be done. The Government are working with blinkered vision.
  The Secretary of State said that the NEDC pamphlet handed out some bouquets to the Government. I can see only one paragraph that is complimentary to the Government. It says some reasonable things, but the remainder of the document illustrates how our high technology industry is moving into crisis and explains how Government action has not been sufficient to cope with the problem.
  The document presents a picture wholly different from that which the Government present. Our balance of trade has plummeted from a deficit of £89 million to £200 million in only three years. Imports have gone up from 41 per cent. to 54 per cent. Our high technology industry has grown at half the rate of that in the United States.
  Paragraph 7 of the pamphlet states:
  "Information technology industries of our main industrial competitors have grown much more rapidly than that of the UK."
  Is that supposed to be congratulatory of the Government? Paragraph 12 of the pamphlet states:
  "Furthermore, every one of our industrial competitors gives higher levels of support to this industry."
  Is that supposed to be congratulatory? The pamphlet goes on:
  "The UK is coming to depend far too heavily on imported technology."
  Even some of our own programmes are being used to support programmes abroad. How much of the Micros in Schools programme has been passed to foreign companies instead of local companies?
  The pamphlet states that NEDC is
  "most concerned about an impending crisis in the information technology industry."
  That is a far cry from the Secretary of State's attempt to convince us that all is well and that the Government have done a great deal for the information technology industry.

  519
  It is against a background of continuous decline, which cannot be blamed entirely on this Government, that we must examine the INMOS decision. I shall not go into the details of INMOS, but three factors make INMOS especially noteworthy. The first is the transputer, which takes 10 million instructions per second. It is 20 times faster than the current micros and between three and five times faster than the current 32-bit machines. That makes it worth preserving in British hands and writes off what the hon. Member for Newport, West said was an option. The CMOS production technique is not a matter for rejoicing. That technique, in which we are world leaders by two years, has been sold to the Japanese instead of being exploited in the United Kingdom.
  INMOS provides the only chance to compete in the silicon systems of the future, as it becomes possible to integrate upwards of 1 million devices on to a chip. It will be necessary to fabricate complete systems on to silicon rather than make such systems from discrete components. Since most systems will consist primarily of memory and processing the business needs precisely the capabilities developed by INMOS in terms of designs, CAD and the Occam design language.
  We must judge what the Government seek to do against that background. The Government do not deny that the new systems are essential, or that they have enormous potential. The Government do not deny that INMOS is moving into profit and that it is returning the investment that we courageously made in it, yet they have decided to take the risk of selling off INMOS and breaking up the design teams which are so essential to lay a strategic base for our future.
  Never before has the rule of narrow party dogma so swamped the dictates of ordinary common-sense. What is worse, the Government seem to want to sell the company off at less than its value. The Minister for Information Technology did not mention price on 6 June. I was delighted to receive his assurances on that. I have with me a wonderful book called
  "I have no gun, but I can spit".
  It is a collection of poems put together by the Minister. I direct attention to the poem by Jonathan Swift, which is a favourite of his called "On Irish Members of Parliament". The first two lines read:
  "Let them when they once get in
  Sell the nation for a pin."
  We are worried that the Government will be tempted, for short-term reasons, to
  "sell the nation for a pin."
  The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for drawing attention to my anthology of poetry. I remind the House that it is still available at £2·95 from the best bookshops.
  Mr. Ashdown: That comment requires no response.
  The Government have opened up the possibility that INMOS could go to a foreign owner. That could be AT and T. I recognise the Government's delicate position and that the Minister is unable to make as many clear statements as he might wish, but that possibility has not been denied. We have received no assurances.
  Britain is already in danger of becoming a technological satellite to the United States. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to the extra-territoriality exercised by the United States
  520
  Government. We might be passing this vital component of the strategy of our new base for high technology to American hands, to a firm which is 20 times larger than Plessey and which is already negotiating for Olivetti in Europe, to make it one of the most powerful information technology forces in Europe. If we accept AT and T's invitation to purchase INMOS it will be the most foolish and dangerous invitation ever accepted since Red Riding Hood agreed to have tea with the wolf.
  I hope that the Government will dismiss the invitation categorically. I am disturbed, worried and concerned—as Conservative Members should be—that the Government have not yet been prepared to say categorically that control of INMOS will not pass outside the United Kingdom.
  I wish to conclude by quoting again from the NECD report. Paragraph 24.6 states that a European market
  "as a base from which to enter international markets, holds much more promise than any of the individual national markets in Europe … the EDC believes that information technology creates the best opportunity that the UK has of achieving economic revitalisation. We welcome the very significant measures taken by the government to stimulate the IT industry and the IT applications. These have put the UK firmly in the starting blocks. Unfortunately, in the race that follows there are stronger runners than ourselves and we are falling behind. The EDC, therefore, asks for the forging of a new partnership between government and industry."
  It will do terrible damage to the so necessary new partnership if the right hon. Gentleman now risks not only breaking up the design teams that have run INMOS and made it so successful, but possibly allowing INMOS to pass into hands other than British, so that they will reap the benefit of the skill and courage that have made INMOS such a success.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Rob Hayward: We have listened to many references to questions asked during Question 'Time on 6 June. I am astounded that there have been so many interpretations of the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology. I found his answers as clear as anyone could have expected, given the detailed, complex and confidential negotiations taking place.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that my right hon. Friend had made no reference to INMOS being sold for a reasonable price. Yet on 6 June my right hon. Friend said:
  "bearing in mind not only the price that is offered."—[Official Report, 6 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 292.]
  Surely that is a reference to a reasonable price. On 17 February the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and I took part in a debate on new technology, when I said that a reasonable price had to be paid for INMOS, to whomsoever it was sold.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to price and also made passing reference to liabilities, as though they did not matter. As I understand the position—and I am willing to be corrected—the liabilities amount to about £120 million. So we are talking not only of the purchase price, but about liabilities and long-term commitments. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was likely to be a £70 million commitment to the United Kingdom, and dismissed it as though it was nothing. He suggested that if INMOS was sold to AT and T, it would pick it up for a pittance and then asset-strip. He should appreciate that a substantial

  521
  sum of money is involved if we take into account the purchase price, the liabilities and the long-term commitments. It is hardly likely that a company will buy INMOS and then asset-strip. Any company may want to redirect its product lines and commitments from one place to another. That applies to the majority of multinationals, whether they be British, American, German or any other.
  The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) pleaded for certainty. He then, in passing, threw in the suggestion that we might close the design centre at Bristol and move it to Newport. Surely he is throwing in additional uncertainty. I admire any potential bidder, whether British, American or Dutch, who succeeds in making a bid. So many people appear to have a vested interest—the management, the initial shareholders, the Government, and the British Technology Group—that it must be difficult for potential bidders to know to whom they must bid and understand whether they are getting a reasoned response.
  There has been speculation about the position of ICL. It is said that it will definitely have the transputer operation and will definitely send it to Fujitsu. Why should that happen? I understand that Fujitsu is the last name linked in the national press with ICL. Opposition Members appear to have forgotten that ICL has links with five other international companies. Why should not the transputer operation go to one of them? There is no logic for saying that it will go to Fujitsu rather than one of the other companies.
  The long-term interests of INMOS are based on the parameters to the bid set out by my right hon. Friend in answer to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). My right hon. Friend not only identified price, he referred to the
  "continuing access to the technology by British industry, the need for a continuing transfer of technology to Britain, and a commitment to the development and expansion of activity in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 6 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 292.]
  I would want to see the involvement of INMOS being as strongly directed towards and allied to British industry as possible. But, as has been said on a number of occasions, that judgment can be made only when all the bids are available to BTG, INMOS and the Government. It is only at that point that it would be reasonable for any Minister, in any Government, to rule out any option.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I visited Newport and spent some hours as the guest of INMOS. It is an extremely interesting operation. First, can the Minister elaborate on what the Secretary of State referred to as the technology spin-off for the United Kingdom from the Government's proposals? Secondly, what is to be the future of the transputer operation in relation to the British national interest? Thirdly, on the electronically erasable memory, which is basically British work that we should not see go abroad, what is the Government's attitude towards protecting the work done in this country?
  Fourthly, I was impressed by the link with the Wolfson Foundation Research in Edinburgh. Given that British universities have had a great deal of public money on related subjects, is there not a national interest to be protected? Fifthly, the INMOS system apparently is to be evaluated by the Alvey directorate. The Minister knows
  522
  that it is a joint Government, industry and academic exercise. Precisely what will the Alvey directorate do in this position?
  I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) is desperate to speak, and I shall give way to him as he knows a great deal about the subject.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Roger Stott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for allowing me to speak now.
  We have witnessed from the Secretary of State one of the most disgraceful speeches of which even he is capable. What it lacked in content he made up for in bile. It was a typical knee-jerk response to a sensible contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). It will not do for the Secretary of State to come to the House and disguise his lack of knowledge with the sort of thuggery that he produced at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. It does the House no good at all in such a serious debate.
  The Minister may recall that, in the debate on 17 February, I drew attention to, and put firmly on the record in more detail than time will allow me tonight, the Opposition's view of the serious threat of the competitive forces that are currently at work in the United Kingdom. In replying to that debate, the Minister, in his usual flamboyant and ambassadorial role as the saviour of the British IT industry, assured us that all was well and that the industry was safe in his hands. If the industry is safe in his hands and those of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I would not put either of them in the slips.
  What is happening in these sunrise industries today is extremely worrying. Reference has been made to the report of the NEDC and the remarks of its chairman. That document said that concern had been expressed
  "that the industry is close to a threshold below which an independent, broad-based United Kingdom information technology industry would no longer be viable."
  It went on to note
  "that the United Kingdom has many strengths in the industry to build on."
  I acknowledge that to be a fact, but it added:
  "However, international competition is intense, and overseas competitors are also supported by their national governments."
  One need only look at recent press announcements to see that the Governments of other countries are supporting their indigenous industries to a considerable degree—including the French, German, Japanese and American Governments—albeit through rather circuitous routes. If one contrasts what they are doing in support of their industries with what we are doing, no wonder we are in our present state of demise.
  What has been the Minister's response to this situation of crisis, if we are to believe the words of Professor Ashworth? First, the Government introduced a package of support under MISP 2, but the level of that support was lamentable and misdirected. Secondly, for months the Government have been creating chaos and uncertainty about the future of INMOS. After all, INMOS is the flagship of the British microprocessing industry. I shall address my remarks to the first before dealing with the second.
  The right hon. Gentleman—Mr. Sunrise—has invented a new word to describe the Government's support for the IT industry. He calls it catalytic. I have another word for it. I call it catastrophic. The Minister assumes

  523
  that the injection of £102 million of Government money will generate five times that amount from the private sector, inspiring British industry to commit £1 billion from its own resources over the next decade to the microelectronic sector.
  If we are to believe that a £1 billion investment—that is the sum the Government estimate must be spent by British industry to stem the rising tide of imports and to put us on a par with our American and Japanese competitors—is necessary, it is clear that it will not be forthcoming as the result of the injection of a miserly £120 million. The reasoning—the magic catalytic formula—is not convincing, and I am not alone in that view.
  Mr. Budgen rose——
  Mr. Stott: I do not have time to give way.
  Another anomaly is that not all the companies that might benefit from the second Micros in Schools programme are British. As the Minister knows, there is a plethora of American and Japanese companies operating in the United Kingdom which would benefit from these provisions, and they would be entitled to apply for grant. The Government have confirmed that to be the case in written answers to me. If those companies were to receive that money, there would be no award conditions placed on it to ensure that the results of developments were used only in British products or that British manufacturers would have priority of supply.
  The Government have already showered on these multinational companies a good deal of taxpayers' money. Grants under MISP 2 could, in my view, encourage these multinational companies to conduct their research and development in Britain and not use their British manufacturing bases as the assembly shops for the products forthcoming from that research and development. Thus, although funded by the Government's MISP 2, they could be manufactured abroad.
  That is why the catalytic support for large British companies and high technology multinationals is a nonsense. The funding should be reserved for small United Kingdom-owned companies and those with obvious need for financial support. The support that is made available, and the benefits that flow from it, should become the property of the British information technology industry and not the industry of another country, but regrettably what we want to see in that respect is not happening.
  I welcome inward investment. It creates jobs, no matter how few. But if the object of MISP 2 and other programmes is to stimulate and encourage British research activity that would not otherwise be funded, and to prevent the Britsh IT industry from dropping below the threshold of viability, the Government's current philosophy and policies must be reviewed as a matter of urgency, before the sun sets on the sunrise industries.
  I well remember, when I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Eric Varley at the Department of Industry, the birth of INMOS and the excitement that that created. The potentially brilliant child had to be brought into the world with the care, attention and support of the state as its midwife. With their usual display of patriotic foresightedness, the City institutions would not touch it. It was left, instead, to the National Enterprise Board to use public funds to support and develop the potential of INMOS, and that we did. We did it among a chorus of carping criticism——
  Mr. Budgen: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Stott:—from Conservative Members who were to become the present Prime Minister, Secretary of State of Education and Science and Secretary for State for Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Budgen: Quite right, too.
  Mr. Stott: I have a long memory when it comes to the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I remember him sitting below the Gangway of the Opposition Benches snarling like some demented wart-hog every time public money was used to support INMOS.
  The farsightedness of the people who founded INMOS, the commitment of Sir Leslie Murphy at the NEB and the support of the then Labour Government ensured the survival of INMOS, and how right we were. INMOS is now operating on the leading edge of semiconductor technology. The company has an excellent reputation throughout the world. The development of the transputer is a world first and the company made a £1·26 million pretax profit in the first quarter of the last financial year.
  It is absurd—indeed, downright stupid—to allow a company such as INMOS to be dogged by doubts not only about its future ownership but about whether any change to its ownership would lead to the dismemberment of the company and the abandonment of the vital long-term strategy that it needs for survival. If the comments in the technical and serious press are to be believed, the Government do not have a friend at court as a result of their handling of this sensitive affair.
  Let me drag the Minister's mind back once more to the debate in February when I warned him of the consequences if the Government started to mess about with INMOS. I warned him also of what the Opposition's attitude would be to the proposed sale of INMOS. I am gratified that so much informed expert opinion is now on our side.
  An internecine war has been going on between the Treasury, which wants a quick sale at a ludricrously low figure to swell its coffers, the officials of the Department of Trade and Industry, who take a marginally more balanced view of what is in the best interests of Britain, and the third party, the directors of INMOS, who according to recent press reports are fighting a rearguard action against the combined forces of Whitehall to retain and control the company in its present form and prevent it from being broken up.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), in his devastating critique of the way in which the Government have handled this sorry affair, outlined the sensible options that the Government could take to safeguard the national interest and the longterm interests of INMOS. I must emphasis that any attempt to take over INMOS by AT and T will be strenuously resisted by the Opposition. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said in February when I drew his attention to an article that appeared in The Economist, in which one of his advisers, who happens to be an expert on semiconductors, stated:
  "I really cannot see that AT&T is a hot prospect. AT&T has a long hit list in Europe, and [limos is just one company on the list. Clearly AT&T doesn't want Inmos's technology, it's got plenty of its own. Its only reason for wanting Inmos is to be able to put 'local' components into its products for the European market."
  I concur with that view. That is what would happen if AT and T were a successful bidder for the business

  525
  The INMOS affair exposes a serious weakness in the Government's industrial strategy. It shows that there is a lack of any practical commitment to the IT industries wherever they may exist. We have once again witnessed the Conservatives' manic distaste for public ownership, irrespective of the damage that that approach can do to a vital national asset. The Government should stop playing Russian roulette with INMOS. They should do what all sensible opinion has been counselling them to do over the months that the general debate has been taking place. They should do what we propose they should do in our motion. We propose that Her Majesty's Government should
  "ensure the continued rapid development of Inmos and its products and to maintain it as an independent company under majority United Kingdom ownership and control."
  We have not had a commitment from the Secretary of State. All that we have had is a bland, ridiculous and stupid response, which is typical of the right hon. Gentleman's contributions of late. Anything less than what we have asked for in the motion will be a betrayal of INMOS. Anything less will be a betrayal of the national interest. It is time that the Government started at least to think about the value of the national interest.
  6.43 pm
  The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): When I heard last week that the Opposition were to use one of their precious supply days and to issue a three-line Whip to condemn the Government's information technology programme and our policy towards INMOS, I confess that I was puzzled. A range of information technology programmes have been introduced since I have held responsibility for this portfolio over the past three and a half years. The Government have put in place a series of initiatives on information technology to ensure that Britain does not lose the technological race. As these initiatives have been announced over the past three and a half years—for example, the micros in schools scheme, the network of information technology centres, the largest programme of civilian research since the war, the Alvey programme, the programme of support to encourage older industries to use new technologies——
  Mr. Budgen rose——
  Mr. Baker: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. I have the scintilla of a feeling that I know the issue that he wishes to raise. If I may say so, he put it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and since then he has rarely been in the Chamber. I hope that he will forgive me if I ask him to accept that I know the point that he wishes to make. Many of the programmes that we have introduced in the high technology area have helped companies in the constituency of my hon. Friend. High technology does not involve only microchips. It involves the use of new technologies by older industries.
  The Opposition have chosen to impose a three-line Whip to attack the Government's range of policies. I thought that I would be subjected to a devastating critique, but that has not occurred. As I have listened to Labour Members I have had the sensation of being bombarded with cotton wool balls. Over the past three and a half years, the Opposition have subjected my proposals and the
  526
  Government's programmes to silent approval. After three and a half years of that approval we now have three hours of denunciation.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) have directed attention to a report from the information technology committee of Neddy. The report was made available to the Financial Times and The Guardian this morning as a secret document by the Social Democratic party. In fact, it has been a public document since 6 June. It is adding a new excitement to Whitehall now that the Liberal party or the Social Democratic party is leaking documents that have been in the public domain for the better part of 10 days.
  The document is an excellent report but it is partially incomplete. I attended the Neddy meeting when it was discussed. If the hon. Member for Yeovil reads the notes to the first two annexes to the statistics he will note the following:
  "statistics in this industry are partially incomplete".
  It is suggested that the reader cannot obtain a clear overall picture. It is an unhelpful picture because the statistics in the second annex omit the software industry, which is one of the great jewels in our crown. We estimate that the output of that industry is between £1·5 billion and £2 billion a year. That information is not to be found in the second annex, which sets out international comparisons. The first annex neglects to refer to the contributions of all the service industries and the applications of technologies. The report focuses on the hardware sector.
  I do not want to be complacent or to give the impression that Britain's position in these technologies is stronger than it is. There are areas where we have a world lead and there are other areas where we are missing out on major markets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and others have said, it is no good expecting only the new technology industries—INMOS, the microchip companies and the integrated circuit companies—to provide the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector that are being displaced in traditional industries. I accept that.
  The new technologies will provide two types of job. They will create jobs in the new technological industries on a relatively modest scale. As technologies change from electro-mechanical to electronic, fewer employees will be required. Even the new high technology industries will not be insulated from that trend.
  What is much more important is the position of the traditional industries of Britain—what economists call the smokestack industries. If heavy and light engineering companies, textile companies, paper-making companies and processing companies do not use the new technology, they will not be in business in five years' time. I hope that that is one of the messages that the House will send out to industry today. That is why we have provided support to enable medium-sized and small companies to introduce flexible manufacturing, computer-assisted design, robots and robotic devices. If such companies do not avail themselves of those technologies, they will not be competitive. They will go out of business, and unemployment will increase even further.
  Mr. Shore: I agree that we should think about the application of new systems to traditional industries. But it is clear that the Minister is about to put this topic to one side. Before he does so, will he tell me whether he is

  527
  saying that because Professor Ashworth, the chairman of the information technology Neddy did not know that software statistics were included in the appendix to the paper that he presented, all his judgments—including the conviction that on present trends the United Kingdom will not have an independent broad-based information technology industry by the end of the decade—are invalidated and wrong?
  Mr. Baker: Professor Ashworth was concentrating upon hardware. Hardware is now responsible for only about 50 per cent. of the cost of any system, as hon. Members will know from their experience of buying word processors or other equipment for their secretarial services. The cost of the software is an integral part of all systems.
  The report was selective and partial. However, I would not wish to dismiss it. It contained much that was useful. For example, it reminded us that we do not have much of an office equipment industry in this country. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dayell) asked me about the technological spin-off from the transputer and the chips. The reason why it is important that Britain should have a chip-making capability is that the manufacturers of electronic equipment must have access to those chips at an early stage. If they do not have access to them, other countries will step in first.
  Most of the trade deficit arises in the office equipment field.
  Mr. Budgen: What about INMOS?
  Mr. Baker: There is no chance that I will forget INMOS, but the point that I am currently making—
  Mr. Budgen rose——
  Mr. Baker: I would give way to an hon. Member who had spoken in the debate, but not to my hon. Friend, who has been present only at the beginning and the end of the debate.
  There are deficiencies in the British office equipment industry. That is why we have promoted the development of the small microcomputer companies Acorn and Apricot, that is why we saved ICL in 1981—ICL has become the most successful mainframe computer company in Europe—and that is why we have encouraged the development in the United Kingdom of word processing companies. We do not want to import all that electronic equipment.
  Where does Britain stand in relation to France, Germany and our European partners with regard to high technology? In 1983 our usage and consumption of microchips exceeded that of Germany. That was an exceptional achievement, because the German economy is stronger and larger than ours. In that year we consumed about 29 per cent. of all the integrated circuits and microchips used in Europe. Our share had risen from 26 per cent. to 29 per cent., while that of Germany had fallen from 32 per cent. to 26 per cent. More electronic equipment is being designed, developed and made here than in any other European country. We have the fastest-growing electronic industry in Europe.
  One of the reasons why we are in that position is that we have taken certain initiatives. For example, there is the case of Acorn and the BBC micro. That programme has been triumphantly successful. We introduced it for social reasons. We wanted children leaving school at the age of 16 or 18 to be able to communicate with the new
  528
  technologies. One of the spin-offs of that socially motivated plan was that we were able to give considerable stimulation to that company through public purchasing. It has now become established as the main world supplier of educational computers. There is a possibility that the computer will be adopted by the Indian education system as the basic computer for use throughout India. That is a real triumph and an enormous business opportunity.
  We are making progress., not only in computers but in educational software. Teaching programmes are row written in England, principally at Newcastle polytechnic and by a private company in Birmingham. We should be proud of that. In the 19th century we exported textbooks throughout the world—Macmillan, Longman, Heinemann-Durrell's algebra and Kennedy's latin primer.
  Dr. Bray: That was in the 19th century.
  Mr. Baker: And in the 20th century. The textbooks of today and tomorrow will be the software programmes, and we have a world lead in that technology. In order to maintain our position and to increase and expand our role, we must have the basic technologies in this country.
  Mr. Sayeed: In the four or five minutes that are left, will my right hon. Friend reassure us that we shall not, through the sale of INMOS, lose to overseas countries the intellectual property and the technical expertise that have been built up in that company?
  Mr. Baker: I am about to deal with the importance of INMOS and of the microchip industry.
  We should not think of microchips in isolation. There is a whole series of interlocking technologies, and it is just as important for us to have a world lead in fibre optics as in some semiconductor technology. It is quite wrong to believe that INMOS alone represents the main part of the British microchip industry. The fastest growing semiconductor company in the world is based in Manchester. it is Ferranti.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baker: I must resist the blandishments of my hon. Friend, because I am about to deal with microchips.
  INMOS is not alone. There are nine factories in Britain making semiconductors and integrated circuits. Ferranti is the fastest-growing electronics company in the world. I can give another example from a multinational company. The Opposition are hostile to multinational companies, but in Southampton there is a company called Mullards, which is a subsidiary of the multinational company Philips. That company manufactures in Southampton and designs its own chips in south London. It has complete independence from the mother company. It has a world lead in a specialised field—that of teletext and viewdata chips. That company is enabling us to maintain a world lead in teletext and viewdata technology.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Goodbye, Mr. Chips.
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman comes from Scotand. He should be grateful for the investment in chip technology in Scotland. More people in Scotlnd are now employed in the high technologies than in traditional industries such as engineering and shipbuilding.
  I wish to say something about INMOS but my task is made difficult by all the interventions. I agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

  529
  for Trade and Industry, who recognised that it was right to establish INMOS. Since 1978, there has been a change. In 1978 there was a dearth of risk capital available for any technological investment in Britain. Larger companies were guilty of sins of omission. They did not invest. The City was not interested, and the private investor was ignorant. The position has now been totally transformed. Plenty of private capital is available for investment in high technology. That is why we believe that the future capital requirements of INMOS should be met from the private sector. That is not what the Opposition want.
  Mr. Shore rose——
  Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? I am about to deal with the criteria that will be used in the various options and possibilities that we are actively pursuing. We shall be concerned with jobs at Newport, a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), and with the technology spin-off, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We shall also be concerned about the continuing technology transfer. The House would expect us to be concerned about the price. We have heard the ludicrous suggestion that the Treasury want us to sell cheaply. No Treasury ever wants anyone to do that. I assure the House that we shall protect British interests in the deal on INMOS and that we shall protect technological interests.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 248.

  Division No. 377]

  [7.00 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Alton, David

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Deakins, Eric

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dixon, Donald

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dobson, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Dormand, Jack

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Barnett, Guy

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Bell, Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Blair, Anthony

  Ellis, Raymond

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Boyes, Roland

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foulkes, George

  Cartwright, John

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Clay, Robert

  Freud, Clement

  Clwyd, Ms Ann

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Cohen, Harry

  Golding, John

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Gould, Bryan

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hancock, M.

  Crowther, Stan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  530

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Park, George

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Patchett, Terry

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Penhaligon, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Pike, Peter

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Redmond, M.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  John, Brynmor

  Robertson, George

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rogers, Allan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, J. W.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lambie, David

  Ryman, John

  Lamond, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leighton, Ronald

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Litherland, Robert

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Loyden, Edward

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCrea, Rev William

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

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Stott, Roger

  McTaggart, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tinn, James

  Martin, Michael

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wareing, Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Weetch, Ken

  Michie, William

  Welsh, Michael

  Mikardo, Ian

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, William

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cope, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Crouch, David

  Ancram, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Durant, Tony

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

  Dykes, Hugh

  Beggs, Roy

  Eggar, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fallon, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Favell, Anthony

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Body, Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fox, Marcus

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Roger

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gale, Roger

  Budgen, Nick

  Galley, Roy

  Butterfill, John

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Chope, Christopher

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Colvin, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Conway, Derek

  Greenway, Harry

  Coombs, Simon

  Gregory, Conal

  531

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

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Grylls, Michael

  McCusker, Harold

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Maclean, David John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

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

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Madel, David

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Maginnis, Ken

  Harris, David

  Major, John

  Harvey, Robert

  Malins, Humfrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Malone, Gerald

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Marlow, Antony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mates, Michael

  Hayes, J.

  Mather, Carol

  Hayward, Robert

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Henderson, Barry

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Mellor, David

  Hind, Kenneth

  Merchant, Piers

  Hirst, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Holt, Richard

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Hordern, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Moate, Roger

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Moore, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Irving, Charles

  Murphy, Christopher

  Jackson, Robert

  Neale, Gerrard

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Needham, Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Newton, Tony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Nicholson, J.

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Normanton, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Onslow, Cranley

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Knowles, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Knox, David

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Lamont, Norman

  Parris, Matthew

  Latham, Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Pawsey, James

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Porter, Barry

  Lee, John (Pendle)

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

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Powley, John

  Lightbown, David

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Lilley, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  532

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Sumberg, David

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thompson, Donald (Caldar V)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rost, Peter

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rowe, Andrew

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Viggers, Peter

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Waddington, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Waller, Gary

  Shersby, Michael

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Silvester, Fred

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sims, Roger

  Watson, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Whitney, Raymond

  Speed, Keith

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Spencer, Derek

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Squire, Robin

  Wood, Timothy

  Stanbrook, lvor

  Woodcock, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Yeo, Tim

  Stern, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the importance of the United Kingdom establishing a strong position in world information technology markets; welcomes the substantial contribution made by the information technology programme of Her Majesty's Government to the international success of the industry; and supports the objective of Her Majesty's Government, of transferring Inmos to private ownership.'.

Piece Hall, Halifax (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
.13 pm
Mr. Roy Galley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a modest measure seeking a slight variation in Sunday trading laws in a unique building in the town of Halifax. The Bill, which is promoted by the Calderdale metropolitan borough council, is intended to make lawful certain types of trading on a number of Sundays in the year in a building of great significance in the history of Halifax, the Piece hall.
It is not the council's intention in promoting the Bill simply to create in Halifax a trading centre that will be characteristic of any other trading centre elsewhere. The purpose is rather to enhance the attraction of a special, even unique, building, which is a tourist feature of the area, in which Sunday trading is seen not as an end in itself but as a means of attracting people to the building in which that trading takes place. So unique is the building that, in the opinion of the Civic Trust, there is only one other market hall in this country that is comparable in scale and design, and that is Covent garden. In passing the Bill, the House would not be setting a precedent applicable to other buildings in this country.
The Bill, for the metropolitan borough council, is an important step in its policy of developing tourism in the area, which contains Halifax, several surrounding towns and rural areas. Some important environmental works have been undertaken to enhance the tourist prospects in the district. The council has designated not only Piece hall, but the towns of Hebden Bridge, Sowerby Bridge and Todmorden as holiday resorts as part of that strategy, and they are working together in a co-operative effort to boost the economy and to develop the tourist centres of the area.
Halifax has several fine buildings worthy of preservation, as well as several buildings of the Georgian era—the same period as the Piece hall. It has a superb Victorian town centre, the jewel of which is the town hall. It was the last work of Sir Charles Barry. Indeed, it has been claimed that Barry's work in the House was but a preparation for the building of Halifax town hall.
There are also model villages, built by Victorian industrialists and philanthropists, and many fine churches as well as an extensive industrial heritage. A commentator, in 1980, said that, more than any other town in England, Halifax illustrates vividly the continuity of industrial history from the early heyday of the domestic cloth trade through the age of technological innovation to the present day, and that visually, Halifax is one of our most impressive towns. It is upon that important aspect of the heritage of Halifax that the Bill largely rests.
Mr. Martin Stevens: Does my hon. Friend have any assessment, should the Bill be passed, of the amount of trading, if any, that would be taken from surrounding towns, cities and villages on the basis that they would not be permitted Sunday trading?
Mr. Galley: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall deal with that point as I develop my speech. He may wish to intervene later.
The Piece hall is the principal tourist feature of the area. It is unique in construction and worthy of promotion in its
534
own right. It is one of the most outstanding 18th century buildings of its kind, and the primary attraction of the district. In the competitive world of national and international tourism, the borough council feels bound to do all that it can to make this major attraction the best possible means of producing income for the local and national economy. The promotion of Piece hall is considered to be of benefit not just to Halifax, but to the surrounding Pennine area and the rest of west Yorkshire.
Visitors who are attracted into the hall will find there information about the surrounding area. To some extent, that covers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). People will be attracted to travel to the surrounding areas from the Piece hall, which is the centre of tourist information for the district. The object is to make the hall a magnet attracting people to a much wider area.
The council's efforts in promoting Piece hall as a local amenity and tourist centre have already been recognised by the achievement, since 1976, of four major national awards, including those from the Civic Trust and the British Tourist Authority.
The council attaches great importance to the promotion of tourism in Calderdale in common with other attractive areas of Yorkshire and the north in the face of a decline in the traditional industries upon which our prosperity was based at the end of the 19th century and the early part of this century. Since 1974, the council has become acutely aware of the economic vulnerability of Halifax during a period of rapid economic change. The economy was based very much upon machine tools, textiles, particularly carpets, and the food and drink industry. Many of those firms have suffered a decline in recent years.
The census of employment taken in 1978 illustrates the imbalance of the local job structure and forms much of the basis of the council's concern to develop new ideas for the local economy. In 1978, 51 per cent. of employees in Halifax worked in the manufacturing sector compared with a national average of about 30 per cent., 8 per cent. of the work force was engaged in the textile industry compared with 2 per cent. nationally, 9 per cent. was in mechanical engineering compared with 4 per cent. nationally, and 15 per cent. was in the food and drinks manufacturing sector compared with only 3 per cent. nationally. In 1978, only 49 per cent. of the Halifax work force was engaged in the service sector, compared with 65 per cent. nationally. There has thus been a serious reduction in the number of jobs, especially in the late 1970s. A large number of jobs have been lost in the sectors that I have mentioned, including 38 per cent. of the jobs in mechanical engineering and 30 per cent. of those in textiles.
Although there was a 4 per cent. decline in population between the censuses of 1971 and 1981, by May 1984 unemployment in Halifax was 11·5 per cent. That is slightly below the national average, but the increase in unemployment has been markedly greater in recent years.
Against that background, the borough council is pursuing a wide range of initiatives to diversify local employment opportunities, including the development of tourism which is an important part of the economic strategy. A strategy has been developed to enhance the many tourist aspects of Halifax and surrounding districts in an endeavour to conserve and improve the outstanding architectural heritage of the area. Projects are currently

535
being funded by the National Trust, which is especially interested in the development of Halifax as a tourist and conservation area.
The Piece hall itself was constructed in the late 1770s around an open rectangular courtyard with colonnaded buildings consisting of 315 rooms in which lengths of finished woollen cloth were offered for sale by weavers to merchants who then sold them in other parts of the country. As the industrial revolution developed, the importance of the Piece hall declined somewhat, but it is directly related to the textile trade which formed the basis of the city's prosperity. Although the building subsequently became somewhat dilapidated, in 1928 it was listed as an ancient monument and in 1972 it was listed as a grade 1 building of historical and architectural interest. In the past 10 years, it has been renovated to a very good standard at a current cost of between £3 million and £4 million, and it has become very much the recreational centre of Halifax. For example, it is the centre for band concerts. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware of the importance of brass bands to the culture of west Yorkshire.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Before continuing his interesting guided tour of the Piece hall in Halifax, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill is in no way an attempt to drive a coach and horses through the Sunday trading laws, but merely a sensible, modest and reasonable attempt to provide a few jobs and to sort out some of the mish-mash of uncertainty in the Sunday trading laws?
Mr. Galley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Bill is about the Piece hall, the creation of jobs in Calderdale and west Yorkshire and the preservation of our local heritage. The Sunday trading aspects are incidental, but they will be extremely helpful in developing the heritage of the area.
Under section 51 of the Shops Act, Sunday trading is possible in the Piece hall on 18 Sundays per year when shops and stores may sell the types of goods set out in the relevant schedules. It is important to note that the Piece hall market is intended not as a means of satisfying everyday shopping needs, but as a setting to which people can resort predominantly for recreational purposes.
Initially, a Sunday market of this kind proved a considerable economic success, but over the years its impact has dwindled and it is now too small to justify many shops being open. The potential of the present restricted market has thus not been achieved and it has not proved a sufficient attraction to draw to the hall the number of visitors that local people and the local council would be justified in expecting, given the historical and architectural importance of the building. The council believes that it would be helpful if the scope of the market were widened. That is why it has promoted the Bill.
It is important to appreciate that the Bill will not allow Sunday trading without restriction or on every Sunday of the year. There are two specific restrictions. First, the number of Sundays must not exceed 18 in any one year, which is in line with the provisions of the Shops Act. Secondly, the Bill imposes a duty on the council to ensure that sales authorised under clause 3 would be predominantly such as to maintain the special and distinctive character of the Piece hall as a traditional textile centre and thus an important link in the unfolding history of Halifax. The first restriction is clearly intended to bring
536
the Bill within the existing framework of the Shops Act and the relevant schedules thereto. The second is intended to ensure that shops and stores allowed to operate will mainly sell goods related to textiles. That is closely related to the original use of the hall as the commercial centre of the local wool and cloth trade and it will also be complementary to the present use of certain parts of the hall for museum purposes.
At present, there are two museums related to the Piece hall which bring to life the industrial heritage of the area. The promoters of the Bill believe that although the hall itself with the museums and art galleries in it, all of which are open on Sundays, provides a centre well worth visiting, the number of visitors attracted to the hall on Sundays would be significantly increased if the market could operate more fully. As a result, it is hoped there would be a considerable improvement in the local economy and in the attraction of visitors to the area. It would also enable the full recreational potential of the hall to be used.
I am aware of the doubts of some Members about the propriety of trading on Sundays, but the position of the Piece hall is such that local inhabitants will not be disturbed, and the primary purpose of the Bill is to enhance a recreational facility. The stores and shops are small businesses operated by their owners, so there is absolutely no question of staff being required to work additional hours against their will when they would prefer to rest.
The Bill is an ideal compromise between those who support and those who oppose a change in the Sunday trading laws. It will allow those who wish to trade and to shop within the great limitations of the Bill to do so in an entirely separate location, well away from any residential development. Those who wish to have a quiet, residential and holy day will be able to go about their business undisturbed.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the relevant trade unions are being consulted about the proposal and, if so, what their views are?
Mr. Galley: I do not think that there will be much trade union involvement, because the people who would operate the shops and stalls would be owners and small business men selling their own goods. Those operating the services in the Calderdale metropolitan borough council agree with the plan. As far as I know, the trade unions that represent those who work for the metropolitan borough council do not disagree, nor does any other organisation in the town.
Some people would take a parochial attitude and say, "Why should limited Sunday trading be permitted in Halifax when it is not permitted in my town?" The Bill seeks not to allow Sunday trading in Halifax per se, but to allow a Sunday market, which is predominantly related to textiles, in one unique building, the like of which no other town or city possesses. The building has unusual and historic links with textile trading. According to the Civic Trust, the building has no equal, other than Covent garden.
Mr. Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend answer his own question and tell the House why Halifax should have this advantage?
Mr. Galley: If my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) had listened to me, he would appreciate the reason for it. Halifax has a unique building,

537
which is paralleled only by Covent garden, and which is underestimated as part of our national heritage. We seek to develop the building and the local economy. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member has a comparable building in his constituency, he can introduce a private Bill of this nature, which seeks to enhance the local heritage and economy.
Some traders claim that such a Sunday market may put them at a disadvantage. That is not true. Such a market cannot satisfy everyday shopping needs. The goods offered would generally be bought by visitors, who would not shop locally, and would be special purchases related to the heritage and economy of the area. In nearby towns it is claimed that visitors will be attracted to Halifax, to their disadvantage. That is not true. Part of the purpose of the venture is to attract people to a wide area, whose architectural, rural and other delights would be marketed in the Piece hall. It is important that the House recognises the tourist potential of west Yorkshire and the many benefits that it can offer.
Others ask why the market should be held in a publicly owned building, the consequence of which is to bring in revenue for the council. By "council", they mean ratepayers. The local people will benefit if the Bill is enacted. Those who will run the market stalls will be the proponents par excellence of private enterprise.
The council is asking the House to support its endeavours to enhance its most important building as a tourist attraction. It seeks to introduce into Halifax what already exists in London. London has many Sunday markets, which provide considerable recreational activity. The range of the proposed market would be more limited than the markets which already exist in London. The council seeks to create a living and working building rather than to preserve a relic. It seeks support for a strategy which will encourage local initiative and enterprise in the face of local economic problems. The borough of Calderdale and people of Halifax deserve the support of the House in seeking economic rejuvenation.
7.36 pm
Mr. Martin Stevens: I declare an interest. Since before entering the House, I have been a consultant to the store chain that is known as Woolworth Holdings Limited. A tale about that company may be relevant in this case.
Woolworth recently conducted a study in Massachussetts where Sunday trading, which had been forbidden following a wide-ranging debate in the legislature, was accepted less than six months later. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) will be glad to know that a reason for the change was that three or four of the major store groups, together with the trade unions, changed their position, because they found that Sunday trading in adjacent states was drawing as much as 25 per cent. of shops' incomes from Massachussetts to Vermont. Since Sunday trading after 12 noon has been permitted, the workers are better off, trade is much more buoyant and, strangely, the volume of trade which had been promoted in adjacent states has not materially fallen. Everyone is better off and enjoying a higher standard of living.
Next month, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will inform the House about Sunday trading generally, when he receives the report from the working
538
party, which he has set up. Tonight is not the appropriate time to discuss that. Although I wish the citizens of Halifax nothing but health, happiness and prosperity, it is bizarre that the city fathers are promoting a measure that will allow people to trade on Sunday and at the same time are hurling thunderbolts in the form of summonses at everyone else who attempts to trade on Sunday, including my friends in B and Q—part of the great Woolworth empire.
Hon. Members should think carefully about whether they wish to permit a privilege in one area which they deny to others. The House may feel that this matter should more properly form part of the general debate.
Mr. Galley: Why are special privileges allowed to operate in parts of London, when they are not allowed to operate on a very limited scale relating only to textiles in one building of national heritage importance?
Mr. Stevens: Most of the Sunday trading exceptions allowed in London are on the basis of religion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) did not mention in his speech.
I was on the last sentence of my brief intervention when my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) kindly intervened. I have said what I had to say, so I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House——
Mr. Gary Waller: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he acknowledge that some of his remarks might be misleading? He said that the local authority was planning to trade but that it would still enforce the law against others who wished to do the same. He should be aware that the local authority must enforce the law, whether or not it believes in the Shops Act 1950, because it is the enforcement authority. He should also understand that the local authority does not wish to trade in the Piece hall; it simply wishes to enable traders to carry on their activities and at the same time bring in some revenue for the ratepayers of Calderdale. I hope that my hon. Friend was not deliberately misled on this point.
Mr. Stevens: I cannot make up my mind whether my hon. Friend's intervention was designed to keep me on my feet for longer or whether he was making a point to which he believed I could usefully respond. I imputed no vice to the burgesses of Halifax; no suggestion was made that they were behaving illegally or improperly. All that I said was that until now—presumably it will continue—they have implemented the Sunday trading laws in the area for which they are responsible. We have been told that the council is the owner of the Halifax Piece hall, and it is splitting hairs to say that it is not asking to trade on Sunday itself but simply wishes to permit trade to be carried on in premises of which it is the proprietor. However, if my hon. Friend's rebuke will be appeased by my confessing my fault, I am happy to do so, and I hope without further delay to resume my seat.
7.42 pm
Mr. Conal Gregory: As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) said, the Bill seeks to secure a change in the law on Sunday trading. It would be for local use. The building about which he spoke so eloquently is not relevant to the principle under discussion.

539
I oppose this piecemeal approach to legislation. It is a back-door method that would set apart one place from other parts of Britain at a time when the legislation on trading hours is under public discussion.
The Shops Acts, which govern only England and Wales, derive from the Fairs and Markets Act 1448. The Shops Act 1950 is unsatisfactory for Sunday trading legislation, because there are countless anomalies. Although alcohol can be purchased on a Sunday, mothers cannot legally buy powered milk for babies; sales of bibles are prohibited, but not magazines devoted to what is euphemistically called soft pornography. In consequence, a committee of inquiry has been asked
"to consider what changes are needed in the Shops Acts, having regard to the interests of consumers, employers and employees, and to the traditional character of Sunday, and to make recommendations as to how these should be achieved."
We should not introduce legislation that would cut across the inquiry, its findings and their consideration by the House. The Committee's deliberations may lead to the most far-reaching change for the retail trades in England and Wales since the abolition of resale price maintenance in 1964. It will influence jobs in the labour-intensive retail trades, the structure of retailing and certainly consumer prices.
This is very much a live issue in York. One retail sports store, which took £91,000 on a Sunday in January, was fined £250 plus costs. Following the judgment in Stoke-on-Trent City Council v. B and Q (Retail) Ltd. on 17 May, I hope that local authorities will ensure that traders stay within the law. If a local authority condones unlawful Sunday trading and does not use its power under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to institute proceedings, I hope that responsible bodies such as chambers of commerce will ensure that the statutory duty is enforced by an order of mandamus on judicial review, as in Regina v. Braintree district council last year.
I wonder whether Calderdale borough council has prosecuted illegal Sunday traders. The question was asked, but my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has so far declined to answer it. I also question, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), whether there might be illegality in some areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax did not say whether the citizens of that authority have petitioned against the Bill. If they have, not only does the Bill go against the democratic will, but it will seek a back-door breach in advance of the findings of the committee of inquiry. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to oppose this ill-conceived legislation.
7.46 pm
Mr. Marcus Fox: I must support my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). I have listened to this short debate in astonishment. We all accept that piecemeal legislation is undesirable, but the laws on Sunday trading are ludicrous. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) admits that he is involved with a chain store. What is surprising is that the opponents of Sunday trading——
Mr. Martin Stevens: I did not "admit" it; I stated it.
Mr. Fox: I was seeking to show that, by stating it, my hon. Friend had admitted it. There is an unholy alliance between my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and the two Opposition Members in the Chamber—that is an amazing attendance—who are concerned about the trade
540
unions. We know what happened with a previous measure that wished to bring some sense to Sunday trading. The chain stores and multiple retailers and the trade unions managed to defeat us, although it cannot be said that the people outside this Chamber believed that the present laws were right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax is trying to introduce a little change. How many people have visited the Piece hall? I have, and I can tell the House that it is a farce that tourists cannot go there on Sundays and buy the goods described by my hon. Friend. The suggestion that it would affect other traders in Halifax is not true. I have heard it said that there is no abuse of Sunday trading in London, but I know of many markets there. Does my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) dare to get to his feet and tell the House that York, which is the capital city of my county—it is a gem of a city into which tourists flood—has no shops open on Sundays? There are exemptions in all tourist areas, especially on the coasts.
This tiny measure would at least show people outside the Chamber that we will not put up with these ridiculous laws for much longer.
7.50 pm
Sir Michael Shaw: I should like briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) on the Bill. If hon. Members who feel inclined. not to support the Bill were to go to see the Piece hall, as I have done many times, they would realise that it is a tourist attraction, but one that is not getting the attention it warrants. When people are staying with friends in the west riding of Yorkshire and want to go somewhere for a day out, one of the attractions they must consider is the Piece hall. It spells out uniquely the character of our past.
The traditions of the Piece hall have been borne in mind in the request for an extension of the permission to trade on Sundays. A general bar is not being sought. Great care has been taken over the restoration of the Piece hall and other buildings in the area. We have a genuine tourist attraction that has a great historical content.
An easement of the law on Sunday trading is available to many places that have special historical interest. It should be available in this case. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to give the greatest sympathy to the case put forward by my hon. Friend. I hope that they will support the Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 37.

Division No. 378]

[7.52 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bottomley, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hanley, Jeremy

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

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Conway, Derek

Haselhurst, Alan

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Dorrell, Stephen

Hayes, J.

Durant, Tony

Hayward, Robert

Eggar, Tim

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Fookes, Miss Janet

Hind, Kenneth

Forth, Eric

Hirst, Michael

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Howard, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Freud, Clement

Hunter, Andrew

Galley, Roy

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Gow, Ian

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

541

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

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

Knowles, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Knox, David

Spencer, Derek

Lawler, Geoffrey

Stern, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Maude, Hon Francis

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mellor, David

Thurnham, Peter

Murphy, Christopher

Watts, John

Nelson, Anthony

Whitfield, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Powley, John

Wood, Timothy

Proctor, K. Harvey

Rowe, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Mr. Marcus Fox and Mr. Gary Waller.

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

NOES

Alton, David

Moynihan, Hon C.

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Neubert, Michael

Body, Richard

Onslow, Cranley

Cockeram, Eric

Pawsey, James

Farr, Sir John

Penhaligon, David

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Rhodes James, Robert

Gregory, Conal

Skinner, Dennis

Haynes, Frank

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Holt, Richard

Spearing, Nigel

Irving, Charles

Stanbrook, lvor

Jackson, Robert

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Lilley, Peter

Waddington, David

McCrea, Rev William

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

McCusker, Harold

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Winterton, Nicholas

Maclean, David John

Woodcock, Michael

Marek, Dr John

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Tellers for the Noes:

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed and Mr. Greg Knight.

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day
  Housing Defects Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 5

  SERVICE OF NOTICES
  '(1) Any notice or other document under this Act may be given to or served on any person and any application or written request under this Act may be made to any person—

  (a) by delivering it to him or leaving it at his proper address, or

  (b) by sending it to him by post,

  and also, where the person concerned is a body corporate, by giving or making it to or serving it on the secretary or clerk of that body.
  (2) For the purposes of this section and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 as it applies for the purposes of this section, the proper address of any person Shall be—

  (a) in the case of a body corporate or its secretary or clerk, the address of the principal office of the body,

  (b) in any other case, his last known address,

  and also, where an additional address for service has been specified by that person in a notice under section 18(3) of this Act, that address. '—[Mr. Gow.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  8.2 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The purpose of this new clause is self-evident. The procedures in the Bill, notably in clauses 3, 4, 6 and 11, require the service of notices by the appropriate authority, and the making of written requests by the person eligible for assistance. In some cases, there are time limits. It is important that it should be clear what will suffice to comply with the requirement to serve a notice or to make a written request. The Bill does not at present deal with the mechanics of serving such notices and making such requests and the new clause remedies that omission.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

  HOUSING DEFECTS COMMISSION
  '(1) There shall be established an advisory committee to be called the Housing Defects Commission (in this Act called "the Commission") for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State about the operation of this Act (other than section 20).
  (2) The Commission shall consist of not less than 10 members who shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and one of those members shall be appointed to the Chair and another to the deputy chair. The members shall include persons representing appropriate authorities and persons representing organisations of occupants of defective dwellings whether designated under section 1 of this Act or otherwise.
  (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the Commission may advise the Secretary of State about the financial consequences of the exercise of power under this Act for local authorities and any other matters which appear to the Commission to be relevant to the discharge of any powers and duties created by this Act.'—[Mr. John Fraser.]
  Brought up and read the First time.
  Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 2—ANNUAL REPORT
  'The Secretary of State shall in each year publish and lay before Parliament a report giving details of the number of dwellings for which reinstatement grants have been given or repurchase has taken place and showing the number of such dwellings and the amount spent in respect of such dwellings as a percentage respectively of the total number of dwellings held by local authorities which are defective and of the total expenditure required to demolish, replace, repair or reinstate the total number of defective dwellings held by local authorities.'
  Mr. Fraser: New clause 1 seeks to establish a housing defects commission, which would advise the Government on the operation of the measure. Secondly, it would include as members of the commission not only people appointed by the Minister but representatives of local authorities and, not least of all, occupants, including tenants, of defective dwellings. I suspect that the attitude of architects, civil servants and Ministers would be different if they spent about five to 10 years living in somewhere such as Ronan Point, or living in premises that were damp, full of condensation or falling apart, as they are in many parts of the country. Therefore, it is a good idea to have a housing defects commission that has on it people with experience of non-traditional dwellings that have proved to be defective. Thirdly, and with a little ingenuity, the commission would advise the Minister on the consequences of the measure, not just for privately owned dwellings that have been bought from local authorities but from publicly owned defective homes.
  New clause 2 would oblige the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the operation of the Bill, and effectively it would demand of him that he report to Parliament on the state of all defective houses and flats. The new clause epitomises the Opposition's view—a view that is not shared by the Government—that those who bought houses that have proved to be defective from local authorities should be treated on a par with those who have chosen not to buy their homes from local authorities because they were either too poor or too wise to buy defective premises that were built mainly, in the case of houses that we are discussing, of prefabricated reinforced concrete.
  Mercifully, Britain is free from natural disasters. We sometimes read how, elsewhere, earthquakes have decimated homes in a region or how a flood can tear the heart out of a city. It happened in Bilbao only a year ago. Happily, in Britain, nature does not make many mistakes—it can quite safely leave that to the native genius of the British themselves. In Britain, when we have disasters, they are normally man-made or, in case I am accused of sexism, or neglecting the Prime Minister, they may be woman-made as well.
  By 1981 there were approximately 5 million publicly owned homes and recent Association of Metropolitan Authorities reports tell us that within that total there are 500,000 non-traditional dwellings built before 1960, for which the final cost of repair, refurbishment or even demolition will be about £5,000 million. In the words of the AMA, the defects are
  "very serious and relate to the main structural components as such. They will be very costly to repair but the problem is very much of continuing deterioration."
  The figure for post-1960s, industrialised and system-built dwellings is contained in a second AMA report. It thinks that a realistic figure for industrialised dwellings is
  544
  1 million in local authority stock, and says that the defects problem is widespread and has affected low, medium and high-rise forms of construction. It estimates that the average cost of repair per unit will be £5,000, making a repair cost for post-1960s defective dwellings of around another £5,000 million, bearing in mind that 10,000 of such dwellings have already been demolished at a cost of about £300 million. That is for buildings built in the past 20 or so years.
  We complain about the partiality of the assistance to those who have bought their homes because about 30 per cent. of all publicly owned homes are now likely to be within a class of dwelling that is a probable candidate for demolition or at very least costly repairs. It is not lighthearted use of language to describe that as a man-made disaster. That is in the context of 80,000 families a year being accepted as homeless, of twice that number of families applying to be treated as homeless and of over 1 million dwellings in England alone classified as unfit.
  The Government have a heavy responsibility for the development of housing. Local authorities were bulldozed into new industrialised systems, and warned off being cautious or careful. Subsidy arrangements were twisted to fit the new industrial housing revolution. Governments of both parties set the quotas, and gave priority to the processing of industrialised schemes. Most of all, Government, through the National Building Agency, classified this new breed of dwellings as safe, sound, reliable and good for a mortgage or loan for 60 years. That is the context in which we are discussing the limited assistance contained in the Bill.
  If the Government established a housing defects commission and were obliged to give an annual report to Parliament it would do a number of things. First, it would underline the massive nature of Britain's housing problem, particularly in non-traditional homes built mainly after the last world war, some of which are literally falling apart and many of which have already had to be demolished.
  Secondly, the new clause will provide evidence for the Opposition's indictment of Government policy on publicly owned housing stock. There are several counts to that indictment. The first is that the only area where there is a strategy or policy is where defective homes have been sold by local or other public authorities to private owners. There is no credible strategy or policy for those that were not sold into the private sector.
  As I have tried to emphasise time and time again throughout the passage of the Bill, there are about 15,000 or 16,000 private owners who have purchased defective non-traditional homes from local authorities for whom help is provided in the Bill. About 1·5 million homes are occupied by local or public authority tenants whose homes are equally well classifiable as defective, which are of much the same construction as the homes dealt with in the Bill, but for which no help is provided at all. For every one home for which assistance is provided in the Bill. there are about 99 homes for which there is no credible strategy or policy whatever.
  The Minister has some biblical support for what he is doing, in the words of St. Luke:
  "Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine, just persons, which need no repentance."
  Apparently, the Minister takes the view that the private purchaser who repents over the exercise of the right to buy will inspire joy in the Department of the Environment. But

  545
  for every one of those who bought there will be another 99 who are living in rotten conditions, and whose homes may be literally falling apart, for whom no assistance is provided. A report will show up the lack of any policy towards those who remain in the public sector.
  In many local authorities—for example, Epping and Rochester—the capital cost of meeting the obligations under the Bill will be two or three times the entire public housing investment programme of those authorities. There are other authorities, such as Leeds, where the most recent HIP allocation was £28 million to deal with new construction, assistance in the private sector by way of improvement and repair grants, and to provide new build as well. That £28 million has to cover all those areas of expenditure, when the estimated bill for dealing with industrialised and non-traditional homes alone is £104 million. Yet no provision is made in the Bill for such an authority and there is no statement of Government policy.
  Mr. Gow: The truth is that no additional powers need to be given to local authorities in order that they may deal with the houses which remain in their ownership.
  Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged during a previous debate on this subject, the cost of repairs can in many cases be spread over a large number of years. It is a grave mistake to believe that these houses are in every case in need of urgent repair. On the contrary, in many cases repairs will not be required for many years to come.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Fraser: I accept what the Minister says about local authorities having the power to carry out repairs. But that power is pointless without the resources. Over the past five years the HIP has been cut by about 60 per cent. The total amount planned to be spent in public housing in the public expenditure White Paper for 1985–86 is in real terms 35 per cent. of the figure that was dedicated to public expenditure on housing in 1979–80. It is true that that includes both revenue and capital. To talk about the power or the ability of a local authority to deal with the backlog of repairs, and sometimes the demolition, of defective industrialised non-traditional stock is nonsense. The Government have cut back savagely on public expenditure on local authority housing. It is meaningless to say that the local authority has the power to do these things. It is rather like saying that a father has the power to provide for his family while he is unemployed at a higher standard than the rate of benefit he is getting.
  A commission report will also provide evidence that money coming from public sources is inadequate. In the current year the HIP for England and Wales is £2·5 billion. A large part of that will go into the private sector by way of repair and improvement grants. Some of it will go on new build and about £1 billion will be allocated to the major repair and renovation of local authority stock.
  If—this probably answers the Minister's question—for the next 10 years the HIP is not cut further—there is no guarantee of that—and if it remains exactly the same, if the apportionment of resources in that programme remains the same, and if all the money that is available in the current year for the renovation and repair of local authority dwellings is spent on nothing but post-war nontraditional industrialised and system-built housing, one
  546
  will be able to deal with the backlog. That would mean that over the next 10 years nothing at all would be spent on the rest of the local authority stock.
  If the Minister is obliged, after receiving the advice of the housing commission, to report such matters regularly to the House of Commons and to the nation, the massive nature of the problem that we have with local authority housing would be underlined.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Do the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted include the capital receipts that local authorities can receive from the sale of surplus land and housing?
  Mr. Fraser: Yes. The figure that I quoted of £2·5 billion is the gross expenditure after taking into account the 60 per cent. recovery of capital receipts for local authorities. The net figure shows the cutting of public investment on housing. The net HIP for England and Wales is about £1·8 billion compared with the gross figure of £2·5 billion, which I quoted in order to be fair to the Government by giving some credit for capital receipts.
  With more regular reporting and a greater public focus on the problems which I have described, the spotlight would be turned on the misjudgment of Whitehall in dealing with housing. The Department of the Environment and the Minister for Housing and Construction should be engines of compassion for those who are badly housed in Britain. No one disputes that hundreds of thousands of families live in inadequate, overcrowded and shared accommodation.
  The Department should provide work. The repair and improvement of our housing stock would provide employment. Lord knows, Britain needs more employment. It ought to be underlining the need for housing investment. Instead, it acts as a Department of liquidators for the Treasury, providing the sacrifices for each annual review and cut in expenditure.
  Mr. Derek Spencer: The Bill is based on the fact that the houses have suffered from a latent defect which only became known in the past two or three years as a result of the work of the Building Research Establishment. Is it not a fact that there has been substantial expenditure on some of those houses by local authorities in recent times? Therefore, it is nonsense to categorise them as being a collection of houses that have been uniformly neglected over the years.
  Mr. Fraser: The allegation is not that they have been neglected over the years, but that, under pressure by Ministers of both parties, to meet high expectations by the public for a big building programme, a large number of dwellings were built which at the time, according to the judgment of the National Building Agency, ought to have stood the test of time but have not done so. It is not a matter of neglect, and it is of no use now to try to apportion blame.
  I ask the Department of the Environment to recognise that there is a major problem. That no one disputes. The Government do not fail to recognise this, but they acknowledge the nature of the problem, and the ability to demand a solution, only where a house has been sold by a public or local authority to a person in the private sector.
  The Government continually talk about cuts in public expenditure, and have savaged the public housing budget of the last five years, yet, to retain credibility in relation

  547
  to their right-to-buy policy they provide in the Bill for a capital expenditure of approximately £250 million, because they recognise the serious nature of the problem in the private sector. If the Government can recognise the serious nature of the problem for those in private accommodation who have bought houses from the public authority, they should give parity of treatment to those who remain in the public sector. Acceptance of the clause would put into perspective the problems of those in both sectors.
  I illustrate the problem from something that occurred in my constituency. There is a number of Wates PRC-built houses in the constituency. People who have come to my advice bureau are deeply concerned that they find it impossible to sell their houses because of deterioration, and the reputation that those houses have attracted. I have been able to tell those private owners that, when the Bill is enacted, they will be able to go to the local authority and, irrespective of the other housing priorities of the local authority and of the funds available to Lambeth borough council, they will be able to demand a reinstatement grant, or to sell to the local authority. They will have an immediate solution to their problems, and their rights against the local authority will be mandatory. I have been able to give them those reassurances, and I have advised them that I will help the Bill on its way.
  Last Friday, someone from that group of houses came to see me who has not bought her house. I have been told in a letter that recently the masonry on the PRC house has been disintegrating. One corner of the house is coming apart. The gutters are broken and water is running down the prefabricated walls, penetrating the inside of the house and causing mould in the bedrooms. The stairs are coming apart. The movement of the house is causing the windows to rust and buckle so that five window panes have cracked under pressure. The differential movement in the house has caused the front door to drop. Some defects are recent, and in some cases the defects go back to 1978. This complaint comes from a lady aged 75 who is finding it intolerable to live in the house. It cannot be right to allow a person who is a tenant to depend upon the availablility of resources from a local authority that is already penalised, that will be rate-capped next year and that has suffered a savage cut as between the amount for which it asked in the housing investment programme and the amount that was allocated.
  The intention of the new clauses is to underline the lack of parity of treatment between those in the private sector and the number of tenants—we are not sure how many; it may be 1·5 million families—living in defective homes for which there is no coherent policy, and for which insufficient resources are provided. The establishment of a commission that reports to Parliament will underline that inequity, and in time may allow it to be removed.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who was open in describing the purpose of the two new clauses, rehearsed arguments that he has adduced in earlier proceedings on the Bill. If we have not yet persuaded the hon. Gentleman that there is a distinction between what the Bill tries to achieve and the problems that exist in the housing stock in general, I fear that I am unlikely to persuade him of that tonight.
  Since the beginning of the legislation, we have insisted that the Bill has a specific purpose to help those whose
  548
  assets, having been purchased from public authorities, are suddenly devalued through no fault of their own. The discovery of a defect, which in many cases is a latent one and may cause no physical damage for a considerable period of time, may, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said, cause the value of the asset that somebody has purchased in good faith to drop considerably. It is to remedy that position that the Bill was originally brought before the House.
  I shall deal with the new clauses specifically in terms of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwood will realise that my reaction, and that of my hon. Friends, on reading new clause 1 was that it was an attempt to create a quango with the rather grand title of housing defects commission. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the purpose of such a commission would be to advise the Secretary of State on the operation of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman examines the record of the Government he may decide that such advice is not necessary. The Government have been aware of the problem from the start and they have taken the initiative and consulted throughout. It was not even a question of designation by the Secretary of State coming as a bolt from the blue. There will usually be ample time for interested parties to put their points of view to the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend said in Committee, it is unlikely that a designation will he made by the Secretary of State without full and proper consultation. I repeat that undertaking.
  In the detailed operation of the provisions, the Secretary of State can be expected to monitor carefully the working of the Bill. For that purpose, we have inevitably to be closely in touch with many of the categories of person whom the hon. Member for Norwood mentioned as possible members of such a commission—for instance, owners of defective houses, local authorities, building societies, the professions and the construction industry. I see no point in institutionalising that consultative process in the way envisaged in new clause 1. New clause 1 is unnecessary in my view. It would add nothing to the advice that my right hon. Friend has already sought, and intends to seek, in the operation of the Bill and the making of designations. To accept the clause would be to accept the creation of yet another unnecessary quango. I recommend the House not to accept the new clause.
  The hon. Gentleman said that new clause 2 is intended as a hook on which to hang the views that he has put before the House on the problems in the public sector.
  8.30 pm
  The new clause would establish a system of monitoring the scheme of assistance embodied in the Bill. When such a new measure is introduced, we need information on whether the policy objectives are being met and so that we can control public expenditure. The Government will arrange for the relevant information to be collected. We have not yet finalised the details, so I cannot give an exact undertaking about the way in which the information will be gathered.
  The new clause would require the Secretary of State each year to prepare and publish a formal report to lay before Parliament. Opposition Members, especially those who have had departmental responsibility, will know that we are talking not simply about running off a few tables and stapling them together. The preparation and publication of a formal report requires considerable preparatory work in a Department and adds considerably

  549
  to the cost of providing information. I do not know why that requirement is considered necessary in one respect but not in relation to other housing measures, unless that requirement is sought for the reasons that the hon. Member for Norwood has explained.
  New clause 2 is also unnecessary, partly because of the reasons that I have given, but also because it is too rigid. We intend to monitor the operation of the scheme, and hon. Members will be able to question the Government on the results of the monitoring. We do not need a formal report. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood, when he has considered what I have said and since he has again rehearsed his arguments on the general problems in the public sector, will not press the new clauses.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I support the two new clauses, especially now that I have heard the Minister. He said that there was a distinction between what the Bill sets out to do to deal with the specific problems of former local authority tenants who have purchased their properties and the problems of the housing stock generally. The Minister went right to the heart of the new clauses and to what the Opposition have argued throughout the Bill's passage.
  There is no quarrel between the Government and the Opposition about the need to sort out and help those who have problems with purchased properties which turn out to be defective. The argument is about the overall context in which action is to be taken. The setting up of a commission and the publication of an annual report are crucial.
  It would be foolish for the Government simply to tell the House that they have a good record for dealing with the specific problem of purchased properties when so many as yet unpurchased properties cause so many tenants to suffer perhaps more severely than the occupiers of properties with which the Government are dealing.
  The proposed commission and report would do a simple job. The new clauses seek to set the Government's record in implementing the specifics of this legislation in the overall context of the general housing stock. The Government are not tackling the problems of tenants who have not sought to purchase their properties and who live in defective housing.
  The commission would specifically, in its composition and breadth of remit, deal with the overall local authority housing stock. The report would cover not just properties that have been purchased, but those that have not.
  Parliament has to consider such problems, provide the money and scrutinise Government action. If Parliament is to make a proper judgment of the Government's actions and intentions, it should be presented with the opportunity to examine the overall picture and to consider the problems of those who are not being assisted by the Government as well as narrowly considering the Government's record of assisting those people covered by the Bill.
  My hon. Friend eloquently described the principle of panty between those who have purchased and those who have not. I am proud to support that principle. I should have thought that the Government would have made more of an effort to embrace that principle, but they have not. The Bill deals solely with the interests of people who have
  550
  purchased their homes. The Government have singularly failed to take account of the interests and needs of those who remain tenants in defective housing.
  I recall when the Minister came to the House to introduce the Bill. I pressed him to explain what would happen to those who had not purchased their properties and to local authorities faced with the enormous problems and cost of trying to assist them. He said that local authorities' problems would be taken into account by the Government when setting the housing investment programme allocations. What nonsense. If taking into account local authorities' problems means halving the housing investment programme allocations over three years—as my local authority and others have experienced—I fail to see how the Government can claim to be attempting to deal with tenants' difficulties.
  In my constituency there is a tower block called Gambier house, built by the Bison wall-frame method of construction. Following the publicity that that method has attracted in the last year or two, the tenants of that block are deeply worried about the safety of their homes. In response, the local authority rightly undertook a thorough survey of the block to establish whether it is safe. The results are not yet known.
  Unidentified sums may have to be spent by the local authority to ensure that the tenants are secure, safe and content. The local authority does not have sufficient resources to deal with the problems. Severe constraints have already been placed on its capital programme of work. When, two or three weeks ago, I raised the related issue of asbestos, which is dealt with in later amendments, I was told that no additional money would be available for local authorities to deal with that problem.
  We can only assume that the Government, in the same way, will say that there is no additional money for local authorities to deal with the problems of defective housing as and when they become evident to local authorities. If so, other aspects of local authority housing programmes will have to suffer. It means that other tenants, to accommodate the problems of tenants in defective housing, will have their hopes and aspirations set back because local authorities will not have sufficient funds to help both those categories.
  If the Government are really serious in saying that local authorities have the power to deal with the problem, they must surely appreciate that they do not have the resources to so so. If the Government are really serious about wishing to deal equally and fairly between those who have and those who have not purchased, they should at least have the decency to look at the overall cost to local authorities, to consider the picture around the country as a whole and to consider how the necessary programme of work can be phased. They must agree with local authorities how they can help with the necessary resources, without digging into the money already needed by other housing programmes.
  In asking for a commission to be established and for a report to be made to Parliament, the Opposition are simply seeking to assist the Government in that process. We are simply telling the Government that it is crucial, not only for those who have purchased but for those who remain as tenants, that there should be a properly funded programme of work over a number of years, and that that must be planned by the Government in concert with local authorities and tenants' representatives.

  551
  The proper way to go about that is through a commission. If the Government reject that idea, they are rejecting the interests, needs and hopes of all those tenants—desperate and anxious—who are living in housing that has defects and needs work to put it right.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) for missing the first few moments of his speech. No doubt he put forward the valid arguments that he, I and others put forward on Second Reading and in Committee. They should be supported in their entirety.
  The Government will probably not move on this issue. We understand their approach—they intend to deal only with the smaller, specific category of those who have bought their properties and not with those living as tenants in the defective system-built houses. We do not expect a sudden conversion on the road to Damascus—although there should be, in the interests of long-term, domestic, satisfactory housing for a large number of our fellow citizens. They will need help sooner or later. The truth is that investment in housing sooner is cheaper than investment in housing later. If we do not spend money now on putting right the increasing number of houses that are deteriorating because they were built so long ago, when the problems increase the money will be even less readily available.
  Of the two new clauses that we are discussing, we believe that the second, new clause 2, is the more important and desirable. It proposes an annual report. I ask the Minister to think again about the Government's attitude towards that proposal. If he cannot do so tonight, I hope that he will do so before the Bill has passed through its final stages. There are two reasons why an annual report would be useful and of great advantage to all sides. First, it would allow both us and the country to see exactly what proportion of this housing has been dealt with in a way that guarantees it a long-term future and its occupiers a decent life style. Secondly, it would provide the Minister with an opportunity to tell us what he proposes to do about all the other types of system-built housing which have not yet been included in the groups that he has mentioned as eligible for assistance.
  8.45 pm
  There are many examples of that. One, of which I know the Minister is aware, is the problem with the 14,000 houses built under the British Iron and Steel Federation scheme after the war. The main intentions were to use surplus steel and to contribute quickly to demand for housing after the war. That housing is now in a bad state. Many of those properties are in London, including some in the borough of Ealing which is represented by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. That category of housing needs special help, support and money.
  The Minister will have seen the recent article in the Building Trades Journal. It makes a fair, technical appraisal of the problems and suggests ways to deal with them. It makes it clear that one problem that becomes worse in that form of housing is the risk of fire. The passage of time as well as the corroding structure makes those houses more problematical.
  An annual report would be an ideal opportunity not just to deal with the drop that the private sector—which will be eligible for money—represents in the ocean, but to
  552
  allow the Minister to tell us how categories that have not been dealt with will be handled—both for those who have bought and for those who are still tenants.
  If we are to have some concessions, but not many, from the Government, I hope that one will be an agreement to come to the House with an annual report so that, in time, we can put money into our housing stock that will provide investment for us and will increasingly prevent those living in those properties from what is already a most unpleasant experience that becomes worse by the week and substantially worse by the year. We must ensure that the job is done, and an annual report is the only way to do so.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: I can well understand that the Government do not like quangos, but the Opposition do not like the exclusion of tenants, and the local authorities responsible for those tenants, from the beneficial provisions of the Bill. The tenants far outnumber the owners who will benefit from the Bill.
  The Government are abandoning the local authorities in respect of the statutory responsibilities which they, as landlords, must fulfil to their tenants, because the costs of remedial work will be horrendous in the years ahead. The Government say that there is no immediate problem for certain types of structure, but the fact remains that there will be an almighty rush by those who have bought and now find that they can either claim the reinstatement grant or part of the repurchase price through the provisions of this legislation. I do not think they will take the view that time is on their side, and to that extent they will have a more immediate remedy than the tenants who remain.
  On Second Reading I pointed out that, in an ironic sense, the Government, who are such firm advocates of council house sales, were denying thousands of tenants in those houses that have already been identified as having structural faults the possibility of home ownership, because building societies will not give mortgages or provide facilities to those who are in houses which have been so identified and have not thus far been purchased.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), with his Edinburgh education, recalled the phrase, "Ministers will take into account". That phrase is not unknown north of the border. It usually means that they will do nothing, although they do not want to make it too well known that they will do nothing. They simply say that they will take whatever it is into account. I think I see the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), nodding in assent; he has the honesty to admit his rhetorical tricks. I have spent so much time dealing with the Scottish housing Minister, including a session of the Scottish Grand Committee this morning, that I know him only too well.
  The AMA has put a figure of £5 million on remedying the faults that it believes have been identified, and that excludes the Scottish figure That argues that there is a case for a body which can address its attention to the difficulties that will have to be resolved in a way that Departments of State do not necessarily gear themselves to because of the many other responsibilities which they must fulfil.
  On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) made a significant contribution about the Government's adoption of a moral stance in dealing

  553
  with the plight of owners. As I said then, and I repeat, we look for that same moral stance in dealing with the difficulties facing tenants.
  I too am sceptical about annual reports. However, the purpose of the new clause is to have more than a document which will provide information. It is designed to have a document the preparation of which will oblige those responsible for doing things to state their case, to assess the nature of the problem and outline the action which will be taken.
  The sort of problems that we discussed more fully in Committee have shown that there will be considerable on-costs for local authorities throughout the United Kingdom. The sooner the Government admit that they have a responsibility to tenants, as well as to owners, the better. For those reasons, we shall press the matter to a Division.
  Mr. Ancram: I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I took it that he understood that the commission being proposed should be for the protection of the interests of the tenants of defective housing. If that was his intention, it is not reflected in the new clause, which says in subsection (1) that the advisory committee shall have
  "the purpose of advising the Secretary of State about the operation of this Act".
  Therefore, I took it that it referred to this Bill and the application of it to those who have purchased their houses.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has failed, however, to read further on in the new clause because under subsection (3) there is included within the remit of the committee
  "any other matters which appear to the Commission"—
  not to the Secretary of State—
  "to be relevant to the discharge of any powers and duties created by this Act."
  The Minister could not have been listening when I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks that the context within which the measure has come before Parliament, and within which it will operate, is crucial to Parliament in assessing the performance of the Government under the Bill.
  Mr. Ancram: However the hon. Gentleman reads subsection (3), it relates to the operation and the effects of this measure and, as I said, the Bill is designed to help those who have purchased their houses. To that extent, the intentions that he portrayed are not reflected in what he has proposed. That reinforces the view that I put at the outset when I said that it would be a quango which would be there to advise and help the Secretary of State consult on matters about which he is already fully advised and on which he already fully consults. On that basis I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.
  I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The information that he seeks is, and will be, available and can be pursued through the normal process of parliamentary questioning. To set up a formal report and all that that would entail, in terms of cost and time, to produce the same information in a more formalised and rigid form would not serve the purpose he has in mind.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: How, then, are we to have progress reports on the Government's consideration, for
  554
  example, of British Iron and Steel Federation houses, which should be the subject of reports to the House on a regular basis?
  Mr. Ancram: The Minister for Housing and Construction visited BISF houses yesterday and he is fully aware of the situation. As I said earlier, once this legislation is operative, it will be in everyone's interest to see that its purposes are being fulfilled, and for that reason the information will be gathered and progress monitored. That information would obviously be subject to questions from hon. Members. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will feel able to withdraw the clause.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 122.

  Division No. 379]

  [8.58 pm

  AYES

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  McWilliam, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Dewar, Donald

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Penhaligon, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

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

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Stott, Roger

  Janner, Hon Grevilie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Litherland, Robert

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.

  McCartney, Hugh

  NOES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Barry

  Ancram, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Beggs, Roy

  Hirst, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Holt, Richard

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Howard, Michael

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Jackson, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Cope, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Cormack, Patrick

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Couchman, James

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knox, David

  Durant, Tony

  Lamont, Norman

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lilley, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fox, Marcus

  McCrea, Rev William

  Gale, Roger

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Galley, Roy

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maclean, David John

  Gow, Ian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gregory, Conal

  Malone, Gerald

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Marland, Paul

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mather, Carol

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mellor, David

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Merchant, Piers

  Harris, David

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Harvey, Robert

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, J.

  Moore, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  555

  Neubert, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Newton, Tony

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thome, Neil (Ilford S)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

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

  Viggers, Peter

  Powley, John

  Waddington, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watson, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Watts, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whitfield, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Spencer, Derek

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stanbrook, lvor

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stern, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. John Major.

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  APPEALS
  `The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for persons to appeal against decisions and determinations made under this Act namely—

  (a) any decision by a local authority and any exercise of a judgment or discretion under this Act;

  (b) any determination of a value by the district valuer.'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 7, 9, 15, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 32.
  Mr. Fraser: We discussed this matter in Committee. In a series of clauses, but especially in clause 3, local authorities must be satisfied that certain conditions are met. That means that a local authority, which might be hard up for cash, will have to make a judgment about the eligibility of the owner of the dwelling for repurchase or reinstatement grant and about its resources. That is bound to expose local authorities to criticism, even if they act in good faith—I am not suggesting that anybody would act spitefully or maliciously—if they make a decision that runs contrary to the properly held views of the private owner or his professional advisers on, for example, whether a dwelling qualifies. There is bound to be a nasty taste in the mouth if there is such a difference of opinion and if it is thought that the local authority's decision was motivated by, for example, shortage of cash. Much the best way of tackling these matters is to make the local authority's decision subject to some form of appeal or review by the court. It would be wrong to allow a local authority to be the provider of funds and the judge of whether an owner is eligible for assistance.
  That is why I have tabled new clause 3, which introduces the right of appeal. However, I do not think that I need to say more, as I believe that the Government have taken the point on board in their amendments.
  Dr. David Owen: I support new clause 3 and hope that the Government intend, through some of their amendments, to clarify this matter in another place. I hope that if the Government make the matter justiciable and allow for appeals on decisions made by local authorities, they will take the opportunity in the other place to look more widely at the injustices that might occur for private tenants.
  I agree with all that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said. It is entirely right to remind the House of the financial pressures on local authorities. It is estimated that the defects provision could cost west country councils £76 million. I refer to councils in Avon, Devon, Cornwall, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire. There is a strong concentration of such housing in the west country. Bristol has 5,500, Restormel has 1,496, Plymouth has 2,528, Thamesdown has 2,004 and Taunton Dene has 998. In the west country, wages are low and local authorities have generally kept within Government guidelines. Therefore, they do not have enough money to absorb such expenditure. With these financial pressures, good local authorities will find that they have to make difficult decisions or, as the hon. Member for Norwood said, people will feel that a decision has been prejudiced by financial stringency.
  Having read the report of the Committee stage, I understand that the Minister has not yet come up with any clear-cut assurances that local authorities will have the costs refunded to them. I understand that he has been able to offer some generalised commitments to take account of housing need, but he has not been able to quantify the extra resources that will be needed. In those circumstances, a method of appeal becomes extremely important.
  I attach importance to paragraph (b), which relates to the district valuer. He is in a critical position in regard to determination of the price that should be paid. My constituents are worried that an unrealistic costing will come from local authorities, so they want to be assured that they will be able to appeal.
  9.15 pm
  My plea to the Minister, especially if he is prepared to look at the new clause and to table amendments in the other place, is to consider what happens to private tenants who are unable to get mortgages. Those people in particular should have a right of appeal if their local authority will not make special provision for them.
  I thought that on Second Reading the Minister showed great understanding of the problems that people would face when trying to raise mortgages. I understand, too, that there have been lengthy discussions with building societies to try to reach agreement on the matter. I have not heard a statement from the Minister about that, unless I have missed it. I urge him to make it possible for householders to challenge local authority decisions and to take into account not just market valuation but the availability of mortgages. If mortgages are not available, it is still my belief that local authorities should provide them.
  Some method of appeal should be available on a wider scale than that included in new clause 3. If the Minister intends to meet the intention behind new clause 3, I hope he will assure us that he will interpret it rather wider: not just on the valuation or on the local authority's judgment, but on that most serious area of all—mortgages.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr.

  557
  Owen). The concentration of defective houses in the south-west is not surprising, because all the Cornish unit versions of these houses were built originally at St. Austell in my constituency. One of the authorities most affected is Restormel, which covers St. Austell.
  Although we wish for and would support an amendment that would improve the appeal procedure, the real answer is to create a situation in which it is not necessary for the local authorities to buy back the houses.
  Taking into account the houses in my constituency and bearing in mind the views of those who have already purchased them, there seems to be no desire to sell the houses. After all, the people bought them voluntarily only a few weeks ago. They do not wish to sell them back to the council, other than because of their fear that they will not be able to sell them again because of the difficulties that potential buyers would face in getting mortgages. The Minister could save a great deal of Government expenditure if he could persuade mortgage companies to make a more realistic appraisal of the Cornish unit houses or offer some kind of guarantee.
  I welcome new clause 3. I believe that it will help in some marginal circumstances. However, I ask the Minister to apply his mind to the advantages of solving the real problem. People fear that in the long term they will not be able to sell the properties.
  Because of these fears, it is worth seeking information from the Minister on how bad the Government believe the properties to be. People have lived in them for 20 years. There seems to be little damage to them. They are old-fashioned, and I cannot recommend their sound insulation standards, but there is not much wrong with them. One would be hard pressed to find such a house anywhere in the south-west that is in real danger of collapsing. I have not seen one, but pieces of concrete are flaking off some of them, where, say, a bar has gone rusty. That is not ideal, and I can understand why people want repairs to be carried out.
  The hype and the feeling towards these properties suggest that one should walk down the streets very carefully, because, if one stamps too hard, two or three houses might fall down. That is manifestly not the position. People who have lived in the houses for years have in the past 12 to 18 months bought them from the local authority. They live in the houses, so they have some reason to back their own knowledge.
  Therefore, although I welcome the new clause, I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to a different solution. By all means, let us have the buy-back provision, but most people do not want to sell, although they may eventually use the buy-back provision at great cost to the Government, merely because they fear that the resale value of the property later will be vastly less than they expected because of the mortgage problem.
  Mr. Gow: I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). He will no doubt have seen the Building Research Establishment information paper published in October 1983 which stated that the great majority of the houses studied, including the Cornish units to which the hon. Gentleman referred, were found to be structurally in sound condition, that cracking in a proportion of houses of all types would not occur for some years and that a few houses might no display any evidence
  558
  of deterioriation for 30 years or more. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and I commend those wise comments to the House. This affects another point that was made earlier in our debates in that the local authorities' responsibility to carry out repairs may fall to be discharged only over an extended period.
  I should make it clear to the right hon. Member for Devonport that a reinstatement grant will be made as the suitable and proper form of assistance only if the property will be mortgageable in the private sector when the work has been carried out, because part of the problem is that people who bought their houses believing them to be without defects now find that prospective purchasers cannot obtain martgages. That is absolutely central to the scheme. If the local authority is not satisfied that the property will be mortgageable instead of a reinstatement grant it will give the private owner the opportunity to sell the house back to the authority.
  As the right hon. Gentleman was especially concerned abut mortgageability I should also tell him that we have been having discussions with the Building Societies Association and the National House Building Council about a proposal that the council should operate a scheme for approving methods of repairing PRC houses and providing a warranty similar to that offered by the NHBC in respect of new houses built in the private sector. If such a scheme can be devised, as I hope that it can, that would meet the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety.
  In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) reminded the House that it was identical with one that he moved in Committee on 22 May, when I gave an undertaking to consider the thinking behind it. With the new clause, we are discussing amendments tabled by the Government in response to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in Committee. Our amendments do not go quite so far as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but I believe that they meet the main part of his anxiety.
  Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 would delete from clause 2(3) (b) the words
  "the appropriate authority are satisfied that".
  As a result, the test of eligibility under clause 2(3)(b will be objective and the county court or sheriff court will have jurisdiction to determine the matter under clause 2(3)(b), clause 12 or clause 13 as appropriate. The question of eligibility for assistance, which is dealt with in clause 2, is fundamental to a person's entitlement to assistance. Amendment No. 15 opens all questions of eligibility to determination by the county court.
  In these circumstances I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Chope: Will the Minister tell the House whether the same provision should apply to the subsection relating to special circumstances, in which a person in special circumstances wishes to sell his house back to the local authority because he has no time to wait to see whether he is entitled to a reinstatement grant? That is contained in clause 3(5). The same test is contained in that clause as the test which the Minister says he is reviewing in relation to the earlier clause. Will he consider amending this at the same time?
  Mr. Gow: We have considered that possibility, but after the most careful thought we concluded that the best way to proceed is as the Government have suggested, with

  559
  these amendments. My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I promise to look at it again. If we think that a further change should be made we shall table an amendment to that effect in another place.
  Mr. John Fraser: Before I ask leave to withdraw the new clause, I shall make some comments. I accept that the Government have tried to meet the point that I made in Committee, and that local authority decisions are now justiciable. However, in technical matters regarding whether houses are defective, it is sometimes better for a body, such as the Lands Tribunal or the body that deals with leasehold enfranchisement valuations, to make the decisions, rather than a county court judge. A county court judge or sheriff will have to make a judgment on the competing evidence of two surveyors. It may be cheaper and quicker for the decision to be made by arbitration. Moreover, many people fear going to court. People who sought to take advantage of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 felt inhibited because they had to appeal at the county court and to a berobed judge and because of the costs of legal proceedings.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that on occasion people have serious reservations about the decisions of the district valuer. Under the 1980 legislation, the appeal from a decision of the local authority about the valuation of a dwelling lies with the district valuer. From time to time people genuinely believe that the district valuer is wrong. There should be a further review, perhaps by a senior district valuer from another district, or by a body such as the rent assessment committee, which at present deals with valuations in leaseholder format cases. In some cases it is not right that the district valuer is the final arbiter. Where there are serious grounds for disagreeing with his conclusions, the matter should be taken elsewhere.
  I ask the Minister to think about those matters. They are not party political matters, and I ask about them in good faith. Perhaps he will consider taking them further in another place. I know that my colleagues in the other place may seek to raise them.
  Mr. Gow: I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking for which he asks.
  Mr. Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  DESIGNATION OF DEFECTIVE DWELLINGS
  9.30 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'may' and insert `shall'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 10, after 'construction', insert 'or presence of asbestos'.
  No. 4, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—
  '(8) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in making a designation under this section the Secretary of State shall have no regard for the date of design or construction of the buildings concerned nor of the materials or methods used in their construction save insofar as these have given rise to the qualifying defect. '
  No. 5, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—
  560
  '(8) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in making a designation under this section the Secretary of State shall have no regard for the date of design or construction of the buildings concerned.'.
  Mr. Fraser: Amendment No. 1 makes it mandatory for the Minister to take a designation order if he is satisfied that dwellings are defective. I realise that it is unusual to place a mandatory duty on Ministers, and if he assures the House that he will always act on information coming to him to the effect that a group of houses or a class of dwellings is defective, I shall be satisfied. But it is important that the House is assured that the Minister will not pick and choose between groups of dwellings. and that once evidence comes to him that is similar to the evidence on the existing 26 classes of dwellings, he will make an order giving the purchaser appropriate rights to a repurchase or reinstatement grant.
  Once the Minister makes a designation, the position will be watched carefully not just by owners but by tenants. Even if only a few people have purchased houses outside the 26 classes already proposed to be designated, and even if no homes are purchased in a class of defective dwellings, the Minister should still be willing to make a designation under clause 1. He should not have regard to when the dwelling was designed or built, which materials were used or the method of construction; the only matter that should be in his mind when he decides whether a class of dwellings is defective is the test in the Bill.
  Shelter says:
  "In the future, designation under the Housing Defects Act will give official recognition to the existence of defects in a particular class of buildings. As such it will be an important focus of action by both owners and tenants."
  It is likely that tenants will wish their homes to be designated, because once they have been designated as defective it will be much easier for the tenants to put pressure on their local authorities for the appropriate steps to be taken to remedy the defects and, in turn, it will be much easier for local authorities, when putting forward plans for their housing investment programmes, to say to the Minister, "You have already designated this class of dwelling as one in which the owners will be assisted by local authorities under the Housing Defects Act, but we can make out a case for having more assistance from the Government under our housing investment programme to provide for the needs of our tenants." It will be a lever that tenants can use on their local authorities, and that the authorities can put on the Government. For that reason, the definition of defective dwellings should be widely drawn to assist their occupants to assert their rights more effectively.
  The Minister should also be willing to designate dwellings as defective if they have a problem with asbestos, because that will enable tenants, as opposed to owners, to put pressure on their local authorities. I do not know how many dwellings that are badly affected by asbestos, which is expensive to remedy, have been sold into the private sector, but there may be a few. I expect that a few misguided people will have got them. It is a massive problem for local authority tenants.
  Lambeth council has identified 11,000 dwellings that will need major repairs and refurbishment because of the presence of asbestos. It is calculated that in Lambeth the total number will eventually reach about 20,000. The cost of removing asbestos from those dwellings will be approximately £20 million. Lambeth comes in for little

  561
  criticism, but in case this leads to criticism, I must point out that most of these dwellings were built by the Greater London council, not by Lambeth borough council, and were handed over forcibly under the Government's reorganisation. The opportunity to designate a dwelling because of the presence of asbestos should not be omitted, not only to do justice to the private owner but to give additional weight to the arguments of the tenants.
  Mr. Robert Litherland: I have a vested interest in my constituency. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce a statutory scheme of financial assistance to private owners who have found that houses sold to them by public authorities are defective. The Bill will cover houses that are defective because of design or construction and it will affect only about 16,500 dwellings which were built before 1960. I do not know why the Government picked 1960 as the magic year, because most of the defects that have been discovered in Manchester have been in dwellings built since 1960.
  The Opposition have never been opposed to the sentiments of the Bill. What we have opposed from the very beginning have been its glaring omissions. The Bill will assist a number of private owner-occupiers. These people have had a raw deal and it is right that they should be reimbursed. They are victims of bad design or construction, untried building techniques and poor quality materials. They are the victims of system package deals which have blighted many housing estates, as we have heard tonight, in the Second Reading debate and in Committee.
  Council tenants are in an even worse predicament if Manchester is anything to go by. It is estimated that about 1 million houses have been built by different system methods since 1960. The Minister has informed us that not all or even the majority of them suffer from serious defects which are the result of the building system. I do not believe that the Minister had done his homework. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and other hon. Members have given examples of catastrophes experienced by different local authorities.
  I know what has happened in the Manchester area. How can the Minister ignore the request that the systems to which we have repeatedly referred should be included? How many times must I tell hon. Members, in the House and in Committee, about the devastation and upheaval caused by Bison Concrete Northern Limited? The Wellington street estate was built 10 years after 1960, the date stipulated in the Bill. Yet 10 years after construction, 1,018 flats that were built by that company are being demolished. Can hon. Members imagine the human suffering caused by living in the midst of the demolition? It is a living nightmare because of vandalism, fires and burglaries. Yet these tenants, through no fault of their own, have to live in deplorable conditions.
  The local authorities are not recognised in the Bill. They took the decision to build this type of accommodation on the persuasive arguments of various Governments, who altered housing subsidies to entice high density living, which will now have to be demolished. People will have to be rehoused and new buildings will have to be built, while the local authorities pay off the original loan debt charge. In this case, Manchester city council will be paying it off over the next 50 years, but that
  562
  is not recognised in the Bill. How can the Minister glibly say that there is no evidence that all or even a majority of these houses suffer from serious defects as a result of how they were built?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that an inspection had been made of properties built by Bison. If it was anything like the inspection made in Manchester by consultants who specialise in this type of property, the same problems will have been found. There will be inadequate bearings on bridge supports, stairwells leaning away from the main structure, insecure exterior wall panels, and an estimated cost to put the matter right of £9 million. There is no guarantee that if the council meets that sum, and that if such vast amounts of money are expended, the final result will be satisfactory. So, after spending £5·25 million on the Bison construction Manchester council is now having to spend another £9 million.
  Since £5·25 million has been spent, the Minister cannot deny that this deterioration was not caused by lack of maintenance. It is a bit like buying a broken-down car that is irreparable and trying to blame the mechanic when he cannot put it right. The £9 million, or whatever Islington council has to pay, will not put the matter right. These properties deteriorate as one looks at them. Manchester city council received permission from the Department of the Environment to demolish some of these buildings. What are the Government's future proposals to give financial assistance to local authorities in these positions?
  Bison is not the only contractor at whom I can point the finger of failure in this type of construction. Another contractor in my constituency, whom I have mentioned before, is Simpson and company. The same structural defects are emerging in a survey in an estate that that company built in the Hulme area of my constituency. New Jerusalems were being built, with Regency suites, terraces, and building contours, and we were shown artists' impression of courting couples walking hand-in-hand over rustic bridges and old people sitting in tree-lined square enjoying the environment. The reality is utter failure. Somebody, somewhere, must be responsible for the misery in these people's lives and the housing conditions that they are having to endure.
  The Government are turning a blind eye to the massive housing failures because they are well aware of the gigantic cost of putting them right. The Government are hoping that the problem will go away, but it is becoming more acute with Government cuts in local government spending. That, in turn, affects maintenance, which in turn accelerates the deterioration of these estates and forces demolition, so that the tenants have to be rehoused. The Government will not confirm or deny that there will be a freeze on new house building soon. That will have an effect, if it happens, on the problems of rehousing people who have to be decanted from these defective properties.
  That is the mess that the Government are in, and that is why we tell the Government that it is time to stop tinkering with the problem. The Bill does little to combat the disease of system building. That requires major surgery, and major financial support to get these properties sorted out.
  9.45 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) mentioned asbestos. That problem is reaching serious proportions on the estate that I have already mentioned.

  563
  I do not want to over-dramatise the situation but priority must be given to the problem caused by the recent use of asbestos in public buildings. Inspection teams consisting of councillors and officers have had to be set up to determine financial priorities after the asbestos content of building materials has been analysed. Decisions on financing from the HIP allocations have already been taken and special allocations have been put on one side to deal with the asbestos problem. About £750,000 has been put on one side by the city council from the 1984–85 allocation. That will not go far, because one estate has about 500 houses which were built wih asbestos roof sheeting, and the replacement cost is estimated at about £500,000. Any damage to such asbestos sheeting means that the whole roof must be reinstated with another material because once asbestos is damaged it is dangerous. Large estates in Manchester and in my constituency are now affected to some extent by the use of asbestos.
  It will be costly to replace asbestos that has been used for wall cladding, for example, on the deck access estates such as Wellington street and Hulme. It is all right for the Minister to say that that cost can be spread over several years, but the tenants want the repairs made now. Where asbestos has been used on exterior walls, rainwater pipes, gutters and so on, it can be removed with minimum effect on the tenant. However, if, as in the mid-1960s and early 1970s, asbestos has been used for lining such things as heater cupboards or outlet grills, the dangers are greater. Local authorities may then have to decant tenants, at an enormous financial cost.
  Such materials were once acceptable but are now found to be not only defective but dangerous. They have been used to build houses since the time stipulated in the Bill. The problem will not go away. I do not want to over-dramatise, but in my area this is an emotive issue. The money must be found to meet this great expense. We are asking the Government to recognise the problem and stop tinkering about with it. This is only the tip of the iceberg. They should make money available for defective property that is no fault of the tenant or local authority.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I rise briefly to add my pleas to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) on the issue of asbestos which is outlined in amendment No. 2.
  Asbestos was widely used, particularly in the construction of council flat estates in the 1950 and 1960s. It is now widely recognised that asbestos, especially soft asbestos and especially where it is either damaged or able to be damaged, is dangerous to health. The Minister of State, Department of Employment admitted as much to the House last autumn. The fears of tenants and those who have purchased flats on estates where asbestos has been used are great. There are fears about the effect of asbestos dust on their health, and especially on the health of their children, as children are more susceptible to damage from asbestos than are adults.
  I raised this issue under the Adjournment debate procedure some four weeks ago with regard to existing council tenants, and drew attention to the Bemerton estate in King's Cross which suffers particularly from this problem. It is an estate of 600 flats in my constituency. This very night tenants of the Bemerton estate are speaking at the housing committee meeting in the borough of Islington about the problems they face, and are seeking urgent assistance from the borough to remove all
  564
  dangerous asbestos from the estate. When I raised the matter, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who sadly is absent from the Chamber, expressed sympathy with the plight of the tenants and of the local authority, but offered no practical assistance to help the local authority. I believe that this is a failure by the Government to make available resources that are needed, and to recognise the problem.
  Because of that failure by Government to help local authority tenants, I support the amendment, which will provide some assistance at least to the small number of people who may have purchased such properties. A number of those who have applied to purchase or who have purchased, properties on the Bemerton estate is small, but the problem is as acute for them as it is for tenants who are left wondering whether the local authority will have sufficient money to deal with their problems. Any person faced with the danger of asbestos and the possibility of damage to his health or that of his children is surely as justified to be concerned about the condition of his dwelling as a person living in a dwelling which, by the nature of its structure, gives rise to problems.
  I therefore hope that the Government will accept, or show signs of being prepared to consider accepting, that the potential danger of asbestos is just as damaging co the welfare, health, safety and comfort of tenants and owners in properties, whether purchased or not, as the possibility of faults in the original construction.
  As we now know, the inclusion of asbestos was a design fault in the first place. I hope that the Government will accept this not just for the relatively small number of people who will be directly affected, but because it would demonstrate to thousands of people who will not be directly affected or assisted by the Bill, yet who face the same problem as tenants on estates in which asbestos is used, that the Government have recognised the problem, and will take it seriously when considering resource allocation to local authorities facing such problems. I hope that the Government will give some consideration to those thousands of people in the country who deserve a better hearing from the Government than they have hitherto had.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) asked for assurances. He should know that since we have introduced the legislation and taken the initiative we need no encouragement to pursue the course of action suggested in the amendment. When it is necessary to use the power to assist owners we shall. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw amendment No. 1.
  The hon. Member for Norwood and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) referred to dates. I suspect that in their minds was the date placed on houses using load-bearing PRC components. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwood appreciates that nothing in the Bill prevents the Secretary of State from designating a class of buildings by reference to such matters. Reference to the date when a building was designed or constructed will not always be arbitrary. I shall explain why it has arisen in one case. A type of building might be conveniently described by reference to the date of its design or construction, particularly when one firm designed or constructed several variations of the same type and only one variation was defective by reason of design or construction.
  When PRC load-bearing component houses were involved, our designation was limited to the category

  565
  constructed before 1960 because only they were shown to be defective as a class nationally. The 1960 date marks a change in the physical characteristics of PRC dwellings. Only those designed before 1960 have been shown to be defective as a class. If there were evidence that other classes of building met the criteria in clause 1 on a national basis the Secretary of State would examine the evidence and decide whether he should exercise his power to give assistance to owners, bearing in mind the other uses of his powers. The date of design or construction and the materials or methods used are likely to be relevant only in so far as they are typical of various classes of dwelling which have been, or may need to be, examined for the purposes of establishing whether they should come within the assistance scheme. In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction and myself are worried about asbestos. We do and shall continue to take it seriously. The amendment on that subject is unnecessary because clause 1(1) gives the Secretary of State power to designate as a class any buildings consisting of or including one or more dwellings if it appears to him that the buildings in the proposed class are defective by reason of their design or construction and, secondly, that general knowledge of the relationship between the proposed class of buildings and the defect of design or construction has led to a substantial reduction in the value of some or all of the dwellings. The amendment is unnecessary since, when a building is defective because of its design or construction through the use of asbestos, the terms of clause 1(1) already suffice. After that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
  Mr. Terry Davis: Do the Government intend to designate Smith houses so that they benefit under the Bill?
  Mr. Ancram: The Government have not yet made a decision, and it would be premature for me to make a statement about it now.
  When asbestos fits the criteria in the Bill, designation will follow.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Housing Defects Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Major.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Terry Daviss: I must express my disappointment, and that of my constituents, at the news that the Government still have not made up their mind whether to designate Smith houses as one of the groups that will qualify for the national scheme. It is more than a year since the Government, under pressure from both sides of the House, accepted the need for an investigation into Smith houses. The problem affects many people in my constituency and elsewhere in the city of Birmingham. There was all-party agreement when the Government announced at Easter 1983 that there would be an investigation by the BRE into a number of systems, and that Smith houses should be added to the list.
  We were disappointed that the report on Smith houses came out a few weeks after the report on the other types
  566
  of system-built houses. Yet that is almost six months ago. The Government have had sufficient time to reach a decision. On Second Reading, the Minister dodged the question. When he was pressed about Smith houses he told us—two months ago—that he was still considering whether Smith houses should be included in the mandatory scheme. He said that he expected to reach a decision following his visit to Birmingham in May. A month has passed since that visit, but we are still waiting for the Minister to make up his mind.
  While the delay continues, people in the city of Birmingham who have bought their houses from the local authority are in a state of great uncertainty. They do not know what will happen. They suffer from all sorts of defects in their houses. I know of people with failing eyesight who suffer the problem of wavy floors. The Environmental Health Department says that it is waiting for the bill. Other people are tied to Birmingham because, having bought their houses, they cannot sell them. They may wish to move because of the high rate of unemployment or they have retired and wish to move nearer to their families—perhaps married children living in other parts of the country.
  While the Government procrastinate, a kind of feudalism is being introduced in Birmingham—it is 20th century feudalism. If the Minister wants to intervene I shall be happy to give way. I hope that he will say that, in view of my remarks, he has decided to make Smith houses the 29th group.
  Mr. Gow: I visited Birmingham on 25 May and I saw a number of Smith houses. The problem is complex because we must decide whether the defects in the houses are common to the Smith type as a class or whether there is a local problem.
  Two options are available under the Bill. First, there is the designation by my right hon. Friend under clause 1 and, secondly, there can be a local designation if a house is not designated by my right hon. Friend. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will announce his decision about the Smith houses at the earliest opportunity. The issue is complex and I shall be glad to have a further word with the hon. Gentleman later.
  Mr. Davis: I shall be delighted to have further words with the Minister either in the House or behind the Chair. I hope that an early decision means before the Summer Recess, which is still about six weeks away. I do not understand why it is taking such a long time to reach a decision.
  It is more than a year since representations were made by an all-party delegation to the Minister's predecessor. It is more than six months since we received the report from the BRE. It is more than a month since the Minister visited Birmingham. I do not know how often he visits Birmingham, but he is very welcome there. I shall be happy to show him the defects in the Smith houses in my constituency if he needs any convincing of the seriousness of the problem.
  We look forward to an early decision. If the Minister does not reach a decision before the Summer Recess, he will hear something about that in the Adjournment debates.
  While we want an early decision, we hope that it will mean Smith houses being included in the national scheme. I appreciate the effect of clause 10 and the possibility of

  567
  a local scheme, but that is not satisfactory to hon. Members who represent Birmingham constituencies, for it would still depend on money from the housing investment programme.
  We have had recent experience of the Government cutting the housing investment programme for the city of Birmingham, and that has had a tremendous effect on improvement grants and on urban renewal in the city. We would not be happy, therefore, if Smith houses were added to the burdens on the city council of Birmingham. We want Smith houses to be regarded as a national, not a local, problem.
  Mr. John Fraser: The purpose of the amendment was to elucidate the use of clause 1, and we have had sufficient assurances about designation if buildings have asbestos in them, about the materials used in construction and about the way in which the Minister will work on the criteria which come to him in making orders.
  I wish, in making a final comment about asbestos, to illustrate the theme of equity between people in the private and public sectors. Under the Bill, a person who finds his home hard to sell—that is really what it amounts to—because there is a possible defect, or even because of the reputation of the building, will, under the circumstances, have the right to sell that dwelling back to the local authority and to move elsewhere.
  Many dwellings which are let have problems with asbestos. Those dwellings have no less of a bad reputation than the dwellings which may have an apprehended defect because of the use of PRC reinforcement. On the one hand, therefore, we have homes that are hard to sell but in respect of which there is a remedy. On the other, local authorities have homes which are hard to let because of their reputation and defects.
  In my constituency there is the new Loughborough estate, built by the GLC and handed over to Lambeth borough council. There, the problem of decanting tenants to clear the premises of asbestos is an absolute nightmare because the local authority does not have enough money
  568
  to undertake a quick programme; it must try to dovetail the removal of asbestos from the Loughborough estate with many other requirements, such as the re-proofing of other buildings. It is therefore a slow process because of insufficient money.
  It is even more difficult to manage the estate because of the reputation of the dwellings being hard to let, and I am sure that that experience is reflected by many hon. Members in their constituencies. There are also the problems of squatting and dwellings left vacant for long periods because people do not want to move into them.
  I plead with the Minister to try to treat both sectors with equal care. If he has the courage to designate dwellings in the private sector as being defective because there is asbestos in them, he will give a boost to local authorities and tenants if he can get their rented dwellings, dealt with more rapidly.
  However, I believe that the Minister has given sufficient assurances about the use of clause 1 to justify my begging to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

  ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE
  Mr. Gow: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 13, leave out 'the person concerned' and insert
  'a person to whom this section applies'.
  Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendments Nos. 8, 23 and 35.
  Mr. Gow: The purpose of this group of amendments is to clarify the position of personal representatives and beneficiaries and to extend the provision at present contained in claue 4(6) to include any person who acquires a relevant interest otherwise than on a disposal for value. These amendments improve the Bill, and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3, line 17, leave out from `(b)' to 'on' in line 18.
  No. 8, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'he' and insert 'that person'.
  No. 9, in page 3, line 20, leave out from 'defect' to first `the' in line 21 and insert `(bb)'.—[Mr. Gow.]
  Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 28, leave out from 'if' to end of line 31 and insert
  `the appropriate authority are of the opinion that—

  (a) work to the building that consists of or includes the dwelling has been carried out in order to deal with the qualifying defect, and

  (b) on the completion of the work, no further work relating to the dwelling was required to be done to the building in order to deal satisfactorily with the qualifying defect.'.

  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 21 and amendment No. 22, in clause 3, page 6, line 3, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert 'the work'.
  Mr. Ancram: This is essentially a technical amendment to recast clause 2(4). It is designed to make the subsection more readily understandable and effective and to prevent the absurdity of a person whose dwelling is properly reinstated from being able to pursue a new application to the point where the appropriate authority has to determine whether conditions in clause 3 or clause 4 have been met.
  Government amendment No. 21 proposes modifications to clause 3(7). The purpose of the amendment is to clarify and, in one respect, tighten, the drafting of clause 3(7). I do not wish to anticipate what Labour Members may wish to say in favour of amendment No. 22. However, its effect, if agreed to, would be the complete opposite of what the Government are trying to achieve. It would create ambiguity and uncertainty about the extent of the work whereas we are trying more clearly to provide a definition. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the House will accept the Government's amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 32, at beginning insert
  `In this Act, references to a disposal, except in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, include references to a part disposal; but'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 74.
  Mr. Roberts: These are essentially drafting amendments. Under clauses 2(2)(a) one of the basic criteria establishing eligibility for assistance under the scheme is that there must have been a disposal by a public sector authority of a relevant interest in the defective dwelling before the cut-off date. The fact that a reference to a disposal includes a reference to a part disposal is tucked away in clause 19. We think that it would be more helpful if that meaning were apparent in clause 2, which sets out the criteria for eligibility.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 12, in page 4, line 6, leave out `of' and insert 'on which'.
  No. 13, in page 4, line 8, after 'subsists', insert 'was acquired'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 3

  ENTITLEMENT TO REINSTATEMENT GRANT OR REPURCHASE
  Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 37, at beginning insert
  `Subject to subsection (8) below'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 24.
  Mr. Ancram: These are minor drafting amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 15, in page 4, line 37 [Clause 3], leave out 'they are satisfied that'.—[Mr. Ancram.]
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 1, leave out from 'determination' to end of line 8 and insert
  `the applicant is entitled to assistance by way of reinstatement grant if—

  (a) the authority are satisfied that each of the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) below is met, and

  (b) subsection (5) below does not apply in his case,

  and in any other case he is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase.'.
  This is essentially a drafting amendment to achieve a simpler statement of the circumstances in which repurchase is the appropriate form of assistance. The amendment will be helpful to those who administer these provisions.
  Mr. Tony Durant: The amendment applies to properties which could not be given a 30-year life following remedial works. In such circumstances repairs are uneconomic. Under the Bill, the suggested course of action is that local authorities should buy the properties back. The local authority in my constituency is concerned that one property in a row of houses might be so defective that it proves necessary to pull it down. Those living in the houses on either side of the house that is demolished will not know whether the property was sold on compassionate grounds because the occupant had to move somewhere else or whether it was in such a bad state that the council bought it back following a request from the tenant.
  When circulars are issued on this matter I urge that the owners on either side of the property that is bought back should know why the property has been sold. They should know that it is in such a bad condition that it cannot be repaired. The demolition of the house will have an effect on their property. If it is pulled down and there is an empty space between the houses on either side of the demolished property, the walls of the remaining houses might be affected. There are many technical matters to be taken into consideration. It may not be necessary for repairs to be carried out to the remaining houses on either side of the demolished property but the demolition could have an effect on the owners of the adjoining properties and they should know about it.
  Mr. Gow: In connection with any advice which the Department gives to local authorities, we shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point most carefully.
  Amendment agreed to.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Craigen: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 18, after 'individual', insert
  `and his successors in title'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 18, in page 5, line 20, leave out 'on satisfactory terms' and insert
  'for a period of not less than 20 years'.
  No. 19, in page 5, line 21, leave out 'lending institution' and insert 'building society'.
  No. 20, in page 5, line 35, at end insert—
  '(e) The applicant obtains a reliable guarantee for the quality and performance of the work required for a period of not less than 20 years based on a survey by a competent surveyor or structural engineer'.
  No. 36, in clause 5, page 8, line 28, at end insert
  'save that on completion of the work the applicant obtains a reliable guarantee for the quality and performance of the work for a period of not less than 20 years based on a survey by a competent surveyor or structural engineer.'.
  Mr. Craigen: I have been reminded that today is the longest day of the year. I have no wish to prolong the debate, and I am sure that Ministers will accept that these amendments are in the interests of ensuring that there is value for money.
  It is essential that, when the remedial work is carried out, there should be some guarantee of the longevity of PRC houses. I noted earlier the remarks of the Minister for Housing and Construction about his discussions with the building societies. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 involve the building societies. They deal with the length of mortgages, and with the lending facility. The building societies might be a safer bet, in respect of the purposes for which the amendments were designed.
  Amendments Nos. 20 and 36 are concerned with the professional way in which the work is to be carried out and guaranteed. Proper surveying and building works must be carried out, as I am sure that the Minister will accept that the degradation of concrete has sometimes occurred because of lack of diligence on the part of a clerk of works or because of a fault in the specification, rather than because of the Nature of the concrete. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept that some guarantee should be required by the public authorities in order to ensure that the houses will have a suitably long life after the remedial work is done.
  Mr. Durant: The amendments are at fault for two reasons, although I have great sympathy with their motivation. The cost of such surveys would be pretty high, and, as we have heard, the local authorities already have cost problems to cope with. The
  "guarantee for the quality and performance of the work"
  for a fixed period would put freehold property in the same position as leasehold property, in that when the guarantee ran out the value would immediately drop. The question of a guarantee or certificate or some other form of documentation is important, and I support the general tenor of the amendments.
  When speaking on an earlier amendment, the Minister referred to the building societies and the possibility of some system of warranty. I believe that that is what is required. I referred to this question on Second Reading. I hope that the Minister accepts that it is an important point. Someone may wish to stay in his house for a while. As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has said, not everyone will wish to rush away from the property, and not all the properties are in a bad state. Someone might wish to move after perhaps ten years. They might have had the work done, so everything is in order, but all the people who did the work might have left—or they cannot be
  572
  found—and all the people in the council offices might be new, so there is no evidence to give a potential purchaser any confidence that the building has been done. I do not accept amendment No. 16, but I support the motivation behind it.
  Mr. Gow: In Committee, the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) raised this point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) on Second Reading. The House will know that the Government proposed that the main form of assistance under the Bill should be grant-aid towards the cost of reinstating the defective dwelling whenever the dwelling concerned could be repaired satisfactorily. The House will also understand that the key requirement if reinstatement is to be an effective means of assistance must be to ensure that the owner of the house can sell the house after it has been repaired at a defect-free value.
  Without such an assurance of the property being mortgageable after repair, the problem that confronts the private owner today will remain unsolved. We have therefore provided that unless the authority that makes a grant is satisfied that, following completion of the reinstatement work, the house would be likely to be mortgageable in the private sector the owner will have the right to ask that the local authority buy the house.
  We are trying to establish a test of how the dwelling would fare on the open market immediately after repair. Marketability depends to a large extent on mortgageability, and the test is cast in the form of whether the main private sector bodies that lend for house purchase would be likely to accept the freehold of the repaired house as security for a loan on the terms that mortgagees normally regard as satisfactory.
  Mr. Craigen: Has the Minister discussed this matter with the building societies and got their view on the objective that I have tried to put across?
  Mr. Gow: We have indeed had discussions with the building societies and with the National House Building Council. The discussions are continuing. I said in response to an intervention by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that we hope that, as a result of the discussions on which we are now engaged with the building societies, there will be a satisfactory solution that will give a real prospect in many cases of mortgageability being possible for the majority of people who are likely to want to remain in their present houses.
  Amendment No. 17 is based on a misunderstanding. The authority concerned must make a decision as to whether assistance should be through reinstatement grant or through repurchase. It must make that decision when it considers the application. It is the mortgageability of the dwelling in its repaired state immediately after repair that the authority must take into account. When deciding whether the building will be mortgageable after repair, the authority should take into account the views of the lending institutions at that time. There is no logic in asking an authority to try to predict whether those institutions will lend on the security of the property in 20 or 30 years' time. However, building societies, when deciding whether to lend, take into account whether the dwelling is likely to be a marketable asset at the end of the mortgage term. In

  573
  that sense, the position is already taken into account in the provision as drafted. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.
  Mr. Fraser: We are trying to be constructive, as the Minister knows. If an adequate guarantee scheme of one kind or another is given, that will not be more satisfactory to owners and will save the Government much expense. Those savings could be used for other housing purposes and should not go back to the Treasury.
  One of the most helpful ways in which we could deal with this matter is for, say, the National House Builders Council to give a guarantee analagous to those given for newly constructed houses, backed by its insurance arrangements and enduring for 30 years instead of the usual 10 years.
  If the Minister can achieve that and if it is acceptable to the building societies, it will go a long way towards underwriting the market and underwriting confidence in the houses that are not beyond repair, where it is a case of repair to minor rather than major defects. We would be very happy to hear the Minister say that he is aiding that sort of settlement.
  Mr. Gow: Perhaps I could repeat what I said to the House in reply to the intervention by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). We have been and still are in discussions with the Building Societies Association and the National House Builders Council about a proposal that the council should operate a scheme for improving requirements or methods of repair of PRC houses and provide a warranty similar to that offered by the NHBC in respect of new houses built by the private sector.
  If we are able to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion, it would meet the underlying purpose of the amendments, which I fully understand. But I have to say that the NHBC's guarantee, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is for 10 years and not for the longer period that he mentioned.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: No 21, in page 6, line 1 leave out from 'Act' to end of line 15 and insert—

  '(a) the work required to reinstate a defective dwelling is the work relating to the dwelling that is required to be done to the building that consists of or includes the dwelling in order to deal satisfactorily with the qualifying defect, and

  (b) where there is work falling within paragraph (a) above, the work required to reinstate the defective dwelling includes—

  (i) any work required, in order to deal satisfactorily with the qualifying defect, to be done to any garage or outhouse designed or constructed as that building is designed or constructed, being a garage or outhouse in which the interest of person eligible for assistance subsists and which is occupied with and used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it, and

  (ii) any other work reasonably required in connection with work falling within paragraph (a) above or this paragraph.'.

  No. 23, in page 6, line 38, at end insert—
  '(9A) Where a person who is eligible for assistance in respect of a defective dwelling dies or disposes of his interest in the dwelling to a person to whom section 2 of this Act applies (otherwise than on a disposal for value), this Act shall apply as if anything done or treated by virtue of this subsection as done by or in relation to the person so eligible had been done by or in relation to his personal representatives or as the case may be, the person acquiring the interest.'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 4

  NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
  Amendment made: No. 24, in page 7, line 1, after 'application' insert
  'which they are required to entertain'.—[Mr. Gow.]
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 7, line 4, leave out `(a)'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 27 and 30.
  Mr. Roberts: These are drafting amendments to improve comprehension of the procedures that the local authority has to follow under clause 4.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 26, in page 7, line 4, leave out `they are satisfied that' and insert 'in their opinion'.
  No. 27, in page 7, line 6, leave out '(b)' and insert 'also—(a)'.
  No. 28, in page 7, line 6, leave out 'not satisfied' and insert 'of the opinion'.
  No. 29, in page 7, line 6, after 'is', insert 'not'.
  No. 30, in page 7, line 8, leave out 'and' and insert `(b)'
  No. 31, in page 7, line 8, leave out `so satisfied' and insert
  'of the opinion that he is so eligible'.
  No. 32, in page 7, line 10, leave out 'satisfied that the applicant' and insert
  'required to entertain an application from an applicant who'.—[Mr. Gow.]
  Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 7, line 37, leave out `and (2)' and insert
  '(3) and (6A) (except paragraph (b)), or'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 34, 38, 40, 42, 43, 53, 56, 59, 64, 65, 86 and 90.
  Mr. Ancram: The purpose of these amendments is to provide for an extension of the six-month time limit within which, under clauses 6(6) or 7(5) a person entitled to assistance by way of repurchase may require the authority to enter into an agreement for the repurchase on the terms and conditions previously agreed or determined.
  The extension is similar to that currently provided by clauses 6(2) and 6(1). In addition, in Scotland there are time limits applying to the person entitled to assistance in clauses 7(3) and 7(4) relating to a request to the authority to strike out or vary conditions. These are dealt with in amendment No. 56 to allow extension of that period.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 34, in page 7, line 38, leave out
  `6(3) or, as the case may be, 7(1)'
  and insert
  `7(1), (2) and (5A) (except paragraphs (b) to (d))'.
  No. 35, in page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 6

  REPURCHASE
  Mr. Gow: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 9, line 3, leave out 'in the defective dwelling' and insert

  575
  `so far as subsisting in the defective dwelling and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard and appurtenances occupied and used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it (in this section referred to as the "interest to be acquired").'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 39, 41, 44 to 49, 57, 58 and 87.
  Mr. Gow: The purpose of this group of amendments is to clarify what land must be acquired by the appropriate authority on repurchase. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 38 in page 9, leave out lines 4 to 8.
  No. 39, in page 9, line 13, after 'interest', insert 'to be acquired'.
  No. 40, in page 9, line 14, after '(6)', insert
  `and (6A) (except paragraph (a))'.
  No. 41, in page 9, line 16, leave out
  `of the person so entitled'
  and insert `to be acquired'.
  No. 42, in page 9, line 27, after 'agreement', insert
  `(or within that period as extended)'.
  No. 43, in page 9, line 29, at end insert—
  '(6A) The authority shall, if there are reasonable grounds for doing so, by notice in writing served on the person so entitled, extend (or further extend)—

  ('a) the period within which under subsection (1) above he may make a request under that subsection; and

  (b) the period within which under subsection (6) above he may notify them of his requirement;

  whether or not the period in question has expired.'.
  No. 44, in page 9, leave out lines 33 to 40.
  No. 45, in page 10, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert:
  'This section does not apply to Scotland.'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 7

  REPURCHASE IN SCOTLAND
  Amendments made: No. 46, in page 10, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 6 and insert—
  'A person who is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase in respect of a defective dwelling may, within the period of three months beginning with the service of the authority's notice under section 4(2) of this Act (or within that period as extended) request the authority in writing to notify him of the proposed terms and conditions for their acquisition of his interest so far as subsisting in the defective dwelling and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard and pertinents belonging to or usually enjoyed with the dwelling or any part of it (in this section referred to as the "interest to be acquired").
  (1A An authority receiving a request under subsection (1) above'.
  No. 47, in page 10, line 9, after 'interest', insert `to be acquired'.
  No. 48, in page 10, line 12, leave out
  'of the person so entitled'
  and insert `to be acquired'.
  No. 49, in page 10, line 14, leave out 'the defective dwelling' and insert 'it'.
  No. 50, in page 10, line 16, after 'a', insert `term or '.
  No. 51, in page 10, line 18, after second 'the', insert `term or'.
  No. 52, in page 10, line 25, after 'a' insert 'term or'.
  No. 53, in page 10, line 27, leave out from 'mouth' to first 'of in line 29.
  No. 54, in page 10, line 31, after second 'the', insert `term or'.
  No. 55, in page 10, line 33, after 'terms', insert 'or conditions'.
  No. 56, in page 10, line 42, at end insert—
  '(5A) The authority shall, if there are reasonable grounds for doing so, by notice in writing served on the person so entitled, extend (or further extend) the period within which—

  (a) under subsection (1) above he may request them to notify him of the terms and conditions proposed for their acquisition of the interest to be acquired;

  (b) under subsection (3) above he may request them to strike out or vary the term or condition;

  (c) under subsection (4) above he may apply to the sheriff for determination of a matter;

  (d) under subsection (5) above he may serve a notice of acceptance on there;

  whether or not the period has expired.'.
  No. 57, in page 11, line 3, at end insert—
  '(6A) Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act (except paragraph 4) has effect to supplement the provisions of this section'.
  No. 58, in page 11, leave out lines 4 to 10.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 8
  SECURE TENANCIES
  Amendment made: No. 59, in page 12, line 33, leave out '7(1)' and insert `7(1A)—[Mr. Gow.]
Clause 9

  COSTS INCIDENTAL TO APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 13, line 34, leave out from 'or to end of line 38 and insert—

  (a) any expenses in respect of legal services provided in connection with the authority's acquisition, and

  (b) any other expenses in connection with negotiating the terms of that acquisition,

  being in each case expenses which are reasonably incurred by him after receipt of a notice under section 6(3) or an offer to purchase under section 7(1A) of this Act.'.
  The purpose of the amendment is to allow the applicant to be reimbursed costs other than legal costs incurred in negotiating the terms of acquisition by the authority in cases of repurchase—for example, the cost of employing a surveyor rather than a solicitor to set up negotiations about the price at which the dwelling should be repurchased.
  Mr. John Fraser: I welcome the amendment, but what will it add to public expenditure?
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the relevant clause is very specific and refers only to legal costs. It is quite possible that it would behove the parties involved to engage a surveyor rather than a solicitor to carry out the negotiations. It might make much better sense for a surveyor to act on the vendor's behalf or to seek the advice of a valuer. We believe that it is reasonable for the applicant to be reimbursed the costs of such assistance as well as of purely legal costs.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect on public expenditure. I must confess that I have no precise knowledge of that.
  Mr. John Fraser: That is all very well, but there are 16,500 homes involved. [f all the owners of those homes decided to use surveyors, even at modest rates of charge the cost could be about £3 million. If I asked the Government for £3 million to deal with asbestos in my

  577
  constituents' homes or if we asked for that sum to deal with another defect such as condensation or dampness which is commonplace in the public sector the request would be resisted. When 16,500 press the case for their surveyors' fees to be paid—quite properly, and I do not disagree with them—in a matter of a minute or so the Government can make a commitment in the House of Commons for between £1 million and £3 million in public expenditure. I do not oppose the amendment, but it highlights the Government's partiality and prejudice and their obsession with helping the private sector and denying the public sector.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I can only say that I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman does not oppose the amendment because, as he acknowledges and as I am sure that all hon. Members recognise, it is intended to assist the people whom we seek to help in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

  NOTICES
  Mr. Gow: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in line 22 leave out from beginning to end of line 39 and insert—
  '(1) A housing authority shall, within the period of three months beginning with the coming into operation of a designation under section 1 or 10 of this Act or a variation of such a designation, publish in a newspaper circulating in their area notice suitable for the purpose of bringing the effect of the designation or variation to the attention of persons who may be eligible for assistance in respect of such of the dwellings concerned as are situated within their area, unless they are of the opinion that—

  (a) none of the dwellings concerned are so situated, or

  (b) in respect of all of the dwellings concerned that are so situated, no person is likely to be eligible for assistance.

  (2) If at any time it becomes apparent to a housing authority that a person is likely to be eligible for assistance in respect of a defective dwelling within their area, they shall forthwith take such steps as are reasonably practicable to inform him of the fact that assistance is available.'.
  The amendment follows an undertaking that I gave to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in Committee. It is self-explanatory, and I commend it to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12
  JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT AND RULES OF PROCEDURE
  Amendment made, No. 64, in line 12 leave out '6(2)' and insert `6(6A)'.—[Mr. Gow.]
Clause 13
  JURISDICTION OF SHERIFF IN SCOTLAND
  Amendment made, No. 65, in line 32 leave out '6(2)' and insert '7(5A)'.—[Mr. Gow.]
Clause 16

  RULES AND ORDERS
  Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in line 39 at end insert
  `which shall be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 70, in line 1 leave out subsection (3).
  Mr. Fraser: The amendments would provide for the making of all orders under the Act by affirmative procedure rather than by negative procedure. I know that this is well-worn ground, but it would be worthwhile to debate orders made under the Bill because it would give the House a further opportunity to make a comparison between the privately-owned and rented sectors. If we approve orders, we shall sanction fairly massive sums—up to £250 million of capital expenditure and £25 million to £30 million of revenue expenditure. Because of cash limits, money that is given for one purpose is taken from another purpose. Therefore, it is right for the House to have a chance to air its views about the priorities on expenditure on housing, and not to leave the matter to a Minister.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's brevity. The amendments would require all orders to be made by statutory instrument, requiring the approval of both Houses before they come into effect. The Bill refers to seven powers exercised by the order. The amendments are undesirable in three of those seven powers, because specific orders affecting financial expenditure conventionally require that these matters should be dealt with by the House of Commons only and not both Houses. More generally, the amendments would require that all orders should be approved by the affirmative resolution. We regard that as an unnecessary degree of supervision for matters, such as the appointing of a day or days for the coming into force of the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 18

  APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
  Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in line 9, column 1, leave out from 'authority' to 'specified' in line 10.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 72 and 73.
  Mr. Ancram: The basic purpose of this daunting amendment is twofold. First, it is to revise the procedure to be adopted when a public sector authority, other than the housing authority, states that it wishes to acquire the defective dwelling under clause 18. Secondly, it is to provide that, where the public sector body acquires the dwelling but is not a body which can grant a secure tenancy under clause 8, it shall either secure the grant of a secure tenancy or secure the grant of a protected tenancy under the Rent Act 1977, or the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, of the dwellinghouse or suitable alternative accommodation.
  The amendments were inspired by an amendment which, although it was not formally moved, was tabled by the Opposition in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 72, in page 21, line 11, column 1, at end insert
  'and any predecessor so specified of the authority'.
  No. 73, in page 21, leave out lines 12 to 26 and insert—
  '(3) The body concerned may, within the period of four weeks beginning with the service of the appropriate authority's notice under subsection (2) above, give them notice in writing—

  (a) stating that the body wishes to acquire the interest, and

  (b) specifying the address of the principal office of the body and any other address that may also be used as an address for service.

  (4) Where the appropriate authority (in the following provisions referred to as the "original authority") receive a notice under subsection (3) above, they shall forthwith give to the person entitled to assistance notice in writing (in those provisions referred to as a "transfer notice") of—

  (a) the contents of the notice under subsection (39 above, and

  (b) the effect of subsections (5) and (6) below.

  (5) The body concerned shall, at any time after the transfer notice is given, be treated as being the appropriate authority (in place of the original authority) for the purposes of anything done or falling to be done under this Act by or in relation to the appropriate authority.
  (6) Where a transfer notice has been given in respect of an interest—

  (a) a request under section 6(1) or 7(1) of this Act in respect of the interest may be made either to the original authority or to the appropriate authority, and

  (b) such a request made to the original authority (whether before or after the transfer notice is given) shall be forwarded by them to the appropriate authority.

  (7) Where, apart from subsection (8) below, the appropriate authority acquiring an interest in a defective dwelling might be required under section 8 of this Act to grant a secure tenancy (within the meaning of that section) to any person, but—

  (a) in relation to England and Wales, the authority are not one of the following bodies, that is, the bodies mentioned in section 28(4) of the 1980 Act or a housing association falling within section 15(3) of the 1977 Act, or

  (b) in relation to Scotland, the authority are not one of the bodies mentioned in section 10(2) of the Scottish Act of 1980.

  section 8 of this Act shall have effect with the following modifications.
  (8) Those modifications are—

  (a) in subsection (3), for the words "a secure" there is substituted "or arrange for him to be granted an appropriate",

  (b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted—

  "For the purposes of this subsection, a tenancy is an appropriate tenancy if it is either—

  (i) a secure tenancy, or

  (ii) a protected tenancy, other than one under which the landlord might recover possession under one of the cases in Part II of Schedule 15 to the 1977 Act or, as the case may
  580
  be, Part II of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act (cases where court must order possession)",

  (c) subsections (4), (8), (9) and (10) shall not apply,

  (d) in subsection (5), after the words "grant the tenancy" there is inserted "or arrange for it to be granted",

  (e) in subsection (6), after the word "section" there is inserted "or under any arrangement made for the purposes of subsection (3) above", and

  (f)in subsection (7), after the word "grant" there is inserted "or arrange for the grant of".'.—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 19

  GENERAL INTERPRETATION
  Amendment made:
  No. 74, in page 21, leave out line 32.—[Mr. Gow.]

Clause 20

  PROVISION IN BUILDING SOCIETY AGREEMENTS TO BE DISREGARDED UNDER RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1976
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 23, line 42, leave out from `has' to 'appointed' in line 43 and insert
  'its chairman, or the chairman of its board of directors or other governing body,'.
  This is a drafting amendment. At present the definition in clause 20 (2) of "appropriate body" refers, inter alia, to a board of directors or other governing body of which the chairman is appointed by the Secretary of State. That definition is aimed initially at the National House Building Council, which is the only body known to the Secretary of State that fulfils the other criteria specified in the definition in clause 20 (2). The NHBC has no board of directors; its executive committee manages the business of the council and controls the holding of general meetings, but specific and substantial powers are conferred on the Scottish, Northern Ireland and finance committees. The amendment, which alters the definition, is designed to set the inclusion of the NHBC within the definition beyond reasonable doubt.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 24, line 21, leave out 'and Wales' and insert 'Wales and Northern Ireland'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 78, in page 24, line 22, leave out '20, does not extend' and insert
  'sections 7 and 13 extends'.
  No. 79, in page 24, line 23, at end add
  'subject to such modifications and applications as may be specified by Order in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974'.
  Mr. Walker: My purpose in moving the amendments is expressly to show the disparity between two integral

  581
  parts of the United Kingdom, in that Northern Ireland is being treated as a separate entity in all matters pertaining to legislation.
  With regard to housing defects, I can say with authority that Northern Ireland shares with its mother country the complex problems associated with defective housing. That fact was recognised by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who has taken the heat out of a potentially explosive problem by declaring in general terms that action will be taken to protect the owners of such houses purchased through the public authority housing sales scheme.
  However, it is regrettable that the Minister's statement was not broad enough to encompass the unfortunate owners who have purchased such dwellings in the private sector, in complete ignorance of defects that have developed or could subsequently develop. Irrespective of statements made and promises given, the people of Northern Ireland should have been included in the Bill. The same need exists to alleviate the problems. About 3,800 Orlit houses were built in the Province, and about the same number were built by a company called Fortus Construction. There are also Housing Executive cross-wall dwellings, and what are known as Ulster cottages. They all require urgent examination under the terms of the Bill.
  We have been fed platitudes to the effect that there is no immediate danger to the residents of those houses. That might be true, but in view of the limited number of tests carried out, it is difficult to accept that statement completely. A spokesman for the Housing Executive said that until the tests are completed and fully evaluated, it will be impossible to establish a definitive policy for those dwellings. In view of that, I plead that Northern Ireland is included in this legislation urgently, and I hope that I have the sympathy and support of the House for my amendment.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It may not come entirely as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, that I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker). I also think it possible that the topic is one with which the Minister for Housing and Construction is not entirely unfamiliar.
  In Northern Ireland there is no elective housing authority. The housing authority for the whole of the Province is a huge quango. If the legislation were concerned with the functions of housing authorities in England and Wales or in Scotland one would understand the logic of separate legislation for the different parts of the United Kingdom. But the Bill is concerned with the potential misfortune of private individuals who have purchased defective housing from public authorities. In that respect there is no difference between the different parts of the United Kingdom because, as my hon. Friend has said, there are numerous house owners in Northern Ireland who, like their opposite numbers in Great Britain, have purchased in all ignorance and good faith houses which were sold to them in ignorance and good faith—though defective—by local authorities. The same relief ought to be available to those in all parts of the kingdom and it should be available simultaneously and under the same legislation.
  582
  In the course of the debate we have had in diligent attendance upon the House representatives of the Scottish Office and of the Welsh Office. There is no technical reason why the Bill should not have extended to Northern Ireland and why, similarly, we should not have had the attendance of a Northern Ireland Minister.
  Two clauses–7 and 13—have been sufficient to apply the provisions for England and Wales to Scotland. A little more complexity might have been involved in applying the same provisions to Northern Ireland, but in an amendment which is being considered with that moved by my hon. Friend the proposition is made that that application could be carried out by Order in Council.
  The Government will be aware that from 1977 onwards there has been a procedure whereby, in cases applying identically or to the same effect, Great Britain legislation, an Order in Council subject to negative resolution procedure and not, therefore, normally requiring any of the time of the House, would be appropriate. There is, therefore, no difficulty in legislation of this type being framed so as to apply to Northern Ireland, and the application technicalities would not be of inconvenience or trouble to the Administration or to the House.
  There is only one assurance that can be given to citizens of this country that they will all be treated alike and that relief will come to them at the same time and under the same conditions, and that is, that the relief should be extended in the same legislation. It is that which my right hon. and hon. Friends are seeking in the terms of the amendment.
  I do not think our case can in common sense and justice be resisted. I would have thought that it was a case that would command the sympathy of the Minister who is in charge of the Bill. Perhaps it might be useful, however, if I say that a case which has long been urged, and on so many occasions as this one, very often has to be brought gradually into acceptance. The old proverb about the constant dripping that wears away a stone is nowhere more applicable than to a demand for self-evident justice, for that which has to be constantly repeated until, by dint of repetition or by dint of fatigue of Government, its self-evidence dawns also upon those who can bring relief. I do not know whether that moment will have arrived tonight in the context of this Bill. There could be no Bill more suitable for it to be announced. I almost wonder whether there is any Minister by whom it might be more suitable to be promolgated. Hon. Members on this Bench remain not only hopeful, but confident that sooner or later this House will see the justice, convenience, and the common sense of legislating wherever possible—this is a possible case—simultaneously for all parts of the Kingdom. The day will come—I hope that it will come on midsummer day 1984.
  Rev. William McCrea: I join the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in an earnest desire to see this legislation cover Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. There is no reason why the appropriate legislation should not have been for Northern Ireland as well as for England, Scotland and Wales. I have listened attentively to all this debate, and the problems that the people in England, Scotland and Wales are suffering are the same as those that the people of Northern Ireland are suffering. Therefore, it would be most appropriate, and this would have been the right legislation, to have included

  583
  Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the House will heed that cry. I would be delighted to hear the Minister prove me wrong, and I shall wait with interest for his reply.
  On the Bill generally, I sympathise with many of the comments that have been made by Opposition Members. The Bill covers a particular group of people, but does not cover the vast number of people who also have problems that need to be attended to. I am delighted that it assists those who have purchased their dwellings, but it should attend to the problems of the large number of people who are in public housing that needs proper attention, and the interest of the House.
  In Northern Ireland I appreciate that we have but one housing authority. That authority has been treated favourably, with finance to tackle many problems. While the House can sympathise with local authorities in their plight of having many houses with defects, the sympathy of the House will not change the problem—but the appropriate finance to fund programmes to solve those problems must be forthcoming. I trust that the Government will look favourably on that.
  I join with hon. Members who have spoken, and I trust that there will be an urgent movement in the House, so that those houses that have defects will be properly attended to by the appropriate legislation, not only for England, Scotland and Wales, but for—dare I say it—the best part of the family, beloved Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Gow: I understand the reasons which prompted the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), a member of the Committee, to table the amendment which stands in his name. I understand too the reasons which prompted the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) to speak in support of it.
  The House may know that on the day following the announcement which I made in the House of a scheme to help the owners of defective houses which had originated in the public sector, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, made a statement announcing that there would he a scheme applicable to Northern Ireland which was similar to the scheme which I had announced on the previous day.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South asked for two things. He asked for parity of treatment and time. Any differences between the scheme which will be applicable to Northern Ireland and the scheme which will be applicable to Great Britain will be so minor as will make the scheme virtually indistinguishable for practical purposes. I cannot say this evening on what date either the Bill now before the House or legislation specifically applying to Northern Ireland will have effect. But I do say that—the right hon. Gentleman had a fair point here—it is likely that the timing of the legislation applying to the Province will be later than the timing of the legislation applying to Great Britain.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North asked—I hope that I did not misunderstand him—whether we could extend the Bill to properties which had never been in the public sector to properties which had always been in the private sector. We have made a distinction throughout discussion on the Bill between the responsibility of the Government in respect of properties which originated in
  584
  the public sector and the responsibility of the Government towards properties which have never been in the public sector. It would be a significant step for the Government to give a guarantee in respect of property which had never been in the public sector.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South commented on the fact that there was no Minister for Northern Ireland on the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was regretting that since the Bill did not cover Northern Ireland there was therefore not a representative of the Northern Ireland office on the Front Bench. It was not uttered in criticism, rebus extantibus.
  Mr. Gow: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the legislation to extend to Northern Ireland. He said that there must be parity of treatment. I remind the House that we have frequently had separate legislation on housing matters for England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other. Indeed, in the Tenants Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, which sets out the right to buy in Scotland, there are quite significant differences between the right to buy for those who live in Scotland and the right to buy for those who live in England and Wales.
  I say that only to give a partial reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not always treat in housing matters in a way which is identical those who live in Scotland and those who live in England and Wales.
  I cannot advise the House to agree to the amendment which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, North. It was made clear by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the statement which he made on 11 November that there would be separate legislation for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister has properly drawn attention to the statement of the Under-Secretary of State. The Minister will recall that he and I exchanged letters the very week that he made the original statement in the House in November. Can he think of any good reason why there should be a much greater delay, bearing in mind that the mechanism was put into effect in the same week in Northern Ireland and in the House?
  Mr. Gow: I shall certainly draw the pertinent comments of the right hon. Gentleman to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  11 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: The Minister says that the Bill will be applied almost word for word to Northern Ireland by order. Under the Bill as it applies to England, Wales and Scotland, the local authority will receive only 90 per cent. reimbursement of reinstatement grant, and 75 per cent. reimbursement of the cost of repaying a mortgage on the defective value of the dwelling if it repurchases. In Northern Ireland, where housing is run by an executive, will this be dealt with on the same basis? In Northern Ireland, will the Government be bearing 100 per cent. of the cost of reinstatement or repurchase, whereas in England the Government will be bearing only 90 per cent. in one case and 75 per cent. in the other case of the cost of reinstatement or repurchase?
  Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the publication of the draft order in council before we are able to answer that question.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: May I reassure the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that the method of calculating and imposing the rate in Northern Ireland will ensure that the ratepayers in Northern Ireland bear exactly the same share as those in the rest of the United Kingdom? At least, if they do not, it is the fault of the calculating mechanism, and not the intention of the legislation.
  Mr. John Fraser: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, and for his support of the breach of the principle of caveat emptor.
  Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1

  REINSTATEMENT GRANT
  Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 25, line 13, leave out 'or'.
  Amendment 80, and amendments 81, 82 and 83, are clarifying amendments in that they ensure, where necessary, that the percentages determining grant payable are applied to the expenditure limit and not to the cost or estimated cost of the work, thus preserving the differential between normal cases of 90 per cent. grant and 100 per cent. hardship cases.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 81, in page 25, line 14, at end insert
  'or
  (c) the expenditure which is the maximum amount permitted to be taken into account for the purposes of this paragraph, '.
  No. 82, in page 25, line 15, leave out 'less' and insert `least'.
  No. 83, in page 25, line 24, leave out
  'The amount of reinstatement grant payable shall not exceed'
  and insert
  'The maximum amount of expenditure permitted to be taken into account for the purposes of paragraph 1 above shall be'.—[Mr. Ancram]
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 26, line 7, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 8 and insert
  'cost of so much of the qualifyng work as has been executed at that time'.
  Paragraph 4(1) of schedule 1 allows the authority to repay reinstatement grant as a single sum on completion of the qualifying work or by instalments. Paragraph 4(2) makes provision as to the payment of grant by instalment. The amendment is designed to ensure that instalments may be paid only in respect of work actually done. This would be consistent with the provisions for payment of grant by instalment under part VII of the Housing Act 1974.
  Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

  REPURCHASE
  Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 26, line 31, leave out '95 per cent.' and insert '100 per cent.'.
  If the amendment is accepted, when a local authority repurchased a house, it would reimburse the private owner
  586
  100 per cent. of the value of the house rather than 95 per cent., as is presently proposed. I have mixed feelings about the amendment. Since the amendment was tabled, the Minister has also tabled amendments which remove some burden from private owners, because of a willingness to meet survey costs and professional fees, apart from legal fees. The potential loss to the private owner has thus been mitigated, and this lessens the case for 95 per cent. The 5 per cent. is a portion of the claim borne by the owner, rather like the excess on an insurance policy. The Minister knows that a large number of people will have written to him stating that logically there should be 100 per cent. reimbursement. The view incorporated in the amendment has been put forward by Shelter and many other organisations of private owners. It would be advisable for the Minister to place on record the reason why he remains wedded to the principle of 95 per cent. rather than 100 per cent.
  Mr. Gow: The Government believe, and I think that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) believes, that the scheme of assistance in the Bill through which on repurchase the owner will receive 95 per cent. of the defect value of a house is generous. The hon. Gentleman knows that, to calculate the value of a house, however excellent the district valuer is, is an imprecise science. The difference between 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. allows for a proper margin of error which may go one way or another. We think that the scheme is generous and that 95 per cent. of the defect value is reasonable. I understand the argument for 100 per cent. One could make a case for 90 per cent., but we have concluded that 95 per cent. is correct.
  Mr. Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 86, in page 26, line 35, leave out '7(1)' and insert '7(1A)'.
  No. 87, in page 26, line 38, leave out 'in a defective dwelling'.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 26, line 41, leave out 'following assumptions' and insert
  'assumptions specified in paragraph (2) below and on the basis that no account is taken of any right to the grant of a tenancy under section 8 of this Act.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 89, in page 27, line 20, leave out from 'made' to end of line 25.
  Mr. Roberts: The purpose of the amendments is to make clear the assumptions that are to be made in valuing a dwelling under schedule 2 in the case of repurchase. The particular provision which these amendments seek to clarify is that in paragraph 2(2)(e) of schedule 2, which requires the valuation of an interest to be made on the assumption that, subject to paragraph 2(2)(a) to (d), the seller is selling subject to the rights and burdens which actually exist, but disregarding, first charges discharged under the schedule, and, secondly, any right that the applicant of a beneficiary may have to the grant of a tenancy under clause 8 and in consequence to remain in occupation of the dwelling.
  The amendments will be welcomed by those responsible for implementing the scheme.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 89, in page 27, line 20, leave out from 'made' to end of line 25.
  No. 90, in page 28, line 30, leave out '7(1)' and insert `7(1A)'.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Schedule 3

  PUBLIC SECTOR AUTHORITIES
  Amendments agreed to: No. 91.
  No. 92, in page 33, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (4).—[Mr. Ancram.]
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

West Lothian (Economic Development)
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
11.4 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is unable to be here tonight, but he fully supports my anxiety and wishes to be associated with my remarks.
The origin of the debate lies in the severe rate of unemployment in West Lothian. In the Bathgate-Livingston travel-to-work area the unemployment rate was 21 per cent. at the last count. Several areas in that region have an even worse unemployment rate. On the Murrayfield estate in Blackburn for instance, unemployment is 38 per cent.
If British Leyland closes its plant at Bathgate unemployment in the travel-to-work area will rise to between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. The precise figure does not matter. The social desolation at that level of unemployment would be so great that it would be pointless meticulously to measure the precise percentage. Within some pockets in the district, the level of unemployment would reach a figure that previously would have been unimaginable. In Blackburn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, it would exceed 40 per cent., as it would in Addiewell in my constituency. The West Lothian district would have the highest, densest area of unemployment anywhere in central Scotland, which already has an average level of unemployment that is far too bleak.
Although the closure of BL will make the unemployment position much worse, I stress that the case that I intend to advance does not rest on the assumption that the BL plant will close. I fully support the work of the shop stewards and work force to retain the plant. But even if we are successful in keeping every job at the plant, we already have, and will continue to have, a severe unemployment problem that demands a response from the Government. I shall not labour the point further because the severity of our job crisis, is accepted by the Government.
The Minister will appreciate that in our view a large part of the blame must rest with the Government for pursuing policies that have been so disastrous for the manufacturing and engineering industries that previously provided so many of the jobs that we have now lost. I have not come to the House tonight to apportion blame. The problem that we are experiencing is of such gravity that the unemployed expect more of us than the scoring of political points about who is to blame, but to the extent that the Government are to blame for the crisis, we can surely call upon them to respond positively to the constructive points that I shall now put.
My points follow closely the package of measures that have been developed by Lothian region and West Lothian district council, on which they are both agreed. I emphasise that those two local authorities do not always see eye to eye; One is Conservative-controlled and the other Labour-controlled. They have reached agreement on what the West Lothian district needs if it is to tackle the social dereliction of the unemployment problem that it now faces.

589
I do not expect the Minister to give a snap decision tonight, although I shall not reject such a snap decision if it is favourable. When he responds, I expect him to give the House an assurance that these matters will be considered not only sympathetically but urgently. We do not have two years until the closure of BL to take measures—the first voluntary redundancies have been called for this week.
The first measure, which is on the list approved by the two local authorities, is that the remainder of West Lothian district should be granted special development area status. The case for that is so overwhelming that it does not need to be expanded further. It is palpably the case that we have achieved a level of unemployment that demands that the area be given the top tier of status, whatever that might be when it emerges from the White Paper on regional assistance.
Immediately adjacent to the BL plant is an industrial estate, which is poorly developed, with large amounts of green field sites available for future development. It is plain nonsense that that site, which could provide the green field site for incoming industry, should not enjoy the top level of assisted area status so as to provide an opportunity to create jobs to replace those that are being destroyed down the road.
We need from the Government guidance and support in developing a public agency that can promote and develop the job opportunities in the area. It is especially important how the site of the BL plant is handled.
The present production sheds are not attractive to modern industry. Few modern concerns would want to come to those enormous hangars of sheds and use them for anything remotely resembling the mass assembly that has gone on in the motor vehicle industry. We need an agency to take over the site, preferably at a knockdown price, from British Leyland and to convert, manage and promote the buildings.
Again, that does not depend on BL closing its remaining operations. Any hon. Member who has gone round the site—I hope that many will do so on Saturday—will have been struck by the large amount of shed and factory space already standing empty on the site and available for creative use, if we had some form of public agency to handle the conversion.
Perhaps BASE—the Bathgate area support for enterprise—offers the vehicle for this task. The Government and BL have committed themselves to expanding their support and subsidy to BASE. But if BASE is to tackle this job, however excellent its work may have been, it will require a major leap in its resources, its funding and status. It will also require the support of other public agencies, notably the SDA, the Scottish Development Agency, which is one of the partners in BASE, because BASE will need a ladder of property which only the SDA can supply to meet the demand that it has already stimulated. BASE has now brought forward a number of entrepreneurs and redundant workers who are looking for premises, of which there is already a shortage in the area, and that shortage could be met only by a major provision of property by the SDA.
Thirdly, one of the other partners of BASE is, of course, British Leyland, which has a major social responsibility in the Bathgate area. For 20 years it has enjoyed the loyal support of, and had a good productive
590
relationship with, its work force. It cannot now, at the end of those 20 years, walk away from the social consequences of closure and of removing the jobs of that work force.
I am impressed by the fact that British Steel, wherever it has closed down a steel plant, has left behind local opportunities created by British Steel Industries Ltd. on the basis of an investment fund set up jointly by British Steel and the Government.
The consequence for Bathgate of the rundown of the BL plant from 6,000 to 2,000 workers, and now the possibility of the total closure of the plant, creates precisely the same social circumstances in the Bathgate area as we have witnessed in the steel towns and should call forth the same response in a fund, to which we have every right to expect BL to make a contribution, to attract and support new jobs to replace the jobs that are being destroyed.
Both Lothian region and West Lothian district council have called for a fund. Lothian region has put on such a fund the figure of £5 million. In all the circumstances, that is a most modest sum and far less than the Government will be shelling out in West Lothian in the coming year in unemployment benefit for the people whose jobs are being destroyed.
My fourth point lies fairly and squarely within the competence of central Government. If we are to succeed in developing the local economy to cope with the crisis we face, we are entitled to expect improvements to the infrastructure of the area, such as the transport network. Bathgate has potentially the great attraction and advantage of being centrally located and, therefore, in giving easy access to Edinburgh and Glasgow.
To do so, however, it must be plugged into the motorway system. There are plans on the drawing board, and there is reserve space on the ground, for a junction to join Bathgate to the M8. That junction should now go ahead as a matter of priority, as should the link up between the M8 and M9. Those measures would provide jobs in the short run in the area in construction, and in the long run would make it much more attractive to industry.
I also press the Minister to look for a way in which the Bathgate railway line can be reopened to passenger traffic. It has always struck me as a great planning failure that the Bathgate line, which runs through the Livingston new town, was closed to passenger traffic shortly before Livingston new town was designated. That railway line, if reopened to passenger traffic, would enable the work force of Bathgate and Livingston to seek jobs in Edinburgh much more readily, and would open up the Edinburgh jobs market to those who become unemployed in the Bathgate area.
Lastly, we must recognise—as I believe that the Government have indeed recognised—that any comprehensive solution to the jobs crisis must grapple with the fact that many members of the work force who are now threatened with redundancy, and many of those who are already unemployed, are more than 40 or 50 years old. When we analyse the length of time for which men in that age group in West Lothian have been unemployed, we find that half the unemployed men aged over 40 have been unemployed for over a year and a third for over two years. Plainly, unemployed men in that category will never work again unless there are special training schemes, and special projects that will provide work for them. The MSC and the other Government agencies have a clear role to play in making such provision.

591
Hitherto, I have rested my case for Government action in West Lothian on the need for attention to be addressed to the high unemployment levels there. No one would dispute the fact that unemployment is high and the need is great. However, the high current level of unemployment is creating an image of West Lothian as an unattractive and unrewarding place. That was brought home to me tonight when a television interviewer asked me whether West Lothian was not the white elephant of the Scottish economy. I cannot accept the contention that my constituents are in any way white elephants, or that the unemployment level is a ball and chain which will prevent West Lothian responding very adequately to any industrial opportunities that it may be offered.
West Lothian is an area of high potential as well as high need. It is in the centre of Scotland. It has a skilled work force and a long tradition of industrial work. It has an excellent further education college, and a local authority that is sensitive and responsive to the needs of industry. It contains areas of great beauty, from the sweep of the Pentland hills to the shore of the firth. On a day when the cooking stoves in the House of Commons have had to be turned off because the weather has been so hot, one might add that West Lothian does not suffer from the extremes of climate with which we have to cope in the south.
The area has great potential. That is demonstrated by the success of Livingston, which has attracted many high technology and high-value industries. If there is a "silicon glen" in Scotland, it is in the area of Livingston new town, and that will provide an enormous spin-off for any other industry that moves into the area.
If we are to unlock the great potential of the area, there must be a positive response from the Government to the crisis which the area now faces. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
11.23 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is to be congratulated on raising this important subject. I recognise and fully share his concern, and that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), about the situation in West Lothian and, in particular, the implications of the closure of Leyland Vehicles. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I disagree with his remarks about Government policy, but he did not seek to make Government policy the subject of this debate.
We have already considered what action could be taken to help to regenerate the local economy. I have taken careful note of the specific measures that the hon. Gentleman has suggested tonight, and they will be the subject of discussions between my right hon. Friend and the local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has said, fairly, that he does not expect specific decisions to be announced tonight.
I do not wish to sound complacent or to minimise the difficulties which West Lothian faces. The present overall unemployment rate in the Bathgate travel-to-work area is 19·2 per cent. and, while it is always difficult to predict the effect of a closure on unemployment rates, that rate would increase by 3·5 percentage points if the Leyland Vehicles closure was to be implemented immediately—which, of course, it is not.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the concentration of especially high levels of unemployment
592
in some areas. However, the area has strengths. and that brings me to the hon. Gentleman's fair point about Livingston. Livingston new town has an outstanding record in attracting especially microelectronic firms and related industries such as NEC Semiconductor, Burr-Brown and Shin-Etsu Handotai, the first silicon wafer plant in the United Kingdom. It recently made a £30 million investment that will mean 400 jobs by 1989. The new town has been an outstanding success. The Kirkton campus in Livingston is proving one of the most attractive and successful of the science parks. I do not apologise for reeling off a few statistics. This year, 64 new firms have decided to set up in Livingston, providing more than 900 new jobs. That is a major contribution to a net increase in employment of more than 1,000 jobs in one year.
It would be misleading, however, to suggest that activity in Livingston is restricted to electronics or even to manufacturing industry because, with the expansion of factory space, more than 44,000 sq. m. of offices have been built. The town provides employment in the service industry and white collar sector.
The key point for this debate, which was fairly made by the hon. Gentleman, is that this is not just Livingston's success story. Like other Scottish new towns, Livingston is a growth point. It has an important sub-regional role and does not stand in splendid isolation from the rest of West Lothian. A large proportion of its work force is drawn from nearby towns, including Bathgate, and many of Livingston's residents travel to work in neighbouring communities. The development corporation regards its broader role as supporting the economic development of the district.
In regard to the hon. Gentleman's point about the image of West Lothian, it is encouraging that at Bathgate yesterday, Heat and Control of San Francisco announced a major investment programme that will at least double its present factory space. It told the press:
"We intend to put Bathgate on the map."
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bathgate area support for enterprise, or BASE, which I was delighted to be invited formally to launch last September. BASE is supported jointly by West Lothian district council, Lothian regional council, Leyland Vehicles and the Scottish Development Agency. The hon. Gentleman referred to the SDA's role. In addition to funding 25 per cent. of the cost of the initiative, the SDA, through its small business division, maintains close liaison with the director of BASE. The agency has agreed to provide factory units in the Bathgate area as and when BASE identifies demand. The SDA has now agreed to join Leyland Vehicles in extending support for BASE from three to five years. That was one of two decisions that Leyland Vehicles announced in relation to the area, the other being the consultancy study of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the possible expansion of BASE. The SDA is considering, in consultation with the director of BASE, how that initiative can be expanded to take on a wider remit. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the announcement of the Enterprise Fund for Youth this week. Bathgate is one of the three areas in Scotland that will benefit from it. I hope that it will contribute to the provision of employment for 16 to 25-year-olds who wish to set up on their own.
I shall deal specifically with the British Leyland plant. The most immediate task for the Scottish Office is to assist

593
the efforts of a new operator or operators who would be willing to take over the plant. It might be helpful to the House if I reported on the latest position on that aspect.
Officials of my Department have been in touch with Mr. Charles Nickerson of Marshall Ltd, who has expressed interest in taking over the BL engine building facilities, and further discussions are planned. Although the disposal of the plant is in the first instance a matter for negotiation between BL and the prospective purchaser or purchasers, my Department is prepared to do all that it can to assist a takeover.
In addition to pursuing the interest that has been expressed by Mr. Nickerson, Locate in Scotland teams at home and abroad are actively and urgently engaged in the effort to find an overseas buyer for the BL plant. Abroad, LIS in the United States, Europe and Japan is using its contacts in the international business community in an effort to promote the facility. At home, in the past few weeks a team has been completing the groundwork necessary for a professional mailshot campaign to overseas manufacturers.
LIS officials have had meetings with the management of Leyland Vehicles and have visited the Bathgate plant to see at first hand the facilities for sale and to learn of the company's attitude to any potential overseas buyer. The next step will be to write to major manufacturers worldwide with details of the BL facility, which the company is presently preparing, the West Lothian area in general, and the Government financial incentives that could be made available towards the purchase. Naturally, LIS stands ready to follow up immediately any interest that may emerge.
We recognise, however, that the task of finding new investment for the Bathgate facility is extremely difficult, in view of the decline in the worldwide market for trucks and existing capacity in the industry. But we are not defeatist, and interest in the plant from any quarter will be vigorously sought and pursued.
Nevertheless, it would be optimistic to think in terms of a complete takeover of the BL plant and work force, or to believe that the Leyland employees will necessarily find new jobs easily in the industries that are being attracted to Livingston. The hon. Member for Livingston fairly made a point about the high proportion of older workers in the Leyland work force.
My right hon. Friend and I are therefore arranging to see representatives of West Lothian district council and Lothian regional council as soon as possible to discuss their proposals for remedial action, as the hon. Gentleman has put them to the House tonight. In due course it would also be appropriate to include in discussions representatives from BASE, from Livingston Development Corporation and the Scottish Development Agency in the talks about what needs to be done.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of special development area status for the Bathgate area. Livingston
594
has that status already. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, has already told the hon. Member for Linlithgow that we are not unsympathetic to Bathgate's case. However, as my hon. Friend also said, we are shortly to review the assisted area map as a whole, when we shall be able to take a comprehensive view of the matter.
I think that the hon. Member for Livingston may accept that it would merely cause problems for potential investors if specific changes were made at this stage when, in a few months, there may be more major changes in the coverage of the map and of the boundaries of the travel-to-work areas on which the map is constructed. That is why we believe that it would be in everyone's interests if all the prospective changes to the map were made and announced at the same time. In taking our decisions we shall, of course, pay close regard not only to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in this debate but also to the case made by West Lothian district council, which has already replied to the White Paper on regional industrial development.
The hon. Gentleman raised several issues. He fairly said that he would not expect decisions to be made on them tonight. I accept the importance of his point about retraining and the role of the Manpower Services Commission in relation to the older British Leyland workers. With regard to rail links and the reopening of the Bathgate line, it is a matter for British Rail. Lothian region could consider assisting it. That would be a matter for the region. I understand that the regional council and Livingston Development Corporation will assist BR to build a station at Livingston on the Edinburgh-Shotts line. That will improve communications for the area.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned road links. Lothian is primarily responsible, as the highway authority. The region has recently completed the Bathgate-Armadale link on the M8–M9 link road. A start will be made this year on the A89 Starlaw roundabout link. That opens up the possibility of a direct link between Bathgate and the M8, a point made by the hon. Gentleman. I confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to discuss road links between Bathgate and the M8, and between Bathgate and Livingston, with Lothian regional council.
West Lothian is an area with problems. The hon. Gentleman fairly said that it is also an area with successes and potential. It is essential that we build on those successes and that potential. There is a range of possibilities for action, which the hon. Gentleman suggested to the House. I assure him that they will be considered carefully and sympathetically, particularly at the meetings that we will have with West Lothian district council and Lothian regional council in the near future. After those meetings, we shall decide on the appropriate follow-up on the various suggestions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Redundant Churches
  Redundant Churches
  Parochial Clergy (Former Wives)
  Parochial Clergy (Former Wives)
  Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976
  Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976
  Salaries
  Salaries
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Stipends
  Stipends
  South Africa (Shareholdings)
  South Africa (Shareholdings)
  Expenses (Church of England)
  Expenses (Church of England)
  Glebe Land (Hartburn)
  Glebe Land (Hartburn)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Bearsden
  Bearsden
  Common Market Prime Ministers
  Common Market Prime Ministers
  Divorce Law Reform
  Divorce Law Reform
  Government Policy
  Government Policy
  Manchester (Grant)
  Manchester (Grant)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Straw Burning
  Straw Burning
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Citations
  Citations
  Procurators Fiscal Offices (Staff)
  Procurators Fiscal Offices (Staff)
TRANSPORT
  Bus-Rail Services (Substitution)
  Bus-Rail Services (Substitution)
  Departmental Regional Offices
  Departmental Regional Offices
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Airports Policy
  Airports Policy
  British Railways Board and National Bus Company
  British Railways Board and National Bus Company
  London Regional Passengers' Committee
  London Regional Passengers' Committee
  Traffic Policy (London)
  Traffic Policy (London)
  Night Lorry Ban (London)
  Night Lorry Ban (London)
  British Airways (Privatisation)
  British Airways (Privatisation)
  Associated Minibus Operators Ltd.
  Associated Minibus Operators Ltd.
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence College
  Civil Defence College
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Juvenile Offenders
  Juvenile Offenders
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Fugitives from Justice
  Fugitives from Justice
  Election Law
  Election Law
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Radioactive Fallout
  Radioactive Fallout
  Category A Prisoners
  Category A Prisoners
  Thames Valley Police
  Thames Valley Police
  Police Establishment
  Police Establishment
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Commonwealth Passport Holders
  Commonwealth Passport Holders
  Heathrow Airport (Asian Travellers)
  Heathrow Airport (Asian Travellers)
  Immigration (Repatriation Costs)
  Immigration (Repatriation Costs)
  Nuclear Warfare
  Nuclear Warfare
  Police (Finance)
  Police (Finance)
  Indian High Commission
  Indian High Commission
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
  Forensic Evidence (Dr. Clift)
  Forensic Evidence (Dr. Clift)
  Picket Lines (Policing)
  Picket Lines (Policing)
  Emergency Wardens
  Emergency Wardens
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  United States Service Men (Drug Offences)
  United States Service Men (Drug Offences)
  Suspect Cars (Pursuit)
  Suspect Cars (Pursuit)
  Dr. Brian Richards
  Dr. Brian Richards
  Personal Information (Disclosure)
  Personal Information (Disclosure)
  European Elections (Polling Stations)
  European Elections (Polling Stations)
  Mrs. Zahidm Saleem (nee Yhani)
  Mrs. Zahidm Saleem (nee Yhani)
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Remand
  Remand
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Development Projects
  Development Projects
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Heroin
  Heroin
  Adult Education (VAT)
  Adult Education (VAT)
  Handicapped Persons (VAT)
  Handicapped Persons (VAT)
  Tax Havens
  Tax Havens
  Fruit Picking, Scotland
  Fruit Picking, Scotland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Scottish University Graduates
  Scottish University Graduates
  Biostatistics Unit, Papworth
  Biostatistics Unit, Papworth
  Pneumoconiosis (Research)
  Pneumoconiosis (Research)
  Cranfield Institute of Technology
  Cranfield Institute of Technology
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  School Curriculum
  School Curriculum
  Her Majesty's Inspectors (Reports)
  Her Majesty's Inspectors (Reports)
  High Technology Engineers
  High Technology Engineers
  Hearing-impaired Children
  Hearing-impaired Children
  Nursery Schools
  Nursery Schools
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  School Buildings (Maintenance)
  School Buildings (Maintenance)
THE ARTS
  National Federation of Music Societies
  National Federation of Music Societies
  Kenwood House
  Kenwood House
ENVIRONMENT
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Santiago (National Front)
  Santiago (National Front)
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  GLC (Housing Stock Transfer)
  GLC (Housing Stock Transfer)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Unitary Development Plans
  Unitary Development Plans
  London Planning Commission
  London Planning Commission
  Housing Research and Information
  Housing Research and Information
  Planning Guidance
  Planning Guidance
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Sporting Events (Behaviour of Participants)
  Sporting Events (Behaviour of Participants)
  GLC (Housing Role)
  GLC (Housing Role)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  RAF Leuchars
  RAF Leuchars
  RAF Edzell
  RAF Edzell
  Territorial Army and Cadets
  Territorial Army and Cadets
  US Vessels (Cruise Missiles)
  US Vessels (Cruise Missiles)
  Boscombe Down
  Boscombe Down
  HMS Plymouth (Refit)
  HMS Plymouth (Refit)
  Contractorisation
  Contractorisation
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Maternity Hospitals
  Maternity Hospitals
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Physically Handicapped Persons (Day Care)
  Physically Handicapped Persons (Day Care)
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Industrial Dispute (Newcastle)
  Industrial Dispute (Newcastle)
  South Ockenden Hospital, Essex
  South Ockenden Hospital, Essex
  Services (Private Contractors)
  Services (Private Contractors)
  Ethnic Groups (Interpreters)
  Ethnic Groups (Interpreters)
  Drug Addicts
  Drug Addicts
  Dental Surgery Assistants
  Dental Surgery Assistants
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Road Accident Victims (Treatment)
  Road Accident Victims (Treatment)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  NHS Training Authority
  NHS Training Authority
  Benefits (Entitlement)
  Benefits (Entitlement)
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Travel-to-work Areas
  Travel-to-work Areas
  MSC (Correspondence)
  MSC (Correspondence)
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  MSC (Directions)
  MSC (Directions)
  Internal Audit
  Internal Audit
  Youth Training Scheme (Accident Statistics)
  Youth Training Scheme (Accident Statistics)
SCOTLAND
  Right to Repair (Consultative Document)
  Right to Repair (Consultative Document)
  Elections (Temporary Workers)
  Elections (Temporary Workers)
  Paternity Leave
  Paternity Leave
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Electronics Industry
  Electronics Industry
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Myocardial Infarction
  Myocardial Infarction
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Coronary Artery Disease
  Coronary Artery Disease
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Cardiac Pacemakers
  Cardiac Pacemakers
  Industry (Selective Assistance)
  Industry (Selective Assistance)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Sub-post Offices
  Sub-post Offices
  Wolverhampton
  Wolverhampton
  Tobacco Sales
  Tobacco Sales
  Local Enterprise Week
  Local Enterprise Week
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Regional Development Grant
  Regional Development Grant
  Travel-to-Work Areas
  Travel-to-Work Areas
  Carbon Fibre
  Carbon Fibre
  Monkeys
  Monkeys
ENERGY
  Scotland (Coal Mining Industry)
  Scotland (Coal Mining Industry)
  Sleipner Gas
  Sleipner Gas
  Coal Mining Dispute
  Coal Mining Dispute
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

Pesticides: Control of Use
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the legislation to be introduced to ensure the safe and efficient use of pesticides will also include the use of chemicals in veterinary medicine and the use of soil fertilisers.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, it is proposed that legislation should be introduced to ensure the safe and efficient use of pesticides. Statutory control is already exercised over veterinary medicines and fertilisers through the Medicines Act 1968 and the Fertilisers Regulations 1977, respectively.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. May I ask him whether this legislation will simply confirm the present practice of the pesticides safety precautions scheme and whether he feels that additional safeguards are perhaps necessary in this area? May I also ask the Minister whether this legislation will control the methods of spraying to ensure minimal effective growth and whether the widespread use of antibiotics as feeding additives will be controlled?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the first question which the noble Lord asked me was whether this will put on a statutory basis the existing voluntary pesticides safety precautions scheme. I should like to make it clear that the Government's intention is that the new legislation will require anyone who wishes to import, sell, or supply a pesticide in the United Kingdom to submit the product for clearance and that it will be an offence to use a product not so cleared. We intend to ensure that cleared pesticides are used only in accordance with the conditions of use. Again it would be an offence to breach those conditions. That goes a little wider than the existing scheme. So far as any further ideas are concerned, an undertaking has already been given by the Ministry of Agriculture that there will be consultation with all interested parties. As to the use of antibiotics, my advice is that they are subject to the Medicines Act 1968.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in a recent debate the House was advised by two or three noble Lords who are expert in this matter that the use of antibiotics in feeding stuffs needs to be looked at again? I believe that the noble Lord replied to that debate and said that this was a matter which he would consider. Could the Minister
432
say whether he and his department have given the matter further consideration and whether it will be taken into account in the drafting of the Bill?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we must wait for the consultation which is going to take place in the very near future. I apologise for appearing to be evasive on this point. All I can say at the moment is that the scope of the legislation will be of the kind which I attempted to outline in my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, is on to an important point.
Lord Hale: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to look at some of the Answers which were given to me during the course of the last few months, which included specific undertakings with regard to pesticides containing the Seveso disaster chemical, or the foundation of the dreadful poison which was used by the United States in Vietnam, which was the subject of countless demonstrations? I thought I had received a clear undertaking that legislation would be introduced quite shortly, but the scope of the legislation appears to vary considerably. May I ask the Minister to have another look at what has already been said? If he does so, he will find that I put down a number of Questions on this general subject. On the last occasion I thought that a reassuring statement was made, emanating from the European Community's group on pesticides, which seemed to forecast even the possibility of international legislation.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall certainly look at the Answers which have been given to the noble Lord. Lord Hale. However, may I take this opportunity to make the point that under the voluntary procedures which we already have—which broadly are called the pesticides safety precautions scheme, but it depends on other schemes as well—our record in this country is a good record? However, we believe that the pesticides regulations should now be put on a statutory basis. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that that is right: I believe he does. We have also, as I have repeated today, promised that there will be consultation with all interested parties. I hope the House will believe that this is the right way to proceed.
Lord Hale: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the captain of England, David Gower, was put at risk and became susceptible to really serious poisoning, which kept him out of play for two or three weeks, by rubbing his hand along the pitch at Lords?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall take into account what the noble Lord has just said.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in America some research showed up that there were more cases of leukaemia in rural areas than in urban areas? May I ask the Minister what research in respect of pesticides and fertilisers is being carried out?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, research is indeed taking place. There are advisory committees on veterinary medicine. There is the veterinary products committee.

433
There is advice from the Ministry of Agriculture's advisory service on the use of fertilisers. There is also the very distinguished advisory committee on the whole of the pesticides area. Perhaps I may make two points to the noble Baroness. I asserted that our record in this country is a good record. The noble Baroness may be pleased to hear that the working party on pesticides residues which reported in 1982 gave a reassuring picture relating to residues. As to actual incidents of alleged poisoning, anything which has been confirmed in the way of incidents has been, I am very glad to say, on a reducing scale over the last two or three years.

Consumer Council Guidelines
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 in view of the answer given on 10th May (col. 1008) they will state the date on which the guidelines concerned were sent to the Electricity and Gas Consumers' Councils.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, draft guidelines for discussion with the councils were sent to the secretariats concerned on 8th June.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords. I hope that the Minister feels very had about that Answer. Does he recall that, going hack to 2nd February, he told us that the Under-Secretary of State was in earnest about getting on with this particular matter? We then waited three months, until 10th May, when I asked the noble Lord whether he was aware that the people concerned had said that no discussions had taken place. The noble Lord informed the House that guidelines would be sent out within the next few days. Moving on from there, and waiting another four weeks, does the noble Lord realise that I made further inquiries and was told that, contrary to having been received within the next few days, nothing at all had been received and that I then decided that the only course to take in order to ensure that the papers would be received was to put down a Question? Is the noble Lord aware that he wrote to me on 13th June, which was five weeks from 10th May, with no apology or regret for the delay? He said that the guidelines had now been sent. Does the noble Lord really and truly think that that is good enough—especially when, on 10th May, at col. 1007, he did not say merely that the papers would be sent within the next few days but,
"literally within the next few days"?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I certainly owe the noble Baroness an apology, and I give her an unqualified one. It was not good enough, so far as I was concerned. to say that I thought the papers would be sent out,
"literally within the next few days",
and I am afraid that it was not until 8th June that the papers were in fact sent. Having said that, I am sure
434
the noble Baroness will join with me in taking great pleasure that the material has now been sent to the councils.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am not going to have my heart softened by the affection in which we all hold the noble Lord. First, is he aware that the papers were not sent until 13th June (according to his letter) and not 8th June? Is he aware that the letters were not received until 15th June? In view of this, does he wonder at the fact that consumer organisations, of whichever political party, have complete scepticism about the Government's concern for consumers of the products of nationalised industries? Will be please do something about this matter?
Lord Belstead: As a matter of fact, my Lords, the papers were sent out on 8th June. If I may pick up almost the last point put to me by the noble Baroness on 10th May, she said then—and I fully understood why—that the recipients of the papers would need some discussion, some meeting of minds. I hope the noble Baroness will feel that the department has been active in this matter, in that it was approached by both the electricity and the gas consumers' councils (the recipients of the papers) and a meeting has already been arranged for. I understand, 28th June.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: But, my Lords, they have had to wait five weeks for those discussions.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that will make the meeting all the better.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to inquire what the hold-up has been? These delays occur all the time, and always the same excuse is given. Perhaps there is some difficulty between the two departments, but there must be something that can be done to speed the process. I have listened to the noble Baroness speak on this subject very often, and I myself sat on a consumer council. I find it extraordinary that ways are found to delay matters.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have also listened to the noble Baroness opposite on this subject and to my noble friend, and I am perfectly clear that they both have very distinguished records and a close interest in this particular area. All I can say is that I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to this afternoon's exchange in your Lordships' House.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, would the information not be got out a bit more quickly if the relevant documents were classified?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my experience is that that would not help.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the basis of the replies given by the Minister this afternoon, will he consider whether the department concerned is operating on an efficient and cost-effective basis?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must make it clear on behalf of the department—and this is partly an answer to my noble friend—that the reason why a considerable period of time elapsed during 1983 was because the offerings from the NICCs themselves had to be received, and they differed quite considerably in content and in structure. The aim has been to produce concise drafts which share a recognisable common framework, so that the consumer councils themselves and the consumers shall know where they are. We have reached the position now where at least drafts have been sent to both the electricity and the gas consumers' councils—the two biggest.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the House is very kind—it is sometimes difficult to put points in the form of a question—but perhaps I might ask one further question. Is the noble Lord aware that in the letter he sent to me no urgency is expressed, that there is no sense of urgency hidden away in a single word of that letter? Have the Government given any date by which the two councils must reply to them? Can the Minister give any indication of when he will be in a position to make a further statement to the House?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I cannot help the noble Baroness with the first of her questions because the ball is in the court of the consumer councils. As I have said, they will first be talking again—because they wish to do so—with the Department of Trade and Industry, and will then be talking with the industries concerned. So far as concerns the Government making another statement, I have a feeling that the noble Baroness may be raising this matter again in the foreseeable future.
Lord Morris: My Lords, do these exchanges not amply justify the Minister's fondness for the adverb "shortly'?
Lord Belstead: My Lords. "shortly" means as soon as possible. We really will try to see that that assurance is fulfilled.

Nuclear Weapons: Heads of State Appeal
3.15 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. May I make one correction? There should be no reference in the Question to Argentina.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the appeal by the Heads of State of Sweden, India, Mexico, Tanzania and Greece to Governments possessing nuclear weapons "to halt all testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, to be immediately followed by substantial reductions in nuclear forces".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): We join the signatories of the appeal in restating our conviction that there must never be another world war. Our aim
436
is to prevent all war. We believe that security between East and West would be better improved by the negotiation of balanced reductions in the weapons of the superpowers, rather than a freeze. We therefore urge the Soviet Union to resume negotiations without pre-conditions.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that this appeal was initiated by the World Parliamentarians? They are distinguished members of all parties in 31 countries. Is he also aware that they intend to follow up that initiative by sending deputations to the governments of all countries possessing nuclear weapons, and may we have an assurance that such a deputation would be received at high level in the country?
Further, is the Minister aware that almost simultaneously with the making of this declaration the states associated with the Warsaw Pact made an appeal to the states of NATO,
"To conclude a treaty on the mutual renunciation of the use of military forces' "?
Will not these two appeals enable us to initiate a break-through, and will the Government take advantage of the conference on disarmament in Geneva, and of the Stockholm conference, to realise the hopes expressed in those appeals?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the Soviet Union want to secure reductions in nuclear weapons, then all they have to do is return to the negotiating table in Geneva, which they left so abruptly. May I add, in regard to the earlier part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, that perhaps it would be a good first step on the part of the signatories concerned to try to ensure that those who have not yet signed the nonproliferation treaty do so. For example, India and Tanzania have not yet found it possible to sign the treaty, and in our view it would be extremely helpful if they could do so. As to the reception that will be given to the delegation to which the noble Lord referred, I can certainly give him an assurance that it will be received at an appropriate level.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister say whether there are yet any grounds for optimism that the talks which have been broken off as a result of the withdrawal of the Soviet Union will be resumed at an early date? Can he also say what follow-up action the Government propose to take in concert with our allies to try to resume those talks, following the expressions of hope at the London summit that they will be resumed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps the best assistance that the Western powers can offer in that regard is to repeat the assurance that has been given publicly that they are willing to resume those talks without any pre-conditions whatsoever.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while many people would agree with his point that signatures to the non-proliferation treaty should be appended on a universal basis, there are many others who take a rather different view of his attitude to this question? Does he not agree that during

437
the past 20 years, while everybody has been talking about arms reduction, there has been occurring all the time an increase in nuclear armaments? Is he not aware that the view is widely held that there will be no reduction until there is a freeze? Is he not also aware that the sentiment in favour of a freeze as a preliminary to the possibility of arms reductions is gaining wide support throughout the world—in the United States and in the Soviet Union? Is it not time that the Government had a look at this question?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the trouble with a freeze is that it would perpetuate some important imbalances between East and West in favour of the Soviet Union. It would also remove the incentive for the Russians to return to the negotiating table in order to reach agreements on major reductions in nuclear armaments.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that a freeze on the deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems would be inconsistent with the removal of nuclear bases from this country? Would he also agree that there is now no check whatever on the arms race, no talks on nuclear weapons, and no progress on conventional weapons? May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he will discuss with the NATO allies the concept of a freeze on these weapons?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the views of our allies in this matter are very close to those of ourselves. A freeze, as I say, would perpetuate some important imbalances between East and West. That is the reason we cannot accept that proposal; but we are ready to return to the negotiating table, and it remains only for the Soviet Union to signify their willingness, too.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister said in reply to me that the Soviet Union can renew talks and that its failure to do so is the reason for deadlock. Would not the noble Lord the Minister agree that the situation is so serious that despite that we must seek every opportunity to look for a solution to the problem of nuclear weapons? Do not the conferences on disarmament in Geneva and Stockholm give the Government an opportunity to do that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we shall certainly play our role in the talks to which the noble Lord has referred, which are of course continuing. It certainly would be helpful, in our view, for the Soviet Union to return to the negotiating table for the INF discussions which they broke off and, indeed, for the START talks, too.

Unemployment Forecast and Proposed Remedies
3.25 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with the forecast of the level of unemployment
438
predicted by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and with the remedies proposed.
Viscount Long: My Lords, the Government are mindful of the unemployment projections and policy prescriptions of all major forecasting bodies, but attach no special importance to those of any single body.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that according to the National Institute the expected annual output growth of this country for this year and next year is 2 per cent., and that this is not sufficient to reduce unemployment? Is he further aware that the National Institute has stated that only an expansionist policy can give the private sector the means to provide sufficient jobs to reduce unemployment? If he does not agree with these findings, what is the Government's policy towards reducing unemployment?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, for reading all these articles, because I notice that gradually the writers of them are believing more and more that the Government are on the right course to try to help ease unemployment. The recent budget maintained a consistent approach of a medium-term financial strategy and a resolute anti-inflation policy, which is the only way to secure sustainable growth in output and in jobs. It abolished the Labour tax on jobs and the national insurance surcharge. It reformed corporation tax to the benefit of industry and investment in a way which removed the existing arbitrary discrimination against labour. It also raised tax thresholds 7 per cent. in real terms, which I am sure the noble Lord will agree will improve incentives and ease the unemployment and poverty trap.
Lord Oram: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Minister says that the Government pay no special attention to a particular forecast, but do they not at least take special notice of today's report of the OECD (of which they are a member) which casts very serious doubt on forecasts of economic upturn? Is it not about time that the Government realised that their economic policies are failing to produce the upturn which we are so often promised?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I did not actually see that report, but I heard about it. The most important thing is that we must keep the rate of inflation under control. In so doing, we must invest in industry, and in the end—and it is a long-term policy—the figure of unemployment will gradually, we hope, come down.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in view of the answer he has just given to my noble friend, will the noble Viscount the Minister make himself aware of the fact that the OECD report which has been issued in the last few hours casts grave doubts on the question of a sustained economic recovery? There is quite a serious note of pessimism in it. Bearing this in mind, can the noble Viscount the Minister tell us when the ever-increasing pool of long-term unemployed in this country can look to better future job prospects, so that they can leave the dole queues?
Viscount Long: My Lords, of course the report to which the noble Lord refers relates to a number of countries in addition to the United Kingdom. If we are going to try to control the unemployment position, we really must contain the situation. I congratulate the Government, though I am a member of it, on doing so. As it is, all we have to do now is to make sure that investment in industry and the economy is right, and then the unemployment level will not only be contained, but will eventually come down.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Viscount the Minister seriously saying, when there is a considerable number of long-term unemployed in each month's figures, that can be termed as "containing the situation"? Surely, that is a misuse of the English language?
Viscount Long: My Lords, a few years ago we inherited quite a number of problems from the party opposite. The idea then was that we were going to have seven, eight, 10 or 11 million unemployed. In fact, I congratulate the Government on three million at this stage.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, reverting to the report of the National Institute which is referred to in the Question, and notwithstanding the reply he has given, does not the noble Viscount the Minister think that it is wise occasionally to give special attention to these expert forecasts and analyses which are prepared? In this case should not more particular attention be given, since the forecasts by the National Institute have almost invariably been far better than the Government's forecasts and those of any spokesmen in this House? Is the noble Viscount aware that in the latest report an increase in the rate of inflation is predicted to take place in 1985, that unemployment (excluding school-leavers) is scheduled to go up further, and that personal disposable incomes are signalled as probably coming down? Does not the noble Viscount the Minister think it is really high time that the Government should abandon the obsolete policies of Professor Hayek and have a complete rethink of their whole economic and political policies?
Viscount Long: No, my Lords,
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Viscount is serious in claiming that he believes in the Government's policies, and that those policies will bring down unemployment—which is the story we have been hearing for at least three years—why is it that unemployment continues to rise?
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am not a genie. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is going off on holiday to Africa, and if he cares to leave his address with me, I shall write to him and let him know.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Health and Social Security Bill will be adjourned at some time between six o'clock
440
and 6.30 p.m. for the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order to be taken. As soon as the debate on this order has ended, the Committee stage of the Health and Social Security Bill will be resumed.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Clause 109,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 4 to 9,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 10 to 25,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 26 to 67,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 68 to 78,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 79 to 108,

Clauses 110 to 112,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 113 to 115.

—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords. I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill 185 as first printed for the Commons]
Clause 118, page 78, line 14, leave out paragraphs (iv) and (v).
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment. The amendment removes from the Bill two Northern Ireland provisions now unnecessary because of the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984. The order was made after the Bill had been considered by the joint committee but has been approved by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Brightman. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

Capital Transfer Tax Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1984
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1984, a draft of which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved. This draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which made no comment. It seeks to add a number of substances to the list of those controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and to reclassify one particular drug which is already controlled.
These proposals follow from United Kingdom obligations under the two United Nations international conventions on drugs. They have been considered and agreed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in accordance with the requirements of the Act. There have been extensive consultations with the medical and pharmaceutical interests and a number of minor changes made to take account of points raised.
If this order is approved the Home Secretary will be making the necessary subordinate legislation which will provide the detailed regimes of control to which these drugs will be subject. Those regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. These orders are of a technical nature. An explanatory memorandum has been placed in the Library of the House which explains the background to the order and the exact proposals in respect of each drug. Noble Lords may therefore prefer that I should not go into further detail, but I am, of course, happy to do so if your Lordships so wish. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as I understand it, this order requires the affirmative approval of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, it is extremely correct that the noble Lord the Minister should, on a very esoteric subject, give the explanation that he did to the House. I feel that, having heard it, the House will have no difficulty in approving the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.?

Health and Social Security Bill
3.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Schedule 3 [Family Practitioner Committees]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 38A:
Page 46, line 14, at end insert ("and committees").
The noble Lord said: This is a modest and largely probing amendment. On page 46, paragraph 15, sub
442
paragraphs (d), (e), (f) and (g) deal with the role of community health councils and their relationships with the district health authorities and with family practitioner committees. It will be noted that in (d) the question of consultation is dealt with and that family practitioner committees are involved. Sub-paragraph (e) deals with the furnishing of information to councils by authorities and committees, and (f) with the advice by councils to both the health authorities and the committees. Paragraph (g) refers to the preparation and publication of reports.
It is only in the last part of sub-paragraph (e), which covers the question of entering and inspecting premises controlled by such authorities, that, for some reason, the family practitioner committees are left out. Although I am moving the amendment, I am hoping that there can be some reasonable explanation from the Minister of this omission.
The Earl of Caithness: The effect of this amendment would be to confer upon community health councils the right to enter and inspect premises controlled by the FPCs. However, the only premises controlled by the FPCs are those which they and their staff occupy. The premises from which the independent contractors operate, which provide the family practitioner services, are their own or, if health centres, are controlled by the DHAs.
I cannot think that there is anything to be gained by giving CHCs the right to inspect and enter FPC office accommodation or, indeed, that it is even desirable that they should do so. I do not even believe that this is something they would wish to be empowered to do. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: That is a disappointing response, if I may say so. The noble Earl said that there is no good reason why the CHCs should not be given this authority. In the hospital service the CHCs are expected to visit hospitals in order to do their job properly in terms of reporting on conditions which they see within the hospital service. They report on what their eyes have seen and their ears have heard. This is a job which they do very well for the benefit of the hospitals and of the patients.
In an ideal world, the CHCs should also be entitled and at liberty to visit the health centres and the surgeries in the community and, again, report on what they see and hear. However, I accept that we do not live in an ideal world and I also accept that there is a difficulty. The difficulty in giving the CHCs this power is that, on the one hand, the hospitals are owned and managed by the area health authorities or the district health authorities, whereas the health centres are usually owned or, if not owned, are in tenancy to the doctors. Therefore, the doctors may well be opposed to a right of inspection by an outside body. They would see this as an infringement of their rights either as owners or as tenants.
I accept that there is that difficulty. But what is disappointing about the Minister's reply is that he does not accept that there is value in an outside body going into the health centres and onto the health premises and reporting on what it has seen and heard. If the

443
Minister could accept the principle, I would hope that, either by legislative action or, if that is difficult, by administrative action, the Government could find ways and means of allowing the CHCs to inspect the surgeries and the health centres in the same way as they inspect the hospitals. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can take this hack. I accept that there are difficulties, but one ought to be able to resolve the matter by administrative action.
The Earl of Caithness: CHCs do not enter district health authority administrative offices. They enter premises from which health care is dispensed by DHAs. We do not own or control the premises of the contractors to the FPCs. There is certainly value in CHCs entering health premises, but FPCs do not control them and therefore it would probably be wrong for CHCs to have that power.
Lord Ennals: Like my noble friend Lord PrysDavies, I am not very satisfied with the Minister's reply. I certainly do not intend to press the matter to a Division, but I should like to consider whether it is a matter that we might return to at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Finance in National Health Service]:
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 25, at end insert ("provided that the Secretary of State or, as the case might be, the Regional Health Authority, shall not change an allotment made for a given financial year after 31st December in that financial sear unless either,

(i) the authority receiving the allotment consents to that change, or

(ii) the allotment is changed by an order, a draft of which has been laid before and approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: I rise for once with a certain amount of optimism in proposing this amendment because I would hope that this is one which the Government might conceivably agree to. It is designed to achieve two things. It is designed to enable health authorities to plan properly and, as a result, to give value for money. It could be assumed from reading the amendment that it was dealing purely with a threat of a possible cut in allocation late in the year, but in actual fact it also deals with a possible increase due to under-spending on the DHSS budget late in the year.
Let me deal first of all with the impact of a cut of allocation very late in the year. However small such a cut is late in the year, its impact is increased by the length of time since the original allocation was made. Authorities plan their expenditure based on the allocation that they receive at the beginning of the year, Therefore. if in the last month or two of the year a health authority has to make an alteration to its expenditure the impact will be very sudden and cannot be planned, and it frequently results in the closing, perhaps, of a ward or sometimes even a small hospital as the only way in which the authority can meet its cash limits on 1st April. That is not good planning and
444
it can also result in a closure that was not desired and would never have happened if the planning process had been allowed to proceed.
On the other hand, a sudden injection of money, all to be spent before lst April, similarly poses problems. All health authorities have lists of priorities. I have been in this position many times, both as chairman of a board of governors, as a governor of a teaching hospital and as a regional chairman when at the last minute we were offered extra money. I cannot imagine any health authority which would turn round and say, "No. thank you. We don't need it". Of course they need it, but what you frequently have to do—because it is a certain sum of money that has to be spent before 1st April—is to go down your list of priorities. You have a look at what they are, and it usually turns out that one priority a long way down the list is the only one on which you can spend the money. I am not saying that that expenditure is not necessary, but it was not the highest priority on the list of the health authority, and this cannot in any sense be called good planning of NHS finances.
I should prefer both the DHSS and health authorities to be able to carry over under-spending. At the moment there is an understanding between the DHSS and health authorities that the health authorities can carry over a 10 per cent. under-spending on capital into the next year and a 1 per cent. under-spending on revenue into the next year. That is all very well. It is a very small sum of money. But the tragedy of it all is that there is no official agreement, as far as I am aware, between the Treasury and the DHSS about the carry-over of expenditure.
When this understanding between the health authorities and the DHSS started, it was a year when under-spending on the NHS budget for the year amounted to about £40 million. But because there was no agreement between the Treasury and the DHSS, this money—the carry-over which the department has and which it allows the health authorities to spend the following year—could be spent only if the accounts of the DHSS ended up the following year with a similar £40 million under-spent for that year. If it is less than £40 million, or less than the previous year's figure—I am not sure what the figures are at this moment—the whole of the health service is in trouble, because that then becomes an automatic cut in the NHS expenditure as the Treasury will not allow the DHSS to carry over the expenditure. I believe that the Secretary of State really must get the Treasury to recognise the folly of unplanned expenditure at the end of a year and negotiate official permission to carry over allocations in the interest of positive long-term planning for the NHS.
I could have phrased this amendment to ask for a six-month moratorium and no change under any circumstances. I thought that that was being a little too optimistic, and I hope therefore that the Government will agree to the three months. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: I should like to add a word to the words of the noble Baroness. She speaks with a great deal of experience. Some of the experience of which she speaks was acquired when I was Secretary of State. It was I who had to negotiate with difficult Treasury Ministers. I can assure the noble Lord the Minister

445
that Treasury Ministers in all Governments are very difficult. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Barnett is not here at the moment. One had to negotiate with the Treasury even a 1 per cent. carry-over. At one stage we had absurd expenditure in the last few weeks of a year rather than lose the money. I very much agree with the noble Baroness that positive long-term planning and continuity are absolutely essential. Whether her way is the best way to do it, or whether it would be better to try to up the 1 per cent. to 2 per cent., I should not like to say. They are alternative methods.
I think that the consequences of the present situation were revealed in the statement made by the Secretary of State in another place yesterday, when he made it clear that there had been a 10,000 reduction in manpower, which was far more than he had asked for. In my view, that was largely because people were rushing to live within their budget by the end of the year, and therefore probably cut out people who were essential to the service.
While I would not necessarily say that this is the only way to deal with the problem, the noble Baroness has certainly put her finger on a problem. I hope that at least it will be sympathetically considered by the Minister.
Lord Glenarthur: I, of course, entirely accept that it is undesirable for health authorities to have to cope with changes in their spending position late on in the financial year. Therefore, I have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment of the noble Baroness, but I have to say to her that, despite that sympathy, it would in practice be an unnecessarily restrictive measure, in ways in which I think that the noble Baroness herself would not intend, although I am well aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, of her experience in these matters.
The precise level of each individual health authority' s cash limit is subject to modification throughout the financial year. I am not here talking about major changes in spending power, but minor changes made for technical or managerial reasons. Perhaps I can best illustrate what I mean with a couple of examples. We operate brokerage arrangements whereby regional health authorities can manage peaks and troughs in their levels of capital expenditure by lending or borrowing funds from capital cash limits. The Department of Health acts as a broker to effect these arrangements by reducing the lender' s cash limit one year, and increasing it in a subsequent year when the money is paid back. These arrangements need to be formalised by adjustments to the respective health authorities' cash limits. It would be unnecessarily restrictive, and could lead to inefficient use of resources, if such arrangements could not be made in the last quarter of the financial year.
There are other modifications. We have had in recent years to reduce health authority cash limits to reflect any reductions in health authority costs on VAT and national insurance surcharge. This is in line with the Government' s policy that the public sector should not make windfall gains from changes designed to stimulate the private sector of the economy. Again, it would be absurd if the Government could not make any such changes in the last quarter of the financial
446
year. Nor do I think it would be sensible to enshrine in statute, as the noble Baroness suggests, that any such adjustments should be subject to approval either by the authority concerned or by Parliament. There may well be occasions on which an authority would object to a reduction. It seems far more appropriate to leave that as a matter for resolution between health authority and health authority or health authority and department. The noble Baroness' s amendment would also mean that any regional authority which wanted to make a reduction in a district authority' s cash limit, however small, and again however technical, and where the district objected, for whatever reason, would have to seek parliamentary approval. That really would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the carry-over of underspend. Here, the department does make available to health authorities the facility to carry over underspending. The department has always honoured authorities' requirements for carry-over, and the Treasury has agreed to assist the DHSS in funding capital underspending. So far as manpower is concerned, there may be some reasons for the saving against manpower targets reported by health authorities last year. But given that authorities nationally underspend by some £40 million, a saving in manpower of 10,000 was not due to a shortage of cash.
In considering a similar amendment to this Bill in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister of Health agreed that it was desirable not to make changes in the last quarter of the financial year. I repeat those sentiments, particularly on changes affecting authorities' real spending power. But for the, frankly, rather mundane purposes I have tried to sketch out, the amendment would provide an unnecessary and unwieldy power. It would be quite inappropriate to the management of cash limits. I hope that with that explanation of its further result, the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
3. 52 p. m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I quite understand the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on capital cash limits but it really does not detract from my amendment. That kind of adjustment is done with the agreement of the health authorities, anyway. I cannot understand how any organisation, be it the National Health Service itself or a regional health authority, could ever get itself into the position—this applies particularly to the Department of Health and Social Security—described by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, because of a change in VAT or the withdrawal for some reason of allocations from health authorities. It is very unlikely to happen in the last quarter of the year.
It is very unlikely, if there is a sound planning system within a region, that one would have to change the allocation to a district health authority in the last quarter of the year. I am trying to safeguard against arbitrary_decision by Government, for whatever reason, to cut the allocation to the regional health authorities, which then forces them to cut the allocation to the district health authorities. I am not convinced by the arguments that I have heard but I am prepared to read Hansard to consider whether to bring

447
forward the amendment in the same form, or in a different form, at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Professional remuneration in National Health Service]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 12. line 47. at end insert—
("Provided that the effect thereof does not result in a retrospecitve adjustment of remunerations for a period greater than one year."")
The noble Lord said: We are dealing here with the question of retrospection in terms of payments, particularly in relation to opticians and pharmacists. Your Lordships will, I think, agree that retrospective legislation is never viewed with great popularity and always needs to be scrutinised carefully in both Houses of Parliament. We are dealing here, as I say, with opticians and pharmacists. To an extent, they overlap. The Minister of Health, at the time of the dispute between the Government and the pharmacists, said in another place on 25th January 1984:
"The Government have therefore decided to take the opportunity to introduce into the Health and Social Security Bill a clause to remove doubt, for both the past and the future, by restoring the position to what Governments and professions have assumed it to be over the years. "—[Official Report, Commons. 25/1/84; col. 603.]
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, on the Second Reading of the Bill here, on 21st May, said at column 13 of the Official Report:
"It is long-standing and accepted practice that past inadequate or excessive payments are offset in future payments".
He also said:
"I must emphasise that this clause does not represent any change in Government policy: it is intended simply to clarify the present arrangements, as they have been understood by the professions and the Government for many years".
So far as the opticians are concerned, neither of these two statements of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, is to their satisfaction. They do not believe the statements to be accurate. They have argued that Clause 7 does not clarify the present arrangements as they have been understood by the optical profession and the Government for many years. In fact, Clause 7 introduces a change in Government policy. It introduces into opticians' remuneration for the first time the question of discounts received by some opticians from their prescription manufacturers and, moreover, includes provision for retrospection as regards additional payments or recovery of excessive past payments.
To move on to the pharmacists, this was an issue that I touched on particularly in the Second Reading debate. The final amount of remuneration due to pharmacists is determined according to the best available estimates of their reimbursable costs such as the cost of medicines, of labour, of overheads, and so on. There is in my view no reason why these estimates cannot be replaced by the actual costs incurred at the end of the year in question. The result is that pharmacists now work in a climate of uncertainty and confusion.
At the moment, I understand. pharmacists are being
448
required to pay back £37 million of the money that they have already received. This clawback is being backdated all the way to October 1980 and is supposed to reflect the discounts on medicines which some pharmacists, but by no means all, were given by wholesalers during that period. One has also to bear in mind that many of the pharmacies have changed hands in the course of the four-year period.
One has to balance this with the fact that. as I said on Second Reading, so far the Department of Health have failed to reimburse pharmacists some £30 million of increased labour costs already incurred. There seems to be an element of tit-for-tat about this. I know the matter was taken to court, but I really do not know whether the Minister is needing to have this Bill in order to give him authority he does not now have to recoup a total of £53 million.
Perhaps I can conclude by putting to the Minister one or two specific questions about this. Perhaps he could say why the retrospective parts of the Bill, and principally Clause 7(4) and the proposed Section 43B(4) of the 1977 Act, are necessary; and whether there is any connection between those parts and the Secretary of State' s attempt last year to recover £53 million from the pharmacists. Can he indicate whether the Secretary of State intends to recover this very large sum of money over a four-year period, after the Bill becomes law? If that is so, it is clear that this is legislation which is not simply to confirm the existing situation but is to create a new situation. May I ask why the Secretary of State has not recovered the money before now, if he had a legal entitlement to do so; and whether or not it is because the Secretary of State accepts that there is a real doubt as to his entitlement to do so?
Mainly, therefore, I am asking whether this provision has been introduced into this Bill to give to the Secretary of State power which he does not now have in relation to the opticians and pharmacists. I put it to your Lordships that really it is not a satisfactory situation where pharmacists, in particular, are being asked to repay to the department sums that go back over a four-year period. I am not questioning that there needs to be a degree of retrospection: there has been for a very long time, as the Minister knows. I am seeking to secure that that degree of retrospection is limited to 12 months only. I beg to move.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I should like to support this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and to add a little more detail so far as the opticians are concerned. Remuneration for opticians in the form of sight-testing and dispensing payments has always been negotiated through the Optical Whitley Council machinery, which has never been involved in the negotiation of reimbursement rates for NHS frames and lenses, which have never been understood to form part of opticians' remuneration. The recoverable charges for the supply of optical appliances under the NHS have always been determined by the department in negotiation with the manufacturers and the Ophthalmic Prescription Manufacturers' Association.
The proposal in Clause 7 to treat reimbursement as part of remuneration is, therefore, a major change in the position as we have known it right back to 1948. Recoverable charges cannot be regarded as coming

449
within the scope of opticians' remuneration when the optical bodies involved in negotiating remuneration are not parties to the NHS statement rate negotiations. During this period, whenever the profession' s representative bodies have raised matters relating to over-payment for specific lenses or frames, they have been told categorically by the department that statement rates operate on a swings and roundabouts basis.
As regards any question of over-payment or underpayment on interim sight-testing or dispensing fees, since the balance sheet system was introduced in 1975 both the staff side and the official side of Whitley Committees C and D have understood that the method relies upon the recovery, via the balance sheet, of an over-payment of fees such as occurred in the case of ophthalmic opticians dispensing in the early years of the 1978–82 period, and this recovery was settled against the arrears of fees found to be due for that five-year period in the March quarter of 1983.
The NHS statement rates, however, are determined by the DHSS and the optical industry in such a manner as to enable that industry to meet its material and overhead costs, and the DHSS to set the statutory charges payable by patients to enable the Treasury to recoup such of the expenditure on the statement items as the Government determine. Only recently, and certainly without any prior consultation with the optical representative bodies, has there been any suggestion whatsoever that amounts paid to opticians in contract with the general ophthalmic services, in accordance with the regulations and NHS statement, might he regarded as coming within over-payment or under-payment arrangements. We find this unacceptable as regards both the past and the present, and would be prepared to consider such arrangements for future supply payments only if the optical representative bodies were active parties to the NHS statement price negotiations.
The present position, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was suggesting, is that the DHSS, without any legal authority, has offset a sum of £6 million, said to have been unintended profits received in the form of discounts on NHS frames and lenses, against arrears of fees of £90 million for NHS sight-testing and dispensing due to opticians. The purpose of Clause 7 appears to be retrospectively to validate this illegal action.
The subject of the so-called unintended profits allegedly made by opticians is covered in the 14th and 16th Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts. In this connection, it is relevant to highlight a passage from the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee on 14th November 1983 by Sir Kenneth Stowe. Sir Kenneth Stowe said:
"I think we were clear in our evidence to the Committee last year and the Committee was clear in its response to that evidence that when we talk of unintended profits we are not talking about payments received by opticians which were in any way unlawful or had anything improper about them. What was at issue was precisely a question whether the rates of reimbursement which the Family Practitioner Committees were required by regulation to apply to the opticians who were in contract with them were accurately reflecting the costs which the department had intended to take into account in setting out those rates".
In summary, our view is that if the DHSS have failed in past years in their duty to fix statement rates
450
at appropriate levels, and have done so without any consultation with the optical profession, then it ill-behoves the department to bring forward a clause which, by means of retrospective legislation, introduces an arrangement whereby the Government can recover from individuals who have not been overpaid amounts which they, the Government, consider to have been over-paid to certain groups or professions providing family practitioner services. This kind of retrospective clawback seems both wrong and inequitable, and most certainly does not restore the position to what the optical profession has understood it to be over the years.
Lord Renton: I wish briefly to support my noble friend Lord Cullen. He has deployed rather fully a matter to which I was proposing to refer on the Question. Whether the clause shall stand part? All I shall say now, in supporting him, is that what he has said will enable me to make my remarks that much briefer.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I accept the argument of my noble friend Lord Cullen; it is sound, and has the hallmark of being in accordance with common sense. I found the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, rather puzzling. I am against retrospective legislation of any sort. If it is the case that this payment was made within the law, then, if the NSS were not aware of certain discounts, they ought to have been. They were not alert. They should have taken into account all the things that were available for them to know when the decision was made as to what the rate of pay would be.
So I accept absolutely the argument of my noble friend Lord Cullen: that is, that they have done nothing wrong. He argued that the extra money they may have got from any discounts was more than covered by the expenses they had to incur in actually doing the job. I accept that. I do not like retrospective legislation.
But I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, ought to be allowed to get away with the penny and the cake. If it be the case that retrospective legislation is wrong and that it ought not to be done for the reasons that my noble friend has put forward, then to say that it can be done for 12 months but not for four years smacks of wanting to be on both sides at once. If it is wrong for any retrospective payment to have to be made, all right, it is wrong. But to say that it is all right for 12 months but all wrong for four years is a pure party political attempt to be on both sides of the fence at the same time. I do not think that that is in accordance with the standards that we usually want to keep to in this House.
There ought either to be no retrospective clawback or, if the case is made that something was wrong and that they had rather more than everybody thought that they ought to have, then it all ought to be brought back to the point where it can be recognised that it was wrongly paid. My view is that retrospective legislation is disrupting; it is wrong; and it is very unfair that people who work within the law at the time should suddenly three, four or five years later be deemed to have been against the law and have to pay the penalty of clawback. I want it on the record that I do not like this idea of being on both sides at once. It is either

451
wrong to have it at all or it is not right to have it for 12 months and not for four years.
4. 12 p. m.
Lord Glenarthur: I accept of course the views expressed by several of your Lordships that retrospective legislation is not looked upon favourably by this House or generally. But Clause 7 of the Bill puts beyond argument the remuneration arrangements for the four National Health Service contractor professions—the general medical practitioners, the dentists, the opticians and the pharmacists. The effect of the proposed amendment which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would be to exempt from the operation of the clause any determination which would result in a retrospective adjustment of renumeration in respect of more than one year. Perhaps I should explain what that would mean.
A retrospective adjustment of remuneration is, put simply, a backdating of pay levels. Clause 7 does not allow back-dating of pay if it is detrimental to those to whose pay it relates. The proposed amendment would, therefore, simply restrict to one year any backdating of pay which was to the advantage of those to whose pay it related. In other words, if we were proposing to make an award under which members of one of the four NHS contractor professions would be entitled to, say, three or four years' back pay, we should find that it had to be restricted to one year.
I do not know whether or not the noble Lord had that in mind when he put down this amendment, but certainly that is the effect of it. I do not suppose that he did have it in mind. I imagine that he was instead trying to restrict the so-called "1983 pharmacists' discount clawback,"to which he referred, to the recovery of only one year' s over-reimbursement of drug costs. I cannot accept that that would be justifiable.
I need first to explain the background to the 1983 discount clawback. A level of remuneration for pharmacists is agreed each year between the pharmacists' negotiators, the PSNC, and the Department of Health. If payments fall short of or exceed this level. offsetting adjustments are made in future payments; this is fair both to the profession and to the taxpayer. I note that the noble Lord agrees with that.
It was realised in 1980 that the average discounts which pharmacists were obtaining on drugs were considerably greater than the amount assumed in fixing the payments which were intended to reimburse them for the actual cost of the drugs they dispensed. We therefore discussed and reached agreement with the PSNC on the setting up of an inquiry into the discounts obtainable, on the understanding that compensatory adjustments would be made in the light of its report. After receiving the report last June we negotiated with the PSNC a new discount scale to offset the excessive past payments—to apply to prescriptions dispensed from 1st August 1983. Our arrangements for taking account of discounts on drugs were, however, challenged, as the noble Lord himself said.
At a hearing in the High Court in November we accepted that the form in which the changes had been
452
made was not legally valid and undertook to suspend the operation of higher discount scales and to repay the additional amounts already deducted as a result of these scales. The PSNC' s case against the discount clawback was heard and rejected by the High Court on 9th February. Clause 7 was added in another place to put beyond argument our right to take account of discounts and to clarify the legal basis of our arrangements both for the past and for the future. We remain committed to recovering the substanital sums of public money overpaid in drug reimbursement since 1980. offsetting the overpayments by adjusting future payments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to £37 million. There are still items which are subject to negotiation. The £37 million is a movable sum each month; also the sum of £ 15 million is withheld in the balance sheet. The full results of the labour and overhead costs inquiry, which was referred to, are not yet to hand and will be the subject of negotiation when they are to hand.
The system of offsetting excessive and inadequate payments in future years is a well established feature of the remuneration arrangements for all four contractor professions. Final details of doctors' and dentists' actual output and expenses are not available until two to three years after target net incomes are set by the Government, and so restricting retrospection to one year would put an end to the "balancing arrangements", which work well and have the support of both the Government and the professions. Pharmacists had always considered the system to be necessary and desirable until last year, when they learned of the very large overpayment of discount which had occurred over the previous three years, and which had to be recovered.
I know—and this matter was brought out by my noble friend Lord Cullen—that the opticians are apprehensive about this clause and its possible application to the question of discounts which they have received on the prices paid for spectacle frames and lenses. The rates at which they are reimbursed for these items are intended to cover only the cost to the opticians, but we believe that the opticians may have profited from discounts from their suppliers. The sum of £6 million is currently being withheld from arrears, as my noble friend said, until we can establish how much may have been overpaid.
An inquiry into the actual amounts paid by opticians to their suppliers has recently been completed and we shall now be discussing with the opticians' representatives the scale of the problem. We shall await the outcome of these negotiations before deciding the extent, if any, to which remuneration can be adjusted to recover any amounts overpaid. However, I must make it clear that the Goverment have a duty to safeguard the taxpayers' money and cannot give up the right to consider past overpayments and underpayments when determining opticians' remuneration any more than we can consider doing so for the other contractor professions.
Finally, I should like to add that the Government and the PSNC are about to begin negotiations on a new contract for pharmacists which the Government hope will minimise the scope for the build-up of future over or under payments. I hope that, in view of the

453
explanation which I have given, the noble Lord will at least appreciate the nature of this particular clause; the need for it, as expressed before by my right honourable friend the Minister for Health; and that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Ennals: I have to say to your Lordships that nothing that the Minister has said has satisfied me at all. I. of course, agree—and perhaps I may address these remarks to my fellow schoolmate, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls—that there needs to be a degree of retrospection. That is the way in which over the years we have determined levels—sometimes up and sometimes down—but we can do it within the course of 12 months. If we had no system of adjustment in the light of, say, a year' s trading, then we should be grossly unfair to the taxpayers, let alone to the contractors because sometimes it is one way and sometimes it is the other. One cannot tell which way it will be, or how much it will be, until roughly a year has elapsed. So to that extent I go along with the Minister; but I go along with him no further.
The Minister has said that pharmacists are now discovering that they have a very large amount to repay over three years. That is a grossly unsatisfactory situation. What is his department doing if they are having to deal with a situation which goes back over three years when, in many cases. the pharmacies were owned by quite different pharmacists, who will now suffer and perhaps be put out of business? The Minister was absolutely clear that the Government are taking powers which they do not now have; that was the point of one of the questions I put to him.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may intervene briefly to say that, after years of agreeing with a system which had long operated in relation to the pharmacists and other professions, and which I am sure the noble Lord himself must have noted when he was in the position he then held, the PSNC suddenly claimed that the Secretary of State did not have the power. The noble Lord himself held this power, but apparently it is not power in statute. We do not accept that, but clearly it is desirable for the position to be clarified.
On the reason for the delay. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that, because of the legal challenge by the PSNC, we agreed to defer recovery until the position was clarified by legislation. That is the need for legislation which is now being expressed.
Lord Ennals: I am not objecting at all to a retrospective settlement—and the amendment makes it perfectly clear that there needs to be a retrospective settlement—but that retrospective settlement should relate to payments made by both sides over a period of 12 months. It may be that the actual money is not paid until the 12 months have elapsed; but, unless my amendment is carried, or unless the Minister comes forward with something else at the Report stage, the period of retrospection could be five years, six years or seven years. The Minister could have absolutely unlimited powers. Surely noble Lords cannot tolerate that, and we should think for a moment about the morality of the issue. Of course I accept a period of up
454
to one year, but beyond that I shall not go, and I think that it would be right to push this amendment to a Division.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not think that this Committee ought to accept this retrospective power as easily as all that. I do not think that the Government ought to take retrospective powers of this kind. In giving the explanation, my noble friend was not in a position to say that they had done anything unlawful or wrong in the conditions that then existed. All they did was to negotiate an extra discount from the supplier. If they had not been keen enough to negotiate that discount, they would have done nothing wrong, and so it would have made no difference at all to the Government' s contribution to the general payment.
Are we to penalise organisations or people for being keen enough to get the best possible price from the suppliers and then all of a sudden, because of their keenness to get a discount which previously they had not received, we bring in powers which make it unlawful? I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. But I think that there is a principle here which is being breached, whether one does it for 12 months or for four years.
I should not like to think that this Committee of Parliament will easily accept retrospective powers. I opposed this in the other place, and I oppose it here. It is for the Government of the day to be aware of what is happening and to make certain of the general circumstances surrounding anything which involves the spending of public money. If the people involved have not acted unlawfully, if they have worked according to the normal ethics and the normal situation, as it existed, they ought not to be subject to retrospective powers, which in this case may cost them a great deal of money or may well affect their general standing and prestige.
Therefore, I do not think that the retrospective part of it ought to be accepted. The 12-month period means that the housemaid' s baby is a small baby, and not a big. bouncing baby. But retrospection is against the general principle, and I do not think that this Committee ought easily to accept it.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: I find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls because he is ignoring the position of the taxpayer who has to find the money which is provided by the DHSS. Let us suppose that a contract is made under which the remuneration to these professional bodies is based on an amount to be agreed by the ministry, reduced by the discounts that they receive from their bulk-buying from the pharmaceutical companies. Let us also suppose that—and I am using a completely hypothetical figure—in those negotiations the discount is put forward by those professions as, say, 20 or 30 per cent., and on that basis the Government agree the remuneration. If subsequently—and one is always aware of the intense competition in the pharmaceutical companies—they increase that discount by 5 or 10 per cent. due to the competition of the pharmaceutical companies (and I am not in any way casting aspersions as such on the two professions named) then I think that the taxpayers, and not those gentlemen, should receive the benefit.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I apologise for speaking again, but there is a vital principle here. We may be dealing with a small clause and a minute amendment, but it involves an important principle. I agree with my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith in the sense that the public must be protected, and protected in the future, by all means. In the light of the knowledge that discounts are available, that should, and ought to, be taken into account in any future arrangements that are made. But to make it retrospective—and for four years—when people were doing nothing wrong at the time, involves a principle that we should examine very carefully indeed before we allow it to be breached.
Lord Glenarthur: First, I entirely share the view of my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith that in this case we are talking about taxpayers' money. Of course, to have to claim repayments for four years is unsatisfactory, but the pharmacists knew when they agreed to the inquiry that the day of reckoning would eventually come. Unfortunately, lack of co-operation with the inquiry by some pharmacists succeeded in postponing the day excessively.
We are now trying to negotiate an improved system which will avoid such delays. We propose to establish a study group with an independent chairman to supervise the conduct of inquiries to a fixed annual timetable and also to produce, again to a set annual timetable, a statement of amounts due to the profession. These proposals represent a very considerable improvement for the individual pharmacist.
The fact is that we still accept—and it has been upheld by the High Court—that we have an entitlement to recover these costs. That is the nature of the purpose that lies behind what we are trying to do. This clause of the Bill is simply in order to put the matter beyond any doubt. It is a matter of doubt. When the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was Secretary of State he assumed that, quite rightly, he had the right to do what has been done in this particular case. All that is happening now is that we are making it quite clear beyond doubt, notwithstanding the general level of objections to retrospective legislation as expressed by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that in this particular case a great deal of taxpayers' money is at stake, and this must be recovered. Pharmacists were well aware in the first place that this was likely to come about.
4. 30 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Ardwick, L.

Brockway, L.

Attlee, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Aylestone, L.

Caradon, L.

Banks, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Bernstein, L.

Collison, L.

Birk, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

David, B.

456

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Oram, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Peart, L.

Ennals, L.

Phillips, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Porritt, L.

Grey, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hale, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Richardson, L.

Hanworth, V.

Roberthall, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Hayter, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Seear, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Simon, V.

Jacobson, L.

Stallard, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stone, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Leatherland, L.

Underhill, L.

Listowel, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Whaddon, L.

Longford, E.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mar, C.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Mishcon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Henley, L.

Alport, L.

Hives, L.

Ampthill, L.

Holderness, L.

Annan, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Avon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bellhaven and Stenton, L.

Ilchester, E.

Bellwin, L.

Inglewood, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Berkeley, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bessborough, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Caccia, L.

Lewin, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lovat, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cathcart, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cockfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colwyn, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Craigavon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Cromartie, E.

Molson, L.

Daventry, V.

Morris, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Northchurch, B.

Donegall, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundee, E.

Onslow, E.

Eccles, V.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Portland, D.

Elles, B.

Remnant, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Rodney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rugby, L.

Glanusk, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gormanston, V.

Sandys, L.

Gray, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gridley, L.

Shannon, E.

Hailsham of Saint, Marylebone, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Somers, L.

457

Spens, L.

Teviot, L.

Stamp, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Strathspey, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sudeley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Vickers, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Wigram, L.

Terrington, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4. 38 p. m.
On Question. Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: What I have to say is on a fairly short point on clause stand part. As I said when we were discussing the last amendment, I can shorten it because so much of the background to the short plea that I wish to make has already been described. However, I would just mention that this is a long and complicated clause, the effect of which will depend upon regulations. The regulations will in turn, in their content and in the way in which determinations are made in accordance with them, depend not only upon the provisions of this Bill but also upon the present law.
I should have thought that that kind of retrospection is something which should be avoided if possible, because we cannot fully understand the effect of what we are enacting without knowing for certain what the present law is. There is an uncertainty about the present law. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur, in dealing with the last amendment, referred to a case decided in the High Court. I assume that he did not know (but I have since told him) that that case is subject to appeal. An application was made—I must not discuss the merits of the case—to expedite the hearing of the appeal so that your Lordships would have a better idea of the present law before changing it.
I am told that the hearing of the appeal will last only a day or a day and a half, and it could easily, if the Government supported an application to expedite the hearing of the appeal, take place between the end of the Committee stage and the beginning of the Report stage. There would be great advantages to Parliament if that could be done.
I cannot expect my noble friend to give me a firm answer to this plea at the moment. All I can say is that I hope he will pass it on to the right quarters; and I repeat that it would be of great advantage to Parliament if we could have the benefit of the views of the Court of Appeal on what will undoubtedly be retrospective legislation.
Lord Ennals: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has rendered the Committee a great service. I did not know that the matter was to go to appeal and I think he said the Minister did not know. I should have known, but it is even more the case that the Minister should have known. It would be absolutely wrong for us to go through Report stage without the courts having decided. I hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said will be taken very seriously by the Government: otherwise inevitably we shall have to come back to it at Report stage.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: In putting up the arguments that he did on the last amendment, my noble friend relied very much on what he said was the court' s decision. My noble friend has done us a great service in letting us know of this, but we now understand that the court has not yet given a final decision. Until such time as the appeal has been heard and the decision on that has been recorded, the argument that my noble friend used so effectively on the last amendment falls to the ground. I should have thought that, in view of the strength that he placed on the court' s supporting what he said, he should recommend to his friends to hold this clause in abeyance until such time as we can see whether or not the court, through all its stages, supports what has been done as being the right thing in all the circumstances.
Lord Renton: I am not suggesting that we should not let this clause be added to the Bill now. I think that we should; hut, if we do not have the benefit of knowing the result of this appeal between now and Report stage, our difficulty in handling it at Report stage will be very great.
Lord Glenarthur: I must say that I find myself skating on ice sometimes which feels to be a little thin under my feet when we are dealing with legal matters, upon which my noble friend Lord Renton is such an expert. I hope that I said nothing in my earlier remarks which, in any way, could be interpreted as being improper in the light of the fact that there is an appeal pending.
My noble friend asks whether or not it would be possible to expedite the hearing of an appeal so that the present law can be clarified. I understand the point he is making. Whether that is possible I do not know nor do I know whether it is a matter that the Government have any control over, but I shall find out and let him know.
My noble friend cut short his remarks in light of the fact that most of the arguments had been expressed when we were dealing with Amendment No. 40. I do not think there is any point in my repeating the same arguments again. All I say to my noble friend is that I understand his concern and that of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about retrospective legislation in general. This case seems to be a special case, in that it is awaiting decision on appeal at present. As such, I hope that my noble friend will not see fit to move that Clause 7 does not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I should make it clear that I agree with him that this is not a matter for Government decision as to whether the appeal should be expedited. All I am asking is that the Government should agree to an application made by the appellant to expedite the appeal. That is the only extent to which the Government need to take action. The decision must be that of the court. But I think that, when the court hears the application and hears the advantage that it would be for Parliament to have the appeal expedited, the court may take a favourable view of the matter.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I hope that my noble friend will bear in mind that there is a point here: if it eventually goes to appeal and the decision of the Court of Appeal is different from that of the lower court upon which he relied so much, what will then be the situation? It would mean that we had amended legislation to some extent under false pretences, on what was supposed to be the legal decision given by the lower court compared with the Court of Appeal. Those are the arguments and we should use any influence—I put it no higher than that—to see if we can get the appeal decision before the Report stage in order to overcome the problems that my noble friend Lord Renton stated. But I agree with him that I do not think that at this stage we should try to remove Clause 7. That would perhaps cause more confusion than the alternative. We ought to try to use any influence we may have to make certain that the Appeal Court' s decision is not different from that of the lower court, otherwise we shall be in trouble.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that I can come back on one particular point about the expedition of the leave to appeal. I have to say that the PSNC' s case, as I said earlier, was heard and rejected by the High Court on 9th February and its application for expedition of its appeal was rejected on 1st May. I do not know whether that will colour my noble friend' s views.
Lord Renton: Yes, but under the procedure of the High Court there is a discretion on the part of the court to hear the further applications.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I have been very interested in listening to this very involved discussion. It is a very worrying situation. Would not the Government consider postponing the Bill until the next Session so that we can really get down to the matter?
Lord Ennals: What a good idea!
Baroness Jeger: Hear, hear!
Baroness Phillips: As a mere magistrate I am particularly puzzled and perhaps the noble Lords on the other side can explain this. How can we have a discussion on an appeal which has been lodged against something which is still in the form of a Bill? Surely it cannot have been against this, it must have been against the original Act. Therefore, is this discussion quite relevant to the clause we are discussing now?
Lord Glenarthur: It is relevant, in so far as we maintain, and it has so far been upheld by the High Court, that what we are doing is within the law and, as such, has been practised for many years in the past.
As I said earlier and not being a legal brain myself, I find it fairly complex and tortuous and I want to be careful in what I say, as, to some extent, the matter is still sub judice. I have nothing to add to what I have said to my noble friend.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
4. 49 p. m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Continuity of employment for health service officers.
. —(1) Schedule 13 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in this section.
(2) In paragraph 17(1) there shall be substituted for the words "paragraph 18"the words "paragraphs 18 and 18A".
(3) The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 18—
"18A. —(l) If an employee of a health service employer is taken into the employment of another health service employer, the employee' s period of employment at that time shall count as a period of employment with the second-mentioned health service employer and the change of health service employer shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.
(2) In this paragraph "health service employer" means any of the following, that is to say—

(a) a Regional Health Authority, Area Health Authority, District Health Authority, special health authority Health Board or the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service;

(b) the Dental Estimates Board:

(c) Any joint committee constituted under section 13(8) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972;

(d) the Public Health Laboratory Service Board;

(e) a preserved Board as defined under section 15(6) of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973;

(f) a Family Practitioner Committee;

(g) the Welsh Health Technical Service Organisation; and

(h) a Community Health Council. ". ").

The noble Lord said: On Second Reading of this Bill. I called it a ragbag and in Amendment No. 41 I am wishing to add another rag, though a very important one, to the bag.
When I was Secretary of State for Social Services I occasionally, flippantly—and, of course, proudly—claimed to be the biggest employer in Europe. I think I have heard the present Secretary of State say words which are not dissimilar. Of course it is absolutely untrue. It is very rarely that politicians come to the Dispatch Box to say that things they have said are absolutely untrue. They get caught out, but they do not come voluntarily. I have come voluntarily.
At present, health authorities and Scottish health boards are all separate employers for the purposes of employees' statutory rights, especially to claim unfair dismissal, with the result that, if an NHS employee moves from one authority to another—I am thinking of a move from one health authority or special health authority to another—his period of continuous employment is broken and a new period starts with the new employer.
This means that, if he or she is dismissed by the new employing health authority or board after less than a year on its staff, there is no right to claim that the dismissal is unfair. If he or she has moved from one authority to another and was dismissed by the last one, and assuming that he or she was with the last one for more than the qualifying period, and an industrial tribunal finds the dismissal unfair, the basic award of compensation would be calculated only on the length of employment with the last employer and not on the whole length of NHS employment.
In other words, all NHS employees are being denied the same Employment Protection Act rights as are granted to other employees who continue to work for the same employer and who also change posts and move to different parts of the country. The purpose of

461
this amendment is to say that all those who work for health authorities work for the National Health Service and that that is their employer for the purposes of unfair dismissal or other matters under the Employment Protection Act.
Although I am not certain whether it is exactly the same wording, this amendment was originally moved in another place in the Standing Committee of which I was a member on the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill. It was defeated for the obvious reason that most amendments are defeated: namely, the balance of members on the Committee. The Minister of Health, in opposing the amendment, said:
"As regards the legal powers of the Secretary of State and the National Health Service, we already have the legal powers to provide for continuity of employment in the way suggested, if we were persuaded that it was right to do so. However such matters proceed by agreement between management staff in Whitley Councils subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State. If the matter were raised in the Whitley Council it would be within its powers to reach agreements covering continuity of employment. The Secretary of State has the powers of approval which I have just mentioned under the National Health Service Remuneration and Conditions of Service Regulations of 1951 and 1974. That is how changes in terms and conditions of employment of staff have been made over the years."
I submit to your Lordships that the Minister was incorrect in stating that the matter was a subject for negotiation through the Whitley Council. I think that if he was asked now, he would himself admit that he was incorrect. Statutory provisions on continuous employment for the purpose of statutory employment protection rights are a matter for legislation. This position has been confirmed by both the Department of Health and Social Security and the management side of the General Whitley Council. Unfortunately, it was not possible to pursue the matter further during the latter stages of this Bill in another place because of the very speedy way in which it passed through. So this amendment provides an opportunity to seek to do so.
Currently, individual employing authorities are not regarded as associated employers for the purposes of the Employment Protection Act 1978. This can, and does, pose significant problems for all sections—doctors, and other professions, whoever they may be—working in the National Health Service. I am moving this amendment conscious that it is supported by those who represent all those working in the National Health Service. I have had representations from not only trade unions, which represent so many of those who work in the service, but also the British Medical Association, which feels very strongly about this. They have pointed out to me that the 1982 reorganisation of the health service has served to highlight further the anomalies which were created by not defining all health authorities as associated employers because, as a result of the absence of appropriate legislation on this point, complex settlements had to be reached through the Whitley Council to ensure that NHS employees' statutory rights under the EPCA were protected.
This is an opportunity to put right what is an injustice. I hope that your Lordships will agree and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. Perhaps I have got the wording wrong and he will find better words to put in at Report stage, but it is with the support, as I understand it, of all those in the National
462
Health Service that I tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Kilmarnock: There is also a subsidiary point here which I should like to make. I mentioned it on Second Reading. It was strongly the view of the Royal College of General Practitioners that it was desirable that the administrative career structure throughout the health service—that is to say, as between all types of health authority—should be flexible, so that people should be able to move from an administrative job with a family practitioner committee to one in a district health authority and vice versa. If we are going to have difficulty about the transfer of employment from one type of body to another, that desirable flexibility will be lost. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will bear that in mind when he comes to answer the noble Lord, Lord Ennals.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should like very much to reinforce the point that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. If officers are to be encouraged to develop their skills within the National Health Service, they should be encouraged to move through the entire organisation. That is almost a prerequisite for developing effective service managers. That seems to me the positive argument for this amendment, which would make that possible.
Lord Glenarthur: The Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides for continuity of employment between associated employers, but continuity is broken when an employee moves to the employment of another employer who is not associated. It has been established in employment case law that health authorities are not associated employers.
In considering whether this amendment is necessary, we have taken account of the fact that NHS employees already have the benefit of counting previous service with any health authority in many of the important areas of their conditions of service. The Whitley Councils have agreed and the Secretary of State has approved that service with any health authority shall count in calculating redundancy compensation and maternity rights and in providing incremental credit in respect of salaries and leave. If there are other conditions of service which do not give this recognition, I am sure that they will be pursued.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the Whitley Councils. What cannot be provided by the Whitley Councils is recognition by industrial tribunals of this past service with other employing authorities. Where there has been a statutory reorganisation of the health service, we have been able to provide the continuity in all respects for the large numbers of people forced to change employer. This new clause would provide for continuity in every case where an employee decided to move, whether or not it was in the interests of the service for him to do so. The present situation has not in fact inhibited the movement of staff. I do not think that staff considering career development moves, in the way the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Prys-Davies, suggested, are likely to be put off simply by the consideration that their previous service will not count

463
in the event of their having to complain to an industrial tribunal.
I am not persuaded that National Health Service staff above all others should be placed in this advantageous position. It would be advantageous over employees in many other fields. I cannot see the justification for that, and so I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Ennals: I really fail to understand the argument put forward by the noble Lord the Minister. He said they are not associated employees. That is the problem, and that is why I tabled this amendment. But as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, one wants to see, in the interests of the service, people free to move from one area authority to another. That is particularly so now that we have, quite rightly, following the 1982 reorganisation an increased number of health authorities.
One wants to see greater mobility where that is in the interests of the service. For the Minister to say that employees of the health service or, as they now are, the authorities, are not impaired is simply not true. I have a mountain of representations from unions and professional organisations on precisely this question, and because there is concern and dissatisfaction I cannot understand why the Minister cannot accept this proposal. He says that it would put those who work in the health service at an advantage. That it not a very terrible thing to do so far as I am concerned.
But let us suppose that we are comparing the National Health Service with Marks and Spencer. That is what the Griffiths Report was doing. If you work for Marks and Spencer and you move from Blackpool to Newingham Green, or go up to wherever it is, you are still with the same employer. Is that wrong? Is that unfair? It is the same with pharmaceutical companies or with any other big employer. It is the same with the National Coal Board—but I do not want to take that issue any further at the moment.
So for the Minister to come before the Committee and say that it would be putting people who work for the National Health Service at an advantage is really staggering. This is simply ensuring that they are not put at a disadvantage, as they now are. I have to say to the noble Lord the Minister that unless he can produce a powerful argument, which, frankly, he has not done so far, or can say that he will take this back and discuss it before the Report stage with those who represent employees in the National Health Service, I see no alternative but to press it to a Division.
Lord Prys-Davies: Will the Minister explain and identify the group of employees who would be at a disadvantage if the benefit of the individual employment laws as to continuity of employment was to be extended to the National Health Service? Which group would be disadvantaged?
Lord Glenarthur: The answer to that is: employees in all sorts of other parts of the public service, such as education and water. I could go on for some time.
Lord Prys-Davies: Does not the 1982 Act extend its provisions as to continuity of employment to local authorities?
Lord Glenarthur: I think I would need notice of that question, but I am under the impression that it does not. That is the reason for what is involved here. If I am incorrect, I should let the noble Lord know, but I do not think the Act extends in the way he suggests.
Lord Ennals: With respect, those who are employed by a local authority are in an entirely different position from those who are employed by a health authority. A local authority is an elected body. It determines its own policy and draws its own rates. It is not almost totally dependent, as is the National Health Service, on tax contributions. The National Health Service is of a unity. It is not of a unity to the extent that we should like it to be, and there have been arguments about this on other amendments. But we all wish it to be of a unity. So to say that teachers, for example, would be put at a disadvantage does not impress me one little bit.
5. 4 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents. 102.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Amherst, E.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Lockwood, B.

Aylestone, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Lovell Davis, L.

Bernstein, L.

Mar, C.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Molloy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Nicol, B.

Brockway, L.

Oram, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Peart, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Phillips, B.

Caradon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stamp, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham. L.

Hale, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Stone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jacobson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Jeger, B.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Beloff, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L.

Auckland, L.

Berkeley, B.

Avon, E.

Bessborough, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caccia, L.

Bellwin, L.

Caithness, E.

465

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Cathcart, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon Avon, L.

Cockfield, L.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Molson, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Daventry, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Donegal, M.

Porrit, L.

Dundee, E.

Portland, D.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Romney, E.

Elliot of Harwood. B.

Rugby, L.

Elton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fortescue, E.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Somers, L.

Gormanston, V.

Spens, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hayter, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Terrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Teviot, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

llchester, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Ironside, L.

Trumpington, B.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Tryon, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kintore, E.

Vickers, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wigram, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Windlesham, L.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5. 11 p. m.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11[Severe disablement allowance]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 15, line 17, leave out ("period of")
The noble Lord said: We now move on to an entirely different and extremely important subject. I understand that it is for the convenience of the Committee that we should take together a considerable group of amendments. This has great merit, because it enables us to debate the central issues. I shall be referring not only to Amendment No. 42, which I beg to move, but to Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 45, 48, 55 and 56.
Amendment No. 43: Page 15, line 18, leave out ("consecutive")
Amendment No. 44: Page 15, line 18, at end insert—
"within one period of interruption of employment; and

(i) that period began no later than the day on which he attained the age of 20;

and

(ii) the relevant day falls within the same period of interruption of employment. ")

Amendment No. 45: Page 15, leave out lines 19 to 23.
Amendment No. 48: Page 15, leave out lines 28 to 31 and insert—
("(b) he has been both incapable of work and disabled for not less than 196 days within one period of interruption of employment and the relevant day falls within the same period of interruption of employment. ")
Amendment No. 55: Page 17, line 9, after ("Act") insert—
(" "period of interruption of employment" shall have the same meaning as in section 17 of the principal Act, and for the purposes of Section 36 only, shall include a period during which a person is undergoing advanced or non-advanced education;")
Amendment No. 56: Leave out Clause 11 and insert the following new clause:
Amendments to Social Security Act 1975 s. 36.
(". The Secretary of State shall by Statutory Instrument subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, after consultation with the Social Services Advisory Committee, make such amendments to section 36 of the Social Security Act 1975 as are necessary or desirable to comply with the provisions of the Council Direction of 19 December 1978 (79/7/EEC). ")
The reason why it is to the great advantage of the Committee to discuss all these amendments is because the earlier amendments deal with different aspects of the severe disablement allowance. The view not only of the organisations which represent disabled people but of many noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have had extensive consultations with those organisations is that the proposal contained in the Bill is very unsatisfactory.
Why do I say that? First, the Government have failed to consult about what is in the best interests of disabled people. We are dealing with a new disability allowance. I do not know of any occasion when a government have introduced a new benefit for disabled people without consulting those concerned. My experience goes back to 1969, when in another place I introduced the attendance allowance. Later I introduced the invalidity pension. Both were introduced after a great deal of consultation. That applied also to the mobility allowance and to the invalid care allowance.
We were assured that there would be consultation about the NCIB for housewives. The DHSS review took three and a half years to complete. During this period the Government gave repeated assurances that once the review had been published there would be consultation and debate. The review was published the day before the Bill itself was published. By rushing headlong into publishing the Bill only one day after publication of the review, the Government have reneged on their promise to consult. The minister for the disabled, Mr. Tony Newton, has met the organisations involved, but he did so after publication of the Bill. So far as I can see, no changes have been made. Real consultation is consultation before a Bill is published. I believe that a very serious precedent has been set.
My conclusion, when I reach it—I want to set out a number of arguments before I reach my conclusion—is that the Government ought to take away this scheme and have effective and proper consultations with their own advisory committee (which does not welcome this proposal) and also with the organisations, all of which, so far as I can see, have been critical of the proposal.
There are some fundamental objections to the proposal. There has been insufficient research. No figures are available to show how the severe disablement allowance would affect current HNCIB

467
claimants, nor how future HNCIB claimants would fare, given the extra 80 per cent. test of disablement. The Government, I believe, are taking what I can only call a leap in the dark by coming forward with a new scheme, which, presumably, they want to last for ever but which I believe to be mistaken.
For married women, the SDA will mean a switch in the population entitled to non-contributory benefit. About 20,000 to 21,000 married women who currently do not qualify for the housewives' noncontributory invalidity benefit are expected to satisfy the 80 per cent. test in order to qualify for the SDA. The extra cost, at current benefit rates, will be, according to Government figures, about £20 million. However, out of current HNCIB recipients, 16,000 women would fail the 80 per cent. test. These women are, I know, protected by the transitional provisions which the Government are making, but if their successors were to apply they would be rejected.
The figures I have before me show that, if the household duties test were abolished around 240,000 disabled married and cohabiting women would qualify for the HNCIB on a straight incapacity for work test. The SDA will bring 21,000 women into benefit, leaving 219,000 women out in the cold. In future years, only about 500 extra married women are expected to qualify for SDA at a cost of only about half a million pounds, and 1280 women who would have qualified for HNCIB will receive no benefit at all.
I fully realise that for the Government to bring all women into the scheme would be an impossible task, for reasons of economy. No one would expect them to do so, and nor do I believe that any other government, at this stage, would feel that the resources permitted bringing in everyone without phasing or some form of test.
The problem is the nature of the tests which have been set. The system will now effectively discriminate between different groups of people on the grounds of percentage loss of faculty; age at the start of the claim; existing entitlement. It will discriminate between deserving and undeserving disabilities; and, certainly, it will still discriminate against married women. Discrimination remains against those who have a deficient national insurance contribution record. Even where SDA claimants pass both tests, they will only receive a benefit that is less than two-thirds of the contributory invalidity benefit.
The Government claim that an extra 20, 000 people will gain from this scheme, but this will not help the remaining 220,000 women who have been excluded as a direct result of the household duties test.
There are a number of other problems because disabled people are different and their disabilities are different. There is a problem with the criteria for 80 per cent. disability. A person must be assessed as having an 80 per cent. disability before the benefit can be paid—yet the method of assessment is based on the schedule for prescribing degrees of disablement used in the industrial relations scheme and the war pension scheme. I submit that that is an inadequate way of determining these cases. For instance, it is wholly inappropriate for considering disablement through mental disorder. It is wholly inappropriate for
468
considering those who suffer from multiple sclerosis—a condition which may lead to an assessment of 80 per cent. on one day but of only 20 per cent. on another. To fix the figure at 80 per cent. is to fail to understand the nature of the problem we are facing.
It is also true that the effect of the age 20 cut-off point is disturbing. The proposal requires that if a person can show that he or she is unable to work before the age of 20, then the full benefit will be paid without further investigation. However, if the person becomes disabled after the age of 20, he will have to show that he is 80 per cent. disabled on some criterion. If one considers those who are mentally handicapped and those who are mentally ill, then certainly so far as those who are mentally ill are concerned, 96 per cent. of first admissions to mental hospitals occur in respect of those who are older than age 20. If one considers the problem of many of those who have a mental handicap, no one could easily determine the extent of their disability at the age of 20. Their situation may improve or it may worsen; I only wish that the noble Lord. Lord Renton, were here to add his weight to this, because I know that he shares a view concerning this form of test.
The 196-day rule about re-establishing a claim to benefit will also deter mentally handicapped people, as well as others, from attempting to get back into work. If they do attempt to obtain work, it is quite likely that, following any relapse, they will be continually penalised by having to spend six months reestablishing a claim to benefit.
I have put forward only a few of the objections, and I am sorry to have taken some time—11 minutes—in doing so. But I believe that we cannot consider this scheme piecemeal. There are amendments down to reduce the figure from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. and to increase the age from 20 to 25 or 30—but that is playing around with the problem. The process can only be seen as being objective if we consider not just the definable faculty but also the ability to operate and the ability to find work.
As I said at the beginning, the Government have plunged into this without proper consultation. It may seem stange to look a gift horse in the mouth; there are aspects of this provision which are welcome, because the Government do propose to spend more money. The amount of that extra money may reduce year by year, but it will still be a new benefit. However, we must get it right. There may well be an argument for whatever is finally decided to be phased in, as we phased in the mobility allowance over a period of four or five years and as we phased in child benefit over a period of three years.
The principal feeling I have as a result of consultations with disabled people and those who represent them is that the Government have not got it right. Rather than proceed with a measure that is causing a great deal of concern and dissatisfaction, there stands on the Marshalled List Amendment No. 56 in the name of myself and the noble Lords. Lord Henderson of Brompton and Lord Molloy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. That amendment represents the views taken after a series of meetings with representative organisations.
The main view was that the Government should take this away for consultation, and should come forward with regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has down an amendment that touches upon regulations, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has also spoken of regulations. This may be the way out. We are not saying that we do not need and do not want the severe disablement allowance; we are saying that the principles are wrong and that all the organisations concerned would like to help the Government to get them right. They understand that we cannot expect the Government to plunge into enormous expenditure all at once.
I believe that consultations between the organisations concerned and the Government would lead to a satisfactory settlement for what is, after all, a new allowance and one for which, ultimately, the Government will be able to take very great credit. If they are going to take great credit for it, then I want them to take great credit for a very good scheme and not for a botched-up job.
Lord Stallard: Before my noble friend sits down, can he confirm which amendments we are now discussing? I did not quite catch the list of amendments that he read out at the beginning of his remarks.
Lord Ennals: Agreement reached across the Front Benches—which cannot, of course, bind those who are not on the Front Benches—was that we would have a comprehensive debate taking in Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 45, 48, 55 and 56.
5. 29 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has spoken to several amendments and I for my part believe this to be a satisfactory way of starting on Clause 11. He also made much of the lack of consultation which many of us thought had taken place when the Bill was first published—but which we all went into on Second Reading. I shall try not to make a Second Reading speech on that point.
I can understand how it was that the Government were keen to get rid of the household duties test as soon as possible and wanted to insert its replacement into this Bill. As a result, perhaps they were not able to carry out the rounds of consultation which would normally have occurred. The noble Lord indicated that the advisory committee were not happy with this scheme. I understood that they had some reservations but that on the whole they had generally accepted it. I hope my noble friend will be able to confirm that when he comes to speak.
We are dealing here with a completely new scheme, and I regard it as being a general step in the right direction to aim at a national classification of severely disabled people. We have never had such a scheme before, except in the case of war disabled and those disabled by industrial injuries. However, if one takes either of those two schemes as a starting point, one cannot apply it direct; I believe there is agreement everywhere in your Lordship' s Committee about that.
What we are concerned with is how that system of assessing war disabled and industrially injured by percentages can be applied to the rest of the severely disabled in the community; particularly as the two
470
systems for war disablement and industrial injuries have not had to cope with or examine people whose disability comes from illness which is congenital. I will not go into the other examples. There certainly needs to be not only a lot of thought about adaptation and augmentation of the 80 per cent. system, but also explanation to the disabled and those concerned with their interests.
On these amendments I should like to ask my noble friend if he can confirm that, as in the two schemes on which the 80 per cent. assessment is to be modelled, there will be periodical reassessment. There is certainly reassessment in those schemes, and it is very important that there should be in the new scheme. A number of disabled organisations will be worried that one classification will be expected to last for years. We do, therefore, need to know more about this scheme and the way in which the 80 per cent. is to be assessed.
I am encouraged to speak at this point because I happen by chance to be in the categor), of 80 per cent. war disabled. At the second reading debate the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger asked, "What is 80 per cent. disablement? Is it the loss of two legs or is it one leg or one arm? "I would say that on the whole both with the war system and with the industrial injury system which have been operating for many years, the code is fairly well understood now by those involved. That is why I think it is probably a good starting point for this much wider scheme.
In the earlier stages of the Bill noble Lords were speaking about spectacles and giving their own personal examples. Perhaps I can say a bit about my own personal example, A bullet having gone through my middle and over a year having been spent in hospital, it was nearly a year-and-a-half before I was able to walk again. If I had not been able to walk again and had been in a wheelchair since then, I know it would have been 90 per cent. to 100 per cent. disablement. Because I have been able to get on to my "pins"(rather unsteadily, as noble Lords will know) I have remained at 80 per cent. This is understood by the Royal British Legion and others who deal with cases in the war disablement field. This is a matter where you are told. You do not ask to be assessed. If you are wounded in war, you are told, if you are disabled, that you have to be examined every so often and you are such and such a percentage. Industrial injury is rather different because that is more a question of claiming a disability pension, and the percentage rules what the pension should be.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, I was hoping that further consultations and explanation could be carried out with the organisations representing disabled people, and that perhaps the adaptations and additions which may be necessary could appear in regulations, and therefore be dealt with by statutory instrument, but I believe that the existing legislation may already provide for that. Again, my noble friend may be able to tell us more about this. I believe it is possible that legislation covering the percentage system for war disabled and industrially injured which already exists can provide for orders to come before both Houses of Parliament to make additions, changes or clarifications to deal with the new kinds of cases which would come into this new system. Whether or not there would he enough flexibility in the legislation

471
which exists at present, I do not know, but that is something which I hope my noble friend can inform us about now or at a later stage in the Bill.
I return to what I said at the beginning: I think this is a move in the right direction. I am sorry that it had to he done so quickly and that the normal consultations with the outside bodies concerned do not appear to have taken place in the normal and expected way, but I think this can be put right provided that it is accepted that the systems involving the 80 per cent. cannot just be directly applied because they will be dealing with a whole range of different kinds of cases.
Lord Banks: I should like to support briefly what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said in introducing this amendment and in speaking to the whole series of amendments about this part of the Bill. I should like to emphasise what he said about the question of discrimination against married women. The EEC directive of July 1979 on equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security states that the directive applies to schemes which provide protection against sickness invalidity. The non-contributory invalidity pension was designed to help those who become disabled and who have not had an opportunity to acquire a sufficient contribution record. The review of the household duties test said this:
"The overwhelming majority of people who become disabled while of working age and who lack an adequate contribution record are married women".
We know that the household duties test prevents some 240,000 housewives from qualifying for the housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension. That would appear to be clear, direct discrimination against married women.
The substitution of the 80 per cent. disablement test will allow in 20,000 more people against the 240,000, but that is all. We understand that 16,000 women who at the present time qualify for the benefit would not qualify for it if they were applying for the first time after the new proposal comes into force. As it is, they are to be allowed to carry on, but that class of person in the future will not be included. The 80 per cent. disablement test is, therefore, a device to ensure that only a small portion of the 240,000 are included. The Bill, therefore, substitutes for the household duties test which is a direct discrimination against married women, the indirect discrimination of the 80 per cent. test. The directive applies to discrimination which is indirect as well as direct, and it would seem to me that the new proposal is not consistent with the directive.
Although we would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the abolition of the household duties test is a step in the right direction, the principal reason why we do not think the proposal in substitution is a step in the right direction is that it continues the discrimination against married women. Secondly, as has been pointed out, it confuses compensation for disability with income maintenance. I do not think I need to develop that point; it has been made many times. Lastly, but not unimportantly, it does seem to make the whole operation a good deal more complicated, and complexity is the bugbear of the whole social security
472
system. For these reasons it seems sensible to suggest to the Government that they should look again at this proposal in the light of all the criticisms which I have made now, and which so many other noble Lords have made today and previously.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: May I briefly say that I think the range, diversity and number of amendments put down to Clause 11 in themselves show the concern of all the disablement organisations at the new severe disablement allowance. This should, I think, give the Government cause for thought.
I should like to address my remarks, however brief, to Amendment No. 56. This is designed to give time for consultation to take place. The amendment states:
"after consultation with the Social Services Advisory Committee".
Of course, I hope that the Social Services Advisory Committee will consult all the disablement organizations, and so on. So many of their fears could then be allayed.
We are told that the Government' s own advisory council has been consulted, and that it is reasonably happy. But I believe it still has its own reservations: for example, about the proposed method of assessment, and how it can be measured with any degree of consistency across the country, and so on. This seems to me to be very well intentioned, but, of course the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We all agree that the household duties test must be abolished, and we are delighted that the Government have come up with that. On the other hand, they seem to be in a rush because of the council directive. Incidentally, Amendment No. 56 refers to "Direction"when it should be "Directive".
The council directive of 19th December 1978 is about the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment in matters of social security. I am told that the Government are either compelled or desire to comply with this directive by the end of this year. When one has so many people (I believe all the relevant organisations) unhappy about this well-intentioned proposal to introduce the severe disablement allowance, would it not be a good idea to allow a little time? If we leave it until, say, December, the Government could have consultations and could then introduce it by a statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses, and then, in time, comply with the directive. In that way they could legislate in December, early January or even later. I believe that it is not unknown for member countries not to implement directives until after the time limit has expired. Therefore, at this stage—this has turned out to be rather a Second Reading debate—I should like to concentrate on Amendment No. 56 and ask the Government to give it, or something like it, serious consideration.
Lord Kilmarnock: I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has said. Indeed, I am in total agreement with everything said by my noble friend Lord Banks. There is only one point which I should like to raise. The Social Security Advisory Committee has been referred to on a number of occasions in this debate. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who said that it was broadly supportive of the new scheme but that it had

473
reservations. In fact, it has some severe reservations which I shall quote on a later amendment. I shall be quoting from a letter that the acting chairman wrote to the Minister responsible for the disabled.
The point to be made at this stage concerns consultation—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. At the beginning of his letter to the Minister, Dr. Donaldson, the acting chairman, said:
"As you are aware, we have been taking a special interest in disablement benefits and in ways in which gaps in the existing benefit system might be filled. We were, therefore, doubly interested in the announcement of the proposed severe disablement allowance, and although there is no requirement on you to consult our committee we felt you might nevertheless like to have our comments".
There may not have been a statutory requirement on the Government to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee, but is it not rather extraordinary that the Government should set up this body and then, when about to introduce an extremely important change in arrangements for the disabled, leave the Social Security Advisory Committee simply to volunteer comments on the Government' s scheme? That seems to be an extraordinary way of using a useful body which itself could have put the whole issue out to consultation and come back to the Government with a consensus of informed opinion on the whole new scheme being proposed.
I leave that thought with the Minister. I strongly back up what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, and I add my voice to his plea not to rush into this very complicated area of legislation.
Baroness Lane-Fox: I support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in believing that this is a step in the right direction. I feel this very strongly because I have been attacked for many years since the housewives' duties test was first brought in. I also think that it should be realised that before the housewives' duties test was brought in there was very close consultation, so that, although we now regret that there was not more consultation, we cannot say that it always brings the right answer. I think we should bear that in mind.
I also back up what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said. My own feeling is that I should like to see some flexibility in the present arrangement. I was going to ask that the age group of 20 to 25 be monitored, particularly in so far as mental cases are concerned. I should also like to know whether my noble friend the Minister will consider giving us the length of time to which the Government would agree—perhaps a timescale—for this monitoring, before some change could be made if it is found that it is not a good effect which is being had on this age group.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, told us a short time ago of his 80 per cent. disability allowance arising from the war. As we all know, the noble Lord may be slightly unsteady on his pins but he can certainly walk unaided through the Division Lobbies. He has good eyesight and he speaks clearly. As he has said, he has an 80 per cent. disability.
With permission, I should like to give the actual case of a Mrs. Shapiro. She has multiple sclerosis. Her
474
condition varies from day to day. On good days she can walk quite well but is subject to blackouts, and her balance is unpredictable. There are times when her speech goes completely. She is almost completely blind, and her concentration is so poor that she cannot finish a sentence. She has poor muscle control and cannot lift or carry objects. She needs help with running the home, although she can look after herself reasonably well.
Mrs. Shapiro will not qualify for severe disability allowance. It is very unlikely that she will be assessed as 80 per cent. disabled. She cannot claim disablement allowance because she is able to look after herself. She has tried to claim mobility allowance, but her walking difficulties are so variable tha she has been repeatedly turned down. Mrs. Shapiro has not worked for five years, and she will never be able to work again. Under the new rules there will be no benefits that she can claim.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps the noble Earl will give way, as he kindly referred to me at the beginning of his comments. I have also been sent a copy of that case. I think that it proves my point. There is no assessment for a lady of that kind now—or, if there is, it is only a narrow one for certain purposes—whereas if the system which is a starting point for this scheme comes into force she will probably qualify.
Earl Attlee: I was not going against what the noble Lord said. The letter I have states that even under the new scheme this woman will not be able to claim. I thought that if one was almost blind one would get the 80 per cent. This steering committee represents over 50 organisations. I presume that if it sends to so many noble Lords this kind of a case, it must know what it is saying.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I should come in again. I think that that is the difficulty. If there had been more consultations, they would have realised what 80 per cent. disablement under the war disablement and industrial injuries assessments consists of and how that was likely to be applied to these other cases. Personally I think that the anxieties that have been raised about that case are probably wrong. As I tried to explain in my intervention, if the scheme is brought in on the basis of the kind of assessment which I and others have to go through, then of course she would be in it.
Lady Saltoun: I was slightly mystified by part of what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said. As I read it—perhaps I am being very stupid—Clause 11 is totally impartial between men and women, married or unmarried.
5. 51 p. m.
Lord Glenarthur: Before I deal specifically with the amendments, I, too, feel, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, did, that I ought to make one or two general observations about SDA which are relevant to the consideration of any of the other amendments to follow, which we shall discuss in due course. First, I think that it is important to remember that these new benefit proposals will initially bring an extra 20,000 disabled people to benefit for the first time. I know that

475
it has been stressed today, but I make no apology for mentioning it again. That will be at an additional cost of some £20 million a year over and above our current expenditure on NCIP and HNCIP. This is a considerable step forward at a time when resources are extremely scarce.
I should, however, like to emphasise that the fact that we have been able to find this extra money for the severely disabled at this time does not mean that our resources are unlimited. Like the last Labour Government, we have not been able to find the resources to pay non-contributory invalidity pension on a straight test of incapacity alone for everyone. In the circumstances, therefore, we have tried to direct what money is available, including the extra resources we have been able to find for SDA, to what we regard as priority groups—namely, the congenitally handicapped and the severely disabled.
Amendment No. 56—which is really the substantive amendment, as I see it, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested—would have the effect of removing Clause 11 from the Bill and substituting a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to introduce new proposals by regulations after consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee. On a point of general principle, this would be to embark on the somewhat unusual and, I believe, undesirable course of amending provisions which are presently contained in primary legislation by means of subordinate regulations. But there are a number of other reasons why such a procedure would be particularly inappropriate in this case.
I understand the concern which has been expressed about the lack of consultation on our proposals for the introduction of severe disablement allowance; although I ought to point out that these proposals have not been brought forward without much very serious deliberation and thought. They embody the recommendations of the officials' review of the household duties test which was carried out following a report by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in 1980. The length of time taken to complete the review is itself an indication of the complexity of the subject and the depth in which we have explored the options. We were faced with a choice. On the one hand, we could have embarked on a lengthy programme of consultation and allowed the household duties test—which the officials' review found to be flawed both in operation and as a concept; and this view has been expressed by noble Lords who spoke earlier this afternoon—to continue in existence for at least another year. On the other, we could have taken the opportunity of including provisions in this Bill, which would allow discussion of our proposals to take place within the framework of the progress of this Bill through Parliament. I should also mention that over recent months my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled has met with organisations of and for disabled people on a number of occasions to discuss the new benefit.
In the scrutiny which this clause has already undergone in another place we have seen this consultative process at work. The Government have not been inflexible or unwilling to listen to constructive proposals. We have been able to extend the
476
passporting arrangements, and we have taken particular account of the argument that the conditions for SDA could act as a disincentive to those who wish to attempt work. We have accordingly undertaken to make regulations providing that, over and above the normal linking rule, periods of capacity for work up to an aggregate of six months will be ignored in assessing whether a claimant has been continuously incapable of work since on or before his twentieth birthday. But we have given a clear undertaking also to monitor the new benefit closely to ensure that the scheme operates in a fair and consistent way.
It is difficult to imagine what further modifications might have been achieved had we delayed for yet further consultation in the way which the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Kilmarnock, suggested. There is no consensus among our critics about what should replace SDA. We have always made it clear that resources would not permit their preferred option of extending NCIP to married women on the same basis as to men and single women. This would, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is aware, cost an additional £275 million a year. From what the noble Lord said, he, too, did not think that that was particularly sensible.
As I said, none of the alternatives to SDA discussed by the officials' review, or produced since then, were both practical and affordable. As my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox said, extensive consultation is by no means an infallible recipe for success. She prayed in aid the much disliked household duties test, which was itself, as she said, the product of a very lengthy process of consultation and pilot studies lasting some two years, and look where we are now!
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Kilmarnock. both challenged the views in the SSAC on this matter. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy seemed to agree with what I am going to say—that in fact its views are broadly supported. It said, for example:
"We should say how pleased we are that the Government are acting to eliminate the discriminatory household duties test and to institute a benefit which is available on equal terms both to women and to men. We regard this as an unequivocal advance".
It went on to say elsewhere:
"We are particularly interested in the proposal to use an 80 per cent. loss of faculty test, in conjunction with an incapacity test, as the basis of the new allowance. We are aware that there has been long experience of the use of this test for industrial injuries and war pensions purposes, and if it can successfully be applied to the kind of civilian disablements most likely to be encountered in NCIR/HNCIP, we would regard SDA and the loss of faculty test as a potentially important building block in the development of a comprehensive benefit system".
The SSAC seems to adopt the view adopted by my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox that this at least is a step in the right direction.
The amendment also refers to the EC directive on equal treatment. This was a point raised particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. Whether or not any benefit contravenes the EC directive is something that can be decided only by the European Court. The household duties test is obviously unsatisfactory regardless of any question of equal treatment. That is why we decided to abolish it. But in considering an alternative it was right that any new benefit should make no distinctions on grounds of sex or marital status: and SDA embodies this approach.

477
Turning to Amendment No. 42 and the amendments linked with it, SDA, like NCIP, is intended primarily as an income replacement benefit for those disabled from birth or in childhood who, because of their disability, have never had the chance to work and build up a contribution record that would enable them to qualify for the contributory sickness or invalidity benefits. We therefore think it right that those who became incapable of work on or before age 20 should continue to be able to qualify for a noncontributory maintenance benefit simply on a test of incapacity for work.
The large majority of those now drawing NCIP are likely to come within this category. As with NCIP, SDA will be payable from age 16 unless a young person continues in normal full-time education. In such cases, it will become due when that education ceases or in any event from age 19, provided, of course, that a person can show that he is incapable of work.
In this context, we regard age 20 as a reasonable age to set for the easier qualifying rule. Age 16 would, in many ways, be more logical for a benefit aimed at giving priority to the congenitally handicapped. The age 20 limit would give someone four years from minimum shool-leaving age to see whether, despite his disability, he is able to find and hold down a job. While many would be unable to do so, some might wish to try and we would not wish to deny them the opportunity to do so.
These amendments are concerned with modifying the rules proposed for SDA, firstly, by removing the requirement that a person must have been continuously incapable of work, or continuously incapable of work and disabled, for a period of 196 days in order to qualify; and, secondly, by extending the easier qualifying condition to those who have been incapable of work for a total of more than 196 days in a period of interruption of employment, including periods of education, which began before age 20.
On the first point, SDA, like NCIP, is a benefit which is designed for the long-term sick. It is therefore appropriate that entitlement should first arise only when a person has been continuously incapable of work for a minimum length of time. The proposed 196-day qualifying condition simply reproduces the conditions which have applied to NCIP or HNCIP since their introduction. I should make it clear that once title to SDA has been established, the nomal "linking rules"will apply; namely, that a person will be able to requalify for SDA immediately where there is a break in entitlement of eight weeks or less, or where the subsequent spells of incapacity are separated by a period of registered unemployment, including periods of attendance on an MSC approved training course, including the YTS scheme.
I cannot agree that these linking provisions should be extended to the initial qualifying period, as proposed in some amendments. In effect, this would mean that a person could establish title to SDA through a series of relatively minor illnesses linked through periods of unemployment or education over a period of many years. Such a person could by no means be described as long-term sick, and is not therefore the sort of person for whom the benefit is intended.
478
I turn now to the question of extending the easier qualifying condition for SDA. Although, in our view, the age 20 limit is both logical and fair, I accept that there will be individuals who continue in education beyond age 20 and who thus never have an opportunity to build up a contribution record, and there will be those who have not managed to find a job before they reach the age of 20.
I should first say that the fact that someone had been studying for a degree course, for example, would not necessarily be considered incompatible with his being incapable of work—indeed, SDA can be paid to people who are in full-time education over age 19—although an adjudicating officer would of course take this fact into account in deciding whether a person had been continuously incapable of work since before age 20. Thus, the first point to emphasise is that a disabled person who continues in full-time education would still qualify for SDA on the basis of an incapacity test alone. But this would not help a person who first became incapable of work after age 20 while still a student, or following a period of unemployment which extended back before that age. Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 and Amendment No. 55 seek to extend the rules to enable such people to qualify for SDA without having to satisfy the 80 per cent. disablement test.
The difficulty here is that if we were to make a concession for those groups we would have to be able to justify that against the legitimate claims of all the other groups who might be adversely affected by the age 20 cut-off; for example, those who had been looking after elderly relatives or bringing up a family and who had a deficient contribution record as a result. Any concession as proposed in these amendments would also complicate the scheme both for claimants and administration; and, of course, it would have a cost, though the numbers involved are uncertain.
As I said earlier, SDA is intended primarily as an income replacement benefit for the congenitally handicapped, and we are not presently convinced of the justification for making concessions which would single out particular groups or categories of claimants from among those who first became incapable of work after age 20 and who find themselves without an adequate contribution record.
We shall be carefully monitoring the new scheme, and if it transpires that within the general structure of the benefit there are serious consequences for certain categories of claimant, we shall look at possible remedies. My noble friend Lord Campbell stressed the point about flexibility. The method of assessing disablement under the industrial injuries and war pensions schemes is more flexible and adaptable than many have assumed. The schedule of prescribed degrees of disablement mentions only specific disability. such as loss of limbs and blindness, but these only serve as bench-marks. The essential question that the adjudicating doctors have to determine with reference to these bench-marks is: how does an individual claimant differ from a normal healthy person of the same age and sex?
The existing system has also been more widely tested and tried and applied to a wider range of

479
conditions than is often appreciated. For example, psychiatric conditions are assessed mainly in relation. to war pensioners. I have been able to see this virtually at first hand through my own responsibilities for war pensions. Similarly with industrial injuries, doctors have to assess the extent of disability resulting from a wide variety of prescribed diseases.
There is already a power in paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Social Security Act 1975 to define further in regulations the principles of assessment, and this would apply equally to SDA. We do not envisage that the introduction of SDA will necessitate changes, but the power is there if needed. I hope that my remarks have indicated that there is more flexibility in the present system than is often appreciated. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend.
My noble friend also asked if there would be periodic reassessment of disabilities. The medical adjudication officer will assess both the level of disablement and the period covered. Where 80 per cent. disablement is accepted, the case will automatically fall for reassessment at the end of the period of the award, although in many cases we anticipate that the original assessment would in effect be for life. Where 80 per cent. disablement is not accepted, it is always open to the claimant to reapply for SDA at any time if he thinks that his condition has worsened. My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox referred to monitoring and asked how long it would be before changes to SDA would be considered. I think I have answered that. We plan to monitor the scheme closely from its introduction, and certainly for the first two years. We shall consider changes as part of this monitoring system.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about a particular case—that of Mrs. Shapiro. It is always difficult to get involved in individual cases. I shall study closely in the Official Report what the noble Earl said. I can confirm that those registered blind or partially sighted will be 80 per cent. disabled. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked whether it would not be more sensible to phase in the scheme. In order to enable claims to be processed within existing medical staffing levels, it will be necessary to phase in the benefit for new claimants. I stress the words "new claimants". It is estimated that there are about 21,000 married women who would have failed the present household duties test but who will qualify for SDA as 80 per cent. disabled.
Generally speaking, intermittent or fluctuating conditions, such as epilepsy or multiple sclerosis, will be assessed on the basis of the average degree of disability likely to be present over a given period. As with other disabilities, the assessment will be made on the basis of the history of the person' s condition to date, his present condition and expert knowledge of the natural course of the condition in question. Where necessary, specialist medical opinion will be obtained. The percentage degree of disablement will reflect the way that the disability affects the individual' s ability to live and enjoy life compared with a normal person of the same age and sex. I should point out that such conditions are not unknown in the industrial injuries and, indeed, the war pensions field. For example, epilepsy is not uncommon following head injury; and
480
multiple sclerosis has been accepted as attributable to or aggravated by service in the forces.
Finally, several of your Lordships have raised points on the additional 80 per cent. disablement test which will apply to those who first become incapable of work after age 20. These are matters which I think are more appropriate for discussion on later amendments which are not in this particular block. Suffice it to say that the additional disablement test for those who first become incapable of work over age 20 is intended to concentrate the available resources on the most severely disabled.
In effect, this is what the household duties test does at present. We intend to replace it with a much fairer and more objective test, using the same principles of assessing disablement as have been used successfully since 1917 in the war pensions scheme. I have not met many people who are concerned with that scheme who do not think that it is a good one, a fair one, and indeed one that works very well.
Lastly, I must repeat that these proposals do bring another 20,000 people into benefit. As I said, there is no consensus for an alternative, and on that basis I hope the noble Lord will not feel that by adopting the amendment which he proposes he should deprive those others of the benefits which my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox described as a step in the right direction.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Just before the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, rises, may I say that I am most grateful to my noble friend, because he has replied to many of the points, particularly ones that I have raised, about the way in which the proposed 80 per cent. assessment will be carried out. I noted particularly that he reassured all those concerned about the question of periodical reassessment; and also that there are powers, which the Government already possess in legislation, which would enable them to adapt and add to the criteria for assessment. In view of the fact that we have been taking so much time on this Bill, it may be agreeable to the Committee to know that, because of the answers which the Minister has already given, I am not proposing to move Amendment No. 53.
Lord Ennals: I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord. He has reassured me on a number of important points. I cannot say he has satisfied me; I will come to that in a moment or two. But I want to say that I think the whole Committee welcomes the abolition of the household duties test, though I would not follow the logic of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. She said we consulted and got it wrong. I hope she does not go on to say. "Therefore, consultation is a bad thing". It is true that we did consult, and it is true that we got it wrong. But I hope that will not be a precedent for getting it wrong again.
Fortunately, there is no element of party considerations in this. We are always at our worst when we are dealing with party political issues. What has been said by a number of noble Lords is that the test of the loss of faculty, which is designed to assess the amount of compensation—this has been the old experience with industrial injuries and war disablement—is not really an appropriate method of assessment for people whose disabilities are not the

481
result of accident or trauma. I think the Government admitted in Standing Committee in another place that there is a range of disabling conditions which neither the industrial injuries scheme nor the war pensions scheme has experience of measuring.
The noble Lord dealt with a number of them. He dealt with the question of congenital handicaps, cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis. He said—I was very reassured by what he said—that an assessment would be made, based not on how someone was on a particular day but on the general condition of a person over a period of time. However, I think many of us have documented cases about people with these conditions being tested to see what percentage disability it is considered they have, and they have come well below the 80 per cent. level.
There has been some argument about the attitude of the Social Security Advisory Committee—the SSAC. It is true that in their letter to Mr. Newton, the Under-Secretary of State, they expressed concern that the proposed method of assessment could not measure these conditions with any degree of consistency across the country. One might get a different conclusion reached in one area compared with another.
The concern that is still very much with me is that the experience of industrial and war disablement assessments is not really appropriate in this field. We have not been able to touch on what is almost the largest number—those who have had a mental illness and those with a mental handicap. I know the noble Lord mentioned that there have been such tests for people who have a mental illness as a result of war, but this is a minute proportion of those who might qualify and who certainly are unable to work, though their loss of faculty is very difficult to define.
There is no point in trying to divide the Committee in what in a sense is the main amendment, that is, Amendment No. 56, which suggests that we should do it another way. What I want to suggest to the Minister, and I hope he will consider it carefully, is that he should meet privately with noble Lords on all sides of the Committee who have a special interest. Some have expressed concern and some have expressed broad support, but with some reservations. I wonder whether we could spend some time with him for discussion which it would be difficult to have across the Floor of the Committee. It would provide an opportunity to discuss a number of issues on which he might be able to satisfy us. Certainly in his speech today he answered, I thought very helpfully, a number of the concerns that have been put forward.
I have a number of questions, but I am not going to put them to him now because we have got a difficult timetable. I suspect there are a number of other noble Lords who also have questions. We have still the Report stage to come, and if the noble Lord were prepared to set aside an hour or an hour-and-a-half when he could meet with noble Lords, if that were the wish of noble Lords and Ladies, then at this stage I would not wish to press any of my amendments. I should like that consultation, and further consultation with the organisations who are specially interested, to see whether there is anything further we would wish to do when we come to Report stage.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way he has received the comments that have answered, I hope, some of the points that have been raised. Of course, I understand that this is a complicated area and that it might be possible to reassure people by a detailed explanation, which is not always possible across the Floor of the Committee; I understand that.
If any of your Lordships would like a private consultation on what the Bill means, or what are the effects of existing legislation, such as I referred to in answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell, I should be very happy to organise that and I can make the necessary arrangements. I hope it might clear up quite a number of issues and also save us a great deal of time,which I am sure will please my noble friend the Chief Whip.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I should like to welcome this turn of events. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has proposed, and I welcome the Minister' s response. If I may say so, I was very impressed by his answer about the careful monitoring and the undertakings about that, as well as the flexibility and so on.
Equally, I think that the main amendment of this series—Amendment No. 56—has served as a very useful vehicle for debate. I take the Minister' s point that really it is not a proper way of going about legislation. So for technical reasons, in any case I would not have wished to press Amendment No. 56. But it has served a useful purpose. I welcome the prospect of talks.
Lord Stallard: May I say that I am not too happy about this procedure. Sitting behind on these Benches, I am a wee bit worried about whether this normal channels procedure is now taking place across the Front Benches rather than in the open. If this kind of procedure is going to take the place of detailed discussion of Bills, I would be very concerned.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. That was not my suggestion at all. I would not like that. I think that all noble Lords who have taken an interest in this, whether they are on the Front Benches, the Back Benches, or the CrossBenches—certainly this includes my noble friend Lord Stallard—should be able to do it in that way. I think my noble friend has misunderstood.
Lord Stallard: I accept what my noble friend says, and he has assured me part of the way. I should certainly not like the discussion that ought to take place in public to be superseded by special meetings between Members on various points. Although such meetings are useful as well, there should still be the public discussion.
Lord Glenarthur: Perhaps I may intervene briefly to reassure the noble Lord. There is absolutely no intention that the public discussion should be in any way curtailed. It is merely a question of trying to clarify certain points which would otherwise form the basis of an amendment which was not necessary at a later stage in the Bill. I think that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is a very good one, and it is one that I should like to adopt.
Lord Banks: I merely wish to say very briefly that we on these Benches should like to be associated with the proposal which has now been put forward, and, if possible, to participate in it along with the others.
Lord Kilmarnock: I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said. The gneral response to the offer by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, shows that that is the way in which we should proceed prior to the Report stage. It might be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, if I make a comparison with what happened on the Rates Bill. Several of us had private consultations with the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, including the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, to see whether the noble Lord could meet us on a certain point. The noble Lord went a certain way, but he did not completely satisfy us, and so we later, on the Floor of the House, had a very extended and very full debate, and divided on an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. So the proper parliamentary process was not short-circuited at all.
Lord Ennals: I am glad that there has been a ready response from the noble Lord the pm Minister and also from noble Lords on different sides of the Committee. Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment that I have tabled, and I shall not be moving a number of others that have not yet been reached.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43. 44 and 45 not moved.]
6. 23 p. m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 45A:
Page 15. leave out lines 19 to 23 and insert (": and
(c) beginning not later than the day on which he attained the age of 20 and ending immediately before the relevant day he has been, other than for a period not exceeding 28 weeks, on each day, either—

(i) a student attending a course of full-time education, or

(ii) engaged on a Government approved Youth Training Scheme. ")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 45A, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. I can be quite brief. This amendment is designed to bring some flexibility into the application of the age of 20 rule in respect, in the first place, of:
"a student attending a course of full-time education":
and, secondly, a person:
"engaged on a Government approved Youth Training Scheme".
I understand from utterances from the Government Front Benches in both Houses that the Government cannot, for reasons of cost, raise the age from 20 to 25. Therefore, this is an attempt to introduce a little flexibility where I think it is necessary as regards the age of 20.
I hope that the Government will see the special educational problems of those with multiple handicaps or mental disorders, to name only two classes of handicapped people. The SDA could well be a disincentive for those in that unfortunate condition to stay on in full-time education. One must remember that people who suffer from congenital handicaps of one sort or another may be very late entrants into
484
full-time education, and if they start late then special consideration should be given to their staying on late.
The upper limit for entry of disabled young people to the youth training scheme has recently been increased to 21, and I understand that they can stay in the scheme for up to 18 months. So the rigid application of the age of 20 rule could act as a disincentive and. indeed. it could cut right across the Government' s own YTS intentions in regard to disabled young persons. If the Government wish to implement their own policies in regard to youth training schemes, it seems to me that the age of 20 requires modification in that respect.
I wonder whether the DHSS has, in fact, consulted with the Departments of Employment and Education about this matter. If not, I very much hope that they will do so and will either accept this amendment today or, if they cannot do so, will come back at a later stage with an amendment which is better drafted and to the same effect. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: The effect of this amendment is in many ways similar to that of the group which we discussed just now—namely, Amendments Nos. 42 to 45—in that it would extend the easier under-20 qualifying rule to two specific categories of claimant who might first become incapable of work after the age of 20 without having had the opportunity to build up an adequate contribution record. I do not think that I need repeat all the points that I have already made, but will simply re-emphasise the fact that we do not consider it right to single out particular groups for such concessions in this way.
The noble Lord. Lord Henderson, has indicated that he is concerned that a young person who has qualified for SDA by the under-20 rule might be discouraged from attempting to take part in the youth training scheme or from trying to continue his education on the grounds that, should these attempts at rehabilitation fail, then he would have to satsify the 80 per cent. disablement test. In this connection I should point out that periods of attendance on a youth training scheme course, like periods of unemployment, form part of a period of interruption of employment and would therefore serve to link the periods of incapacity. The easier under-20 qualifying rule would, therefore, still apply.
As regards further education, SDA, like NCIP, can continue to be paid to someone engaged in full-time education from the age of 19 provided, of course, that the person can show that he or she is incapable of work.
The noble Lord asked whether or not there had been any consultations with the Department of Education or the Department of Employment on this matter. I can tell him that, yes, there were consultations, certainly, before these proposals came forward. I cannot tell him exactly the nature of the consultations, but certainly the departments concerned all talked to one another. I hope that, on the basis of that explanation, which I hope has clarified some of the points that he raised, the noble Lord will see fit not to press the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I hope that the noble Lord, in the answer that he has given, is not ruling out, in the

485
consultations which we have already discussed and agreed upon, the discussion of points such as have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I should like to have strongly supported the noble Lord's amendments but I do not wish to make a speech now. This is the type of matter that we could usefully exchange views about and then come back to, if we need to do so, at the Report stage.
Lord Glenarthur: I fully accept that, at the end of the day when we have discussed these matters in a less formal forum, we may not necessarily be able to agree, in which case it is fairly obvious that we shall have to consider discussions in your Lordships' House. But it is important, that the areas of misunderstanding are cleared up. In any case, some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, raised have been covered by the answer I gave.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I see the noble Baroness nodding that she is in agreement with the proposal that I should withdraw the amendment, as indeed I shall. In doing so I should like to thank the Minister for his helpful reply, which has, indeed, answered some of my questions. However, any questions which have not been answered can be pursued in the discussions which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. has proposed and which the Minister has accepted. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 15, line 20, leave out ("20") and insert ("25").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the assurances that he gave to my previous question a few moments ago. But I am not altogether happy about this omnibus procedure. We have had almost another Second Reading debate in which we have discussed a number of points and the noble Lord has replied as one would expect him to reply to a Second Reading debate, by answering all the points. That seems to be the pattern that will be followed for the other amendments which are about to be moved.
This is the third day of the Committee stage of this Bill and we have only just started what, to many of us, is the most important part of the Bill. We began with what appeared—and I do not make a blanket criticism—to be a very rushed discussion on some very serious points. I have the impression that we did not give those points the consideration that many people outside this Committee think they deserve. I am referring to all the voluntary organisations which spend so much time, effort and, very often, expense on mounting their own observations on these Bills and supplying Members of both Houses with excellent, well thought-out, and well-written briefs which we discuss. I think that they deserve a little more discussion than we have been able to give them. It seems as though we are hurrying up our discussion because the Government's programme must be completed willy-nilly before we rise for dinner. I do not think that that is a very good procedure.
I understand all the factors which noble Lords have to bear in mind when we reach this stage, and I
486
appreciate how unpopular it is when someone stands up and says what I have said. But I feel strongly about the point and I still feel strongly that a number of amendments will not be given their due consideration. Although ministerial assurances are always welcome, they are not the same as amendments which are written into a Bill. Nor can we constantly refer at the Report stage, of any other stage, to what the Minister has said here or in another place, or to an assurance given here or elsewhere. If it is not in the Bill and has not been accepted, the situation becomes more and more difficult. I take the view that we must make the effort to get these amendments written into the Bill before we pass to the next stage of discussion. That is why I shall be brief in moving Amendment No. 42 because much has already been said. I want to move it because, again, it implies a specific principle.
The Earl of Caithness: Is the noble Lord addressing himself to Amendment No. 46? He referred to Amendment No. 42.
Lord Stallard: I apologise; I meant Amendment No. 46. It raises a detailed, and a precise, point. I am suggesting that the age should be raised from 20 to 25 for all. This would cover all people affected by the Bill. I am not saying that it is the ultimate, but that is what I am moving.
At the beginning of my remarks I said that a number of organisations had discussed this and other points. I should like to quote what MIND says:
"MIND believes that this arbitrary cut off age of 20 is inappropriate in general but particularly so for mentally disordered people".
It makes a very well-reasoned case in respect of that proposition. The Spastics Society says:
"The Society believes that the youth exemption age of 20 years is far too low".
Again, a great case is made out.
The Disability Alliance says:
"We totally reject the age cut-off which the Government is implementing to discriminate between groups of disabled people".
RADAR makes almost the same comments. DIG says:
"The age of 20 (governing whether a test of incapacity for work and 80 per cent. disablement test are to be applied) is as arbitrary as is the 80 per cent. disablement criterion. There is no logical argument (except to save money) for applying a single test before age 20 and a double test after that age".
These are serious points which have not been answered in the overall reply that the Minister gave to the omnibus debate that we had on a number of amendments. I think that they all need a reply. Some of these organisations say that there should be no age limit at all. MIND says that if there is to be an age limit, it should be 40. Given that, I think that the compromise in the amendment in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is reasonable and is one which the Government should be prepared to accept. That is not to say that we do not welcome (because we do) the concessions made following the Committee procedure on the Third Reading in another place. Of course we welcome any concessions, but we still think that the age of 20 is arbitrary and too low.
The Spastics Society has pointed out to the Minister

487
for the disabled and to others the peculiar and particular situation concerning a number of its people. It has produced evidence from its own colleges to prove the point that this cut-off may act as a disincentive to many youngsters to continue in further education. That is a point that has been mentioned by others, and it is certainly something with which I would agree.
Those of us who have been involved with mentally and physically disabled youngsters know that, not because they are not bright or not intelligent but because of their particular illnesses or recurring illnesses, because of treatment or therapy which they may need. it may well take longer for them to go through the educational process. They do not reach the same level as other people at the same age. Therefore, for those reasons we must be more flexible when we discuss people in that age group. I thought that the Spastics Society and other organisations such as DIG and RADAR made an excellent point. It is a point that ought to be considered. There should be not an assurance but an acceptance that, in view of all those circumstances, the age ought to be increased. I could give the statistics that were quoted in the other place, but I shall not weary the Committee with them. We know that the facts that I have stated can be backed up by ample statistics.
From the evidence that has poured in from all quarters. we also know that not only the organisations which I have mentioned are concerned, but many individuals are concerned, too. I have received letters from ex-constituents, from people I know, and from committees on which I have served saying that they, too. should like to be involved and are concerned about this age limit, this cut-off. In reply to correspondence and questions in another place the only reason—I nearly said "excuse"—that we en able to glean so far from the Government is that of expense.
I think the Minister mentioned that it would cost £10 millon to increase the age limit to 25. The Government have not produced any evidence; no evidence is ever produced to say that they have taken into account the amount that might well be saved on supplementary benefit which would not be taken up because these people would fall into a different category. We have seen no evidence to justify this. There is always a frightening figure produced. They say that if we press our amendment, it would cost so much. Again, that is not a procedure which I accept, and I should have thought that certainly in this Committee we should probe a little deeper into statements and replies of the Government concerning what, in my view, is a very serious situation.
Therefore, bearing in mind all the other remarks and comments that have been made along the lines that I have indicated, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this modest compromise and, rather than give us an assurance, say that he will agree that this is a reasonable amendment and that he will be able to accept it. I beg to move
Earl Attlee: If I heard him correctly, the noble Lord the Minister said that the logical cut-off age was 16 but that they had made it 20 because, as most people left school at the age of 16, there would still be four years
488
in which to see whether or not they could work. As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has just explained, if you are disabled, the chances are that you will require additional education because you may have learning difficulties. Therefore. I should have thought that most disabled people would stay in full-time education well beyond the age of 16. Accordingly, the nice four-year period that the noble Minister was talking about for disabled people will not be there. It seems to me therefore logical to put the age up from 20 to 25.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth):I should like to add a brief word of support, because I do not think I am going to get a word in otherwise because I have got into a slight muddle with this general discussion that we have had. The two amendments I was supporting were the two in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Stallard, so I did not get in on the general discussion at the beginning.
In a way it was a pity that we had this omnibus discussion, because there were two clear and separate issues. I am sure that the noble Earl. Lord Attlee, would agree that one was on the question of the SDA altogether, and the other was the question of amending the SDA in some way. However, I am grateful that the Minister has offered to have talks. and if some good can come out of it I shall be delighted.
I should like to support Amendment No. 46 for various reasons, and they have all really been covered. The congenitally disabled certainly take longer—and the Minister has shown that he appreciates this—to complete their education. They may not be as bright, or they may be extremely bright and have interruptions through operations and such things. I think that the Minister said that the congenitally disabled would be all right provided they were in education after the age of 20. and that they would then not have to pass the double test. I see that the noble Earl is nodding, and I am delighted to see that, because it is right that the congenitally disabled should be given a chance to prove themselves. The National Bureau of Handicapped Students state:
"Research has shown that the mentally handicapped frequently make the most important leaps in their learning ability in the late teens and in the early twenties".
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. said that this would not help those who were not congenitally disabled—for instance, the student who perhaps has an accident at the age of 19 while attending university. Such people would have to undergo the dual test when they had completed their education, because they would not have qualified before reaching 20. They would not have been congenitally disabled.
This is why I support age 25. because it is important to recognise that early days of disablement are particularly difficult, puzzling and worrying. However bright the disabled person may be, neither we nor those around him have really any idea what he is capable of. I have seen this many times at Stoke Mandeville. It will take several years to achieve full potential.
It may be tempting to take the easy way out and opt out of continuing education if you fear that you may not pass the 80 per cent. loss of faculty test eventually.

489
I hope that the Government will look kindly on this amendment. I am sure that they want to encourage people to continue their education and to develop their full potential wherever possible and earn their living and support themselves.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that for many people this was the most important part of the Bill. I think that the opticians found that Clauses 1 to 4 were more important. In fact we adopted very much the same procedure on Clauses 1 to 4, where we had almost a Second Reading debate specifically on opticians, and then went through all the amendments just as we are going to do here. I do not think that the fact that we looked at so many amendment en bloc has in any way impinged on the further amendments that we can consider. Of course we are delighted to help in any way we can from this Front Bench.
Unlike the earlier set of amendments, which seeks to modify the easier qualifying rule for particular groups, this amendment seeks a general extension of qualifying age for entitlement to SDA simply on a test of incapacity for work. I do not intend to repeat what mn noble friend Lord Glenarthur has already said on the reasons for applying a different rule to those becoming incapable of work on or before age 20. It is sufficient for me to reiterate that we think that this is a fair and sensible basis for a provision for a benefit which aims at giving priority to the congenitally handicapped or those disabled in childhood.
We have listened carefully to what has been said in your Lordships' House, in another place, and in representations from organisations of, and for, disabled people. While we will of course monitor—and I stress that we will monitor—the effects of the new scheme carefully, we are at present not convinced of the case for raising the age limit to 25. The SDA, like NCIP, is intended to be an income maintenance benefit primarily for people of working age who are congenitally handicapped and have never been capable of work. Given this priority, the logical cut-off point for the easier qualifying condition is age 16 rather than age 20.
I do not think I am giving away any secrets at all when I say that it was quite a major concession to move the age up from 16 to 20 before the Bill was produced. In effect, the concession to raise to 25 would mainly benefit not the congenitally handicapped, who are the ones we are really trying to help, but those who first become incapable of work early in life and who, for one reason or another, find themselvs without an adequate contribution record.
There seems to be no obvious reason for having a more favourable rule for those in this position who become incapable of work before age 25 than for those becoming incapacitated later in life. Most of those who would benefit would be married women who have given up work to bring up a family, or indeed have never started it. Based on the proportion of married women contributors aged 20 to 25 who received invalidity pension, our best estimate is that the extra costs might amount to around £10 million a year, and possibly more. We do not regard expenditure on such a proposal as justified, particularly when set against
490
the other competing priorities in the social security field.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), raised the point of education and SDA after age 20. I would confirm that for somebody after age 20 or more who is undergoing full-time education, that will not in itself be a bar to receiving SDA, and a person who has already qualified for SDA but is undergoing further education will still receive the benefit provided he can show that he is incapable of work. I hope on this basis that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful to the noble Minister for his reply. He tempts me to go into another long speech about age 16 and the major concession he mentions, but I shall retain that for Report stage. I was a bit disappointed that he did not take the point about the disabled, and that they go on longer before they get to the same point as others. Nor did he seem to be seized of the point about disincentive raised by the noble Lord. Lord Henderson. As the noble Lord mentioned, youngsters can now go into the youth training scheme when they are 21, and they stay for 18 months. The fact that this cut-off is where it is will be a disincentive, so the SDA provisions will be a disincentive to that kind of thing.
Nor did the Minister touch on the fact that employers may well not be too keen now to offer employment or to make adaptations to their premises for youngsters in this age group. That is another disincentive. There are a number of points I should have liked to be more satisfied on, but I realise that I am not going to get much further in tonight's discussion. With those words, I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment and reserve my position for the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: This may be—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I should have thought that the next one or two amendments would not take very long. They are linked with the previous amendment.
Lord Denham: Are they going to go on the nod?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: They are very brief.
Lord Denham: I am worried about the intervening business, because we are slightly late. I think it would probably be safer if we resumed the House now and took the other amendments immediately after the order that we are about to discuss.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Is it possible to say that we shall not resume consideration of the Health and Social Security Bill before a quarter to eight?
Lord Denham: As soon as the Northern Ireland Order is finished we come back to this again.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: But not before a quarter to eight.
Lord Denham: I very much doubt that it will be before a quarter to eight. If we get the business through tonight, I am happy with that arrangement.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingy, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984
6.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (LordLyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland)Order 1984 which was laid before this House on 9th May be approved
I should remind the House that the order is being made under paragraph I of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The purpose of the draft order is to authorise the issue off £1,605 million sterling out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland and to appropriate this sum for the purposes shown in the schedule. This represents the balance of the 1984–85 Main Estimates for Northern Ireland departments and brings the total Main Estimates provision for the year to £2,831 million. Copies of the Estimates are available in the Printed Paper Office.
This debate is taking place somewhat earlier than in recent years. I should stress that this is possible because we have been able to lay the draft order and publish the Main Estimates for Northern Ireland departments on 9th May this year. We believe that it is right that the Estimates should be published as early as possible in the year to which they relate and a refinement of procedures has enabled publication to be brought forward. I hope that your Lordships will find this helpful.
Before I go on to outline some of the main features of the draft order, I should at the outset like to say something about developments on the broader economic front where the picture is encouraging. The national economy grew by 3 per cent. last year and recovery at the same rate is expected to continue throughout 1984. Inflation is down to 5 per cent. With it have come improved trading conditions and, despite last month's increase, an overall reduction in interest rates. There are signs that Northern Ireland is sharing in this recovery. Manufacturing production in Northern Ireland in 1983 was 3 per cent. above the level of 1982.
A number of recent surveys are in general agreement on the short-term prospects for the Northern Ireland economy. All these surveys report that signs of improvement are beginning to emerge. The latest CBI report is particularly encouraging. It confirms that the upturn in the United Kingdom is also being experienced locally. Both home and export demand continue to rise, with general business confidence also improving.
I am glad to say that the employment figures are showing more stability. The fall of 2,600 in the 12 months since March 1983 contrasts with 13,500 in the
492
previous 12 months. But unemployment remains a major problem in the Province; in statistical terms, a total unemployment rate of 21.6 per cent. against the United Kingdom average of 12.9 per cent.
The Government recognise the severity of the economic and, indeed, the other problems facing Northern Ireland. Accordingly, the size and balance of the Northern Ireland public expenditure programme has been formulated to reflect the Province's particular needs. Total public expenditure in 1984–85 will be £4,032 million. This represents an increase of some £13 million on the amount originally planned for this year. This is a small increase in real terms over 1983–84. Within this amount we are continuing to accord priority to law and order, to industrial support and development, and to housing.
Before turning to the specific services for which provision is sought. I would like to say a few words on the recent common agricultural policy settlement. I sympathise with the difficulties faced by Northern Ireland farmers following the measures agreed by European Community agriculture Ministers as part of the price fixing for 1984–85. It is quite understandable that those farmers who see their incomes threatened should express their feelings in the strongest of terms. However, the burden on taxpayers in financing the disposal of surplus commodities has become completely unacceptable. Surplus milk cost £3,000 million to dispose of in 1983 alone. The share for the United Kindom was about £600 million.
The Goverment fully understand that the quota in milk production presents special difficulties for the small producers, of whom there are a higher proportion in Northern Ireland. For that reason, and because of the expected greater proportion of hardship cases. the outgoers scheme will allow up to 5 per cent. of quota to be bought up in the Province compared with 21/4 per cent. in Great Britain. All milk producers in Northern Ireland received a letter last week from the Department of Agriculture giving further information on how the supplementary levy arrangements. particularly those dealing with special cases, will work. Detailed arrangements in the United Kingdom will shortly be made, and, soon after that. application forms, for both special case appeals and the outgoers scheme, will be available to producers. The progress of the dairy, the beef and other sectors are being very closely monitored by the Department of Agriculture.
I now turn to the provision being sought for specific services. The provision for agriculture presently sought in Class I of the Main Estimates now before your Lordships totals £61 million. The major elements are: £14 million for education. research and development: £24 million for administration and miscellaneous services, including Government support to the industry by way of advisory and veterinary services; £12 million for drainage; £5 million for forestry; and £5 million for direct support to the agricultural industry.
In addition, I am pleased to be able to remind noble Lords that special aid to agriculture will continue in the current year. This is not reflected in the Estimates before us this evening which were formulated before the £12 million package was announced. Detailed supplementary estimates for this aid will be presented later in the year.

493
Trade, industry and employment services are covered by Class 11 of the Estimates. It has already been announced that the Government will formally confer free trade zone status on six sites in the United Kingdom, including one in Northern Ireland, located at Belfast International Airport. I believe that this has the potential to attract international manufacturing, and service activities, and to stimulate new employment opportunities for the benefit of the Province as a whole.
The draft order provides resources for the Industrial Development Board to achieve three broad objectives this year. First, it aims to diversify and widen Northern Ireland's industrial base by attracting overseas companies to invest in the Province. Prospects for the current year are enhanced both by the continuing expansion of overseas economies, particularly that of the United States, and by the recent higher levels of interest being shown in Northern Ireland as a potential location for investment. Your Lordships will welcome the recent decisions by two major American investors to consolidate their operations in Northern Ireland. Fisher Body, part of the General Motors corporation, has announced the establishment of an engineering design and development facility in Northern Ireland and in the electronics field the AVX company in Lame has signalled its intention to expand, substantially, its operations in Northern Ireland. These projects reflect the confidence of overseas companies which have experience of operating in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, the IDB will continue to stimulate the expansion, modernisation and improved efficiency of indigenous industry, and, as necessary, will give support to companies which, while experiencing difficulties, are thought to have a viable future. The IDB's third objective for this year is to counter the adverse image of Northern Ireland through a vigorous public relations programme, including work in the USA,Canada, Great Britain, Europe and the Far East.
As your Lordships may already be aware, Northern Ireland's small business agency, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, has announced yet another record performance for the year ended March 1984, during which it promoted 3,658 jobs in small businesses in the Province. This not only represents a significant improvement on the previous year's record performance of 2,550 job promotions, but also considerably exceeds the unit's own target of 3,100 jobs. This performance is remarkable, given the extremely difficult economic and political situation in the Province.
Your Lordships will see that Class II Vote 3 includes £37.6 million for the continued support of Harland and Wolff. This estimate represents a reduction of some £2.4 million from last year's figure, reflecting the company's drive to cut overheads and become more cost-competitive. These efforts are continuing in the face of adverse market conditions. Your Lordships will, of course, be aware that the company has had some success over recent months, winning a number of small orders and the more substantial £30 million Ministry of Defence conversion order for an aviation training ship. These orders have helped, but I am bound to say that market conditions are likely to remain very depressed and the company still has considerable difficulties to face. The provision sought
494
in these Estimates is designed to help the company to meet this challenge.
In Northern Ireland the vocational preparation needs of 16- and 17-year-olds are catered for through a comprehensive youth training programme. The programme was launched in September 1982 and was devised in Northern Ireland to meet local needs. It is a substantial commitment; for 1984–85 there is provision in the Estimates for more than 6,000 young people who are already in training. Provision is also made for some 9,000 new entrants to commence training. In addition, funding is provided for the training of a further 11,000 young people already in employment. Some £49 million is provided for such training programmes by the Department of Economic Development and of Education.
I now turn to Northern Ireland's energy industries. Our policy on electricity tariffs is that they should not exceed the highest levels in England and Wales. We expect this policy to cost in excess of £80 million in 1984–85. Noble Lords will appreciate that this is a very substantial commitment to the Northern Ireland electricity consumer, and provides a large measure of relief to both the domestic and industrial sectors. The policy also makes a substantial demand on the Northern Ireland public expenditure block.
Looking to the future, the Government, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and independent experts, are continuing their examination of how to reduce our high electricity generating costs. Of crucial importance is the role which coal or lignite might play in future generation. Our examination on this score has not yet been completed.
Class III, Vote 1 covers the restructuring of the retail gas industry and the natural gas project. Following the Government's announcement last October, the Northern Ireland Gas Company has been in detailed negotiations with its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland on the terms of a 22-year contract. However, in the course of continuous monitoring on the progress of the project, factors involving price and potential market have emerged which could affect the prospects for the project. These factors are now being carefully assessed. This assessment is being carried out as a matter of urgency and will be completed as quickly as possible.
If I may now turn to the programmes of the Department of the Environment, I shall begin with the roads programme. The total net provision being sought under Class IV, Vote 1 is some £91 million. Of this sum more than £26 million is required for street lighting, car parking, and other expenditure, such as that on administration, and £47 million is needed to finance the operation and maintenance of the Province's road system. The capital element of nearly £18 million is somewhat lower than in previous years when provision was made for two very large projects—the M1–M2 Westlink in Belfast and the Foyle Bridge at Londonderry. The Westlink is now operational. The Foyle Bridge is nearing completion, with single lanes now in operation. It is hoped to have the bridge fully opened to traffic by the late summer of this year. Your Lordships will be aware that the road system in Northern Ireland is generally of a high standard, but it is essential that this is maintained. It is

495
therefore on maintenance that emphasis is now being placed.
The housing programme has been given top priority among Northern Ireland's social and environmental programmes since 1981. Total gross expenditure on housing services in Northern Ireland has grown from £325 million in 1980–81 to £526 million in 1984–85—clear evidence of the importance which the Government attach to the programme. This increase in expenditure has resulted in significant improvements in Northern Ireland's housing conditions. The Housing Executive's waiting lists fell significantly in the period up to 1983. It is estimated that unfitness levels have already been reduced to around 9 per cent. Private sector new housebuilding has increased to record levels and more individuals have tackled their own housing problems with the aid of house renovation grants.
Some switches in emphasis have been made in the housing strategy to increase our efforts on the improvement and maintenance of the existing housing stock. The Housing Executive's capital and revenue budgets make provision for expenditure of £73 million on the rehabilitation and improvement of the existing housing stock, and £51 million on the maintenance of the Executive's stock.
A corollary of the switch in emphasis towards maintenance and improvement programmes is that the Housing Executive's planned new house building programme has borne some reduction. However, the Executive still plans to let contracts for 3,000 new dwellings during the financial year, thereby maintaining a significant new building programme.
My Lords, we believe that the strategy which is reflected in the total provision for housing takes realistic account of the housing problems of Northern Ireland. and the steps necessary to alleviate them.
In Class VI, Vote 1 (water and sewerage services) £75. ·6 million is sought to provide and maintain water and sewerage facilities throughout the Province. Of this, £24 ·.8 million is required for capital works, and the balance of the Estimate is to meet operational and administrative costs.
Turning briefly to Class VI, Vote 2 (improvement of the environment) I would take this opportunity to mention some of the steps being taken to deal with the urban problems which exist in the city of Belfast. The impetus given to the housing programme over the last few years, to which I have already referred, has contributed greatly towards regeneration of Belfast. Other important elements in urban renewal are to be found in Class VI, Vote 2, and include environmental improvement schemes, comprehensive development schemes (for the redevelopment of commercial city centres and the development of district centres) the enterprise zone, and urban development grants. These provide the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland with a good range of tools with which to tackle the city's problems.
Class VIII of the Estimates makes a total provision of more than £570 million for education, libraries and arts. The Government continue to attach importance to the maintenance of classroom standards. The provision for teachers' salaries in Vote 1 allows
496
continuation of the existing pupil-teacher ratios. However, in a rapidly changing world the maintenance of traditional standards alone is not enough to meet the needs of today's generation of schoolchildren. The provisions sought in Votes 1 and 4 therefore provide for the start of a major initiative in secondary schools, which will build upon the valuable work already under way, in a limited number of schools, for the less able fourth and fifth year pupils. The aim is to broaden the curricular experience of pupils of all levels of ability and to ensure that what is taught is both personally challenging and relevant to the employment and social conditions which pupils will meet after leaving school.
In Class VIII, Vote 3. it has been possible, despite the other calls on the education budget, to sustain support from public funds for cultural, recreational and community provision at broadly the same levels as in 1983–84, and to reintroduce on a modest scale the purchase grants-in-aid to the two main Northern Ireland museums.
Class IX provides for health and personal social services. A net total of £608. ·4 million is being sought to maintain the existing level of provision and to allow for some development of services. Under Vote 1. £526 million is sought for the hospital, community health and personal social services, and some centrally funded services, of which £489 million is being provided to meet the revenue expenditure of the health and social services boards.
Under Class IX, Vote 2, we are seeking provision for the family practitioner services provided by family doctors, dentists. chemists and opticians. The cost of the family practitioner services has been rising steadily in recent years. and we are seeking in several ways to contain the costs to the public purse without affecting the excellence of the work which family doctors and other practitioners do in Northern Ireland.
Finally, under Class X provision has been made in Votes 2 and 3 for almost £595 million to cover noncontributory, housing and family benefits. This comprises about 53 per cent. of total estimated expenditure on social security benefits of some £1,133 million in the current year. The remainder is paid from the National Insurance Fund.
In these opening remarks I have tried to outline briefly the main features of the draft order before your Lordships and to touch upon some of the main policy issues underlying the provision sought. I know that. as usual on these occasions, your Lordships will wish to express your views on these matters and a great many others. I am especially grateful to those noble Lords who took the trouble to let me know in advance of the debate the topics which they intended to raise. I assure them that during the time available I shall try to reply to as many as I can of the points raised. Any points that remain unanswered I shall deal with very closely in correspondence later. With that, my Lords, I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved—(Lord Lyell.)
7.13 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we have on a previous occasion welcomed the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to his

497
new ministerial position, and I now congratulate him on the presentation of his first appropriation order. As the noble Lord said, this gives us an opportunity to range over matters of Northern Ireland, and, in particular, to put special questions to the Minister. The debates seem to come round very quickly, and one hesitates to go over the same ground again. Echoing what the Minister has said, I welcome the fact that the order was published earlier and also that both the order and the Estimates were available in good time for consideration before this debate.
The Minister has referred to the very slight improvement in the unemployment figures compared with those at the time of our last appropriation order debate. Unemployment there now stands at 21.6 per cent., and he mentioned the comparison with the United Kingdom figure of 12.9 per cent. It has to be stressed that the figure of 21.6 per cent. is higher than those for the two worst regions in Great Britain; namely, the North-West at 17.3, and Wales at 16.1. The Northern Ireland Economic Council report of April 1984 asserted that it would require some 65,000 jobs to get hack to the 1979 level of employment. Perhaps I should say that the unemployment figure then was under 10 per cent. As I stressed in March, when we had our last appropriation order debate, the matter is of considerable concern when we realise that some 47 per cent. of the unemployed in Northern Ireland have been out of work for more than one year.
Of course, we are very pleased, as the noble Lord has emphasised, to learn of the further progress of the Enterprise Unit, with something like 3,700 jobs promoted in 1983–84. I saw from a press notice issued by LEDU that 19,000 jobs have been promoted by the organisation since it was established in 1971. It would be interesting to know how many of those jobs are still there. I note that the cost during the current year is estimated at £17 million. That, I understand from the note to the Estimates, is about £3,553 per job. I would emphasise that that is still cheaper than the cost of leaving a person out of work. That is a point we have made in connection with the whole of the United Kingdom time and time again.
Under Class II, Vote 1, reference is made to the provision for the Industrial Development Board. I note that the IDB News No. 3 issued in 1984 outlines some of the board's work. It is encouraging to see the number of new jobs it has promoted, but I note the help which has had to be given to maintain some of the 14,000 existing jobs—a variety of jobs under various headings all of the type of intervention which this side of the House has always advocated. But I note the emphasis given by the IDB to the reluctance of foreign undertakings to invest in Northern Ireland, and I note also that the Northern Ireland Economic Council's Report, Economic Assessment: April 1984,in paragraph 32, says:
"….recent job promotion statistics show that the combined IDB and LEDU target for 1983–84 of 8,000, which is well below the level required to make a significant impact on unemployment, is unlikely to be attained".
In the very next paragraph it states that there has been growing concern about several aspects of the industrial development programme. In paragraphs 33 to 34 three points in particular are stressed. I will not mention them now, but I should like to ask the
498
Minister whether or not the council has discussed them with the Minister or whether he has sought to follow up the points made in the Economic Council's own document.
The same report, in paragraph 27, says that youth unemployment remains a major problem in Northern Ireland; and it goes on to say:
"The number of unemployed 18–20 year olds is however rising … and is likely to expand as YTP trainees come onto the labour market".
That is a point which is not only of concern in Northern Ireland but one that we make generally: that the trainees come off the scheme and thousands of them just go on to the labour market again.
The report comments that the number of young people on youth training programme schemes had fallen at January 1984 to nearly 1,500 less than the previous year. It comments that at November 1983 some 3,901 full-time places in the YTP were vacant. In paragraph 31—and I quote again, because their words are better than mine —they say:
"It appears that this low take-up rate is partly due to dissatisfaction with some aspects of the programme and partly due to over provision of places".
I note that under Class II, Vote 5, some 16,000 places are available under four heads. Everybody welcomes training schemes, but there is always considerable disillusionment if, at the end of training schemes, no jobs are available for the great mass of young people.
Reference has already been made to the enterprise development unit. I should like to comment favourably on other schemes which are mentioned in Class II, Vote 5. I have referred on previous occasions to the Enterprise Ulster Scheme, a direct labour organisation which deals with environmental and amenity projects. I note from the Estimates that the intention is to provide an average of 1,000 jobs in 1984–85, which will be of special interest to manual workers. Under this scheme, manual workers are recruited from the unemployed who have been registered as unemployed for a minimum of nine months. The cost of that scheme is comparatively low, at £7 million.
I have asked on previous occasions about the position when, as matters stand at present, the scheme ends on 31st March 1986. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, kindly told me that the decision as to whether or not to extend the life of the scheme is expected to be taken by the end of this year. In view of the number of jobs especially reserved for persons who have been out of work for at least nine months, I hope that the scheme will be continued.
The other scheme is Action for Community Employment. The scheme provides temporary employment for useful projects of benefit to the community for the long-term unemployed. The estimate is that there will be 2,900 jobs during the current year, at a cost off 131/4 million. I hope it will not be overlooked that Enterprise Ulster, Action for Community Employment and LEDU all cost, per place, far less than the cost to the state of an unemployed man for a period of 12 months. All these jobs are of value to the community. Therefore, I would stress not just the LEDU scheme but all three schemes.
As is shown in the April report of the Economic Council, to which I have already referred, public sector

499
employment, including that in the nationalised industries, accounts for some 46 per cent. of the working population. When I mentioned this fact on a previous occasion the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, commented, "But look at the position that we have in Northern Ireland". I would put it the other way. If we did not have public sector employment of 50 per cent. of the employed population in Northern Ireland, we should be in a devil of a mess. I hope that that point will be noted.
The noble Lord. Lord Lyell, mentioned a public spending figure of just over £4.000 million. I note that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Chris Patten. has stated that, proportionately, public spending is 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. higher in Northern Ireland than in the United Kingdom as a whole. I make no criticism of that, but it is a point which ought to be noted in the light of other matters concerning Northern Ireland which we have discussed.
The noble Lord referred, under Class I, to the milk quota. The only point I would make is that Mr. Adam Butler, the Under-Secretary of State, made it quite clear in a Written Answer in another place on 24th May that the individual farmer must decide whether to reduce yields or sell off cows. However, he emphasised that there are no plans whatever to compensate farmers who choose to sell. I recognise that this is not just a Northern Ireland policy. It may be that the milk quota was necessary in the light of milk production, but I must emphasise that dairy farmers had very little notice of the quotas, particularly in view of the fact that they were given encouragement, not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere, to expand dairy production. Emphasis ought to be laid on the fact that small farmers in Northern Ireland will be badly hit and that Mr. Adam Butler has said that there are no plans to compensate farmers.
Under Class II, Votes 1 and 2, I must express concern at the developments over the Lear Fan aeroplane and the failure of the 2.100 aircraft to achieve airworthiness certification. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what are the prospects for eventual certification, and. if certification is eventually granted. what are the prospects for the development of the aircraft and for employment possibilities in Northern Ireland. It was originally anticipated that about 2.500 jobs would be created as a result of the construction of the aircraft. Now we understand that what is left of the workforce—just 350 people—will be laid off on I st July.
May I ask the Minister about the total amount of governmental financial assistance so far given. The Sunday Times of 27th May stated that one of the partners in the consortium had said that it definitely will not provide further money that may be required for the project unless there is further Government investment. Therefore, I must ask the noble Lord whether there is any doubt that if certification is given for the aircraft. production will take place in Northern Ireland.
In a Northern Ireland Office press release on 31st May of a speech made by Mr. Adam Butler in the United States I notice that he said:
"Our agreement with the company requires it to develop its priorities in Northern Ireland with a view to their becoming the
500
principal facility for the production of the Lear Fan, and there is no change in that agreement".
However, on 11th June, at col 661 in the other place, Mr. Butler said:
"On the other hand, there is no commitment in the agreement that United Kingdom taxpayers' money should not go to Reno. The agreement is simply that money shall be provided to develop and produce an aircraft up to certain sums and that the development work is being carried out in Reno".
Can the Minister kindly put this in simple terms? If there is certification, will the aeroplane be manufactured in Northern Ireland?
Under Class II, Vote I, in the last appropriation order debate I raised the reported proposal that the EEC's economic and regional committee had suggested that an industrial development zone should be promoted by a new cross-border agency, backed by the IDA in the Republic and by the IDB in Northern Ireland. In a written reply to me the noble Viscount. Lord Long, said that the matter was being studied but that the Government had not yet reached a conclusion. May I ask the noble Lord whether there are any developments in the consideration that is being given to that proposal?
Naturally we are very pleased by the developments and achievements of Short's and Harland and Wolff, to which the Minister referred. They come under Class II, Vote 3. During the last appropriation debate I sought an assurance that no consideration was being given to taking Shorts out of the public sector. Once again I had a written reply from the noble Viscount, Lord Long. These answers were given in letter form because of the limited time that was allocated to that appropriation order debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Long, said:
"I can, however, confirm that there are no immediate plans to treat the company in this way".
But in an oral Answer in another place on 26th April, Mr. Adam Butler said at col. 876:
"A decision has yet to be taken. There is no reason why, under certain conditions and in pursuit of the Government's overall policy on privatisation, the company should not be considered for reversion to private ownership in due course".
I should like to ask the noble Lord what that means. What could be "the certain conditions" to which the Minister referred? How much public money has already been put into the development of Shorts? A poor view would be taken by many people in this country if, after public money has been put into Shorts, it pulls round, starts to be a very successful development for the Province and is then sold off. If it is sold off, will there be any repayment of the public money which has been put into the undertaking?
Dealing still with Vote 3, we understand, under mineral exploration grants, that a licence has been granted for Has any agreement been made with the Northern Ireland Electricity Service? What effect would lignite supplies have on electricity supplies and charges? Also, will the use of lignite have any adverse effect on supplies which may or may not be received through the National Coal Board?

501
Under Class III, Vote 1, there is a £12 million deficit support to gas undertakings and loans of £8 ·5 million towards the introduction of natural gas. I note what the Minister has said about the situation concerning Kinsale gas. There may be some who thought that there should have been a pipeline from the mainland. But having gone so far, with the deveopment of a pipeline to Dublin and a pipeline from there to the Province, and hearing in mind that we are talking about building up trust and confidence between the North and the South. then it could be a blow if the scheme falls through. I hope that everything will be done to avoid it falling through.
At the last appropriation debate, I raised under Class IV, dealing with transport, the question of possible streamlining of Customs clearance facilities on the main Newry-Dundalk road. I understand that since then the Under-Secretary of State met a deputation led by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. I am very pleased to note that fact, but can the Minister say what action has been taken since then, and whether the position has improved?
The last point I have to make concerns Class X, Vote 2, in respect of non-contributory benefits. I note that the appropriation is for more than £413 million, of which £281 million is for supplementary benefits. Looking at the introductory notes, I find on page seven that the expected increase in the number of people receiving benefit is mainly due to the proportion of unemployed who will require supplementary benefit. In 1984–85 they will total 78 per cent., compared with 76 per cent. over the past 12 months. It is stated that the reason is the increase in the number of unemployed who have exhausted entitlement to unemployment benefit. They total 136,000 individuals.
Under this same heading I find that more than 139,000 tenants in Housing Executive and private rented properties are receiving rent rebates or rent allowances, and the same number are receiving rate rebates. When one looks at those figures, one can readily understand the statements recently made by a Minister, during an address given in Northern Ireland, concerning the social and economic problems existing in the Province. Many of these are associated with the factors we were discussing last night and the constitutional issues of violence in Northern Ireland. The figures show the very serious position, not only of the unemployed, but also in respect of the conditions of a large number of people living in the Province.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing this order so clearly. I have six questions to put to him. Earlier this year I paid my first visit ever to Londonderry. It was distressing in that fine city to remember that even its name is a cause of division. Chalked up in many places was the message, "It's Derry, not Londonderry"; but for the moment, I shall duck that one. It was also sad to see the two great cathedrals on opposing banks and to recall that they, alas, are symbols of great divisions between the communities and not of a great, mutually-supportive unity.
My colleague Stephen Ross and I were taken to see
502
the new bridge over the River Foyle, north of the city, which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said is nearing completion. It is a beatiful and admirable example of engineering, but someone (I forget who) whispered in my ear that it was to a great extent a valueless piece of work, launched by the then Mr. William Whitelaw to help ease the unemployment situation. My question to the Minister is this: can be refute that suggestion and give an estimate of what traffic is expected to use the bridge daily?
A little time ago we looked around the De Lorean car works, seeing it in full production. To use a cliche, it seemed to be a miracle of engineering. What worries me is that such marvellous schemes are put in hand but turn out to be of no long-term value.
My second question is: can we have the latest information on the Lear Fan project? The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke on this matter at some length, and so I shall not repeat his questions; but it is a worrying position.
Thirdly—and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to this matter—I shall be grateful for more information about Short's and Harland and Wolff. It is good that we have been able to congratulate both firms on obtaining impressive new orders. Can the noble Lord tell the House how near each firm is to being out of the red? I understand that there are no plans at present to denationalise Short's. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill. mentioned this, and I raised the same point in the last debate. Does that mean that it is not sufficiently prosperous for the Government to consider such action at present?
Fourthly, in another place the Minister, Mr. Adam Butler, in referring to the housing situation in the Province, said:
"It is estimated that unfitness levels have already been reduced to about 9 per cent."— [0fficial Report, Commons, 11/6/84; col. 654.]
Can the noble Lord kindly clarify what seems to be still a very serious situation? What does "unfitness" mean in these circumstances? Is nearly 10 per cent. of the housing considered totally unfit for human habitation?
Fifthly—and the noble Lords, Lord Lyell and Lord Underhill, both referred to this —it is accepted that public expenditure per head in the Province is higher than elsewhere in the United Kindom. Can the Minister give comparative figures for Northern Ireland and the mainland?
Sixthly—and, again, both noble Lords referred to this—it is a sad fact that the Province has a growing population of working age, which makes worse an already very serious unemployment situation. Can the Minister give comparative figures for those leaving full-time education for, say, the past three years? I shall be most interested to hear the noble Lord's replies.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for having been courteous enough to write to me in advance, giving notice of this debate and seeking my views as to the points I might raise. I also owe him an apology, because I omitted to welcome him to his comparatively new post on the Front Bench. We have, of course, met on a couple of occasions across the table at

503
Stormont Castle, but yesterday was the first time that I had seen him as the Government's Front Bench spokesman, and I apologise for my oversight.
Almost two years ago when his predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, held that post, I was able to make obeisance to him as I had fagged for him when we were both at school together near Slough. It would have been an even more happy coincidence if I were now able to boast that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, had fagged for me when we were at the same school, but, regrettably, the discrepancy in our ages is too great—and in his favour, I may say. Furthermore, it is possible that we were not under the same tutor. Nevertheless, he is very welcome and I hope he will find himself at home in Northern Ireland where, even if we are not famous for every good thing, perhaps the hospitality of the Province does have a favourable reputation.
Lord Lyell: Hear, hear!
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, Class I of the appropriation order covers the thorny subject of agriculture, which is perhaps causing more concern in the Province than anything else at the moment. Much has been said about it. but I am afraid that we on the Northern Ireland Assembly Agriculture Committee continue to adhere to the view that we have been sold short so far as the milk quota is concerned. This view is reinforced by the Milk Marketing Board, whose full-time job it is to monitor and evaluate these matters. This opinion is reinforced by a telegram dated 13th June from the European Commissioner, Mr. Poul Dalsager, and addressed to the chairman of the committee, the Rev. Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley, whom God preserve. In the telegram Mr. Dalsager says:
"The reserve quantity of 65.000 tonnes [of milk] allocated to Northern Ireland should be added to the total of reference quantities fixed for buyers or producers of Northern Ireland in accordance with Article 2.2 of Council Regulations of the EEC etc.".
That reinforces the point that the extra quantity of 63,000 tonnes which we were allocated has not gone directly to Northern Ireland but has been diluted because it has been allocated throughout the entire United Kingdom quota. I could go on about this for a considerable length of time, but I shall not do so because there are other points to which I wish to make reference.
I may say that this causes considerable concern and I would therefore say that there are three things that need to be done as far as agriculture is concerned. First, while we know that the United Kingdom quota cannot be changed, at least it ought to be re-allocated so that Northern Ireland receives this bonus of 65,000 tonnes which it was promised. Secondly, I think that a more realistic buy-out scheme ought to be introduced. What has been suggested so far, as far as I know, is £650 per 5,000 litres for any farmer who goes out of dairying. This contrasts unfavourably with the figure that we have been given of about £1,200 in Germany. If people are going to be induced to go out of milk there must be a real incentive for them so to do.
Having done that, the third thing that is needed is to provide a viable alternative for farmers in Northern Ireland. If they go out of milk, what future is there in
504
beef? We do not know. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield was floating the idea that we should be looking into crops such as oil seed rape, but unfortunately we are disadvantaged in this respect because there is no plant in Northern Ireland for processing oil seed rape. It has to be sent to Liverpool, which means that we are at a disadvantage by comparison with growers on the mainland. I have suggested before now that the Industrial Development Board should look into the possibility of setting up an oil seed rape processing board in Northern Ireland which would provide some employment, apart from making this crop more viable. As yet, no positive response has been received.
Those are the three points which I think ought to be noted and to which Her Majesty's Government ought to give careful attention. But, without wanting to be nasty about it, I must say that the most dissappointing element is the degree of uncertainty which has existed in the agricultural industry since the spring of this year. We do not know what the total affect of clawback on the variable premium for beef is going to be. I think that a lot of farmers are going to get nasty shocks when the autumn comes and when they are penalised by the levy on the excess milk that they have produced. The beef market may be glutted by cows which have been culled. The autumn is going to be a very difficult time and I am sorry to say that, as an elected representative in Northern Ireland, I am not alone in feeling that to a certain extent we have been let down by Her Majesty's Government because of this uncertainty, because we are unable to explain to our constituents exactly what is the position. We are made to look stupid.
Even those of us who are not members of the Conservative Party thought, when that party achieved its resounding victory in the general election last year, that at least we would have strong government and that, even if we did not like everything that was done, at least we would know what was being done and why it was being done. It is disappointing that in the field of agriculture so far that does not seem to be the case. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord—and I know that it is not his direct responsibility—will use his good offices to try to get the situation clarified as soon as possible.
To turn now to Class II, I think that reference has been made to this already on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House. That is, every incentive ought to be given towards self-help in job creation. A shining example of this is Enterprise Carrickfergus, which in fact was initiated by one of my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly who is a member of Carrickfergus Borough Council representing my party. That has been a remarkable success and has received good support not only from local industry but from Her Majesty's Government as well. This is much to be welcomed. I therefore ask why it is that the Department of Economic Development has been dragging its feet so much over the suggested information technology unit in Comber, County Down.
A local voluntary committee has been set up with a view to promoting this. First of all, the department said that there would not be a demand for it, but the committee managed to raise funds and put a single advertisement in the daily press and in the local press.

505
That attracted something like 75 inquiries. If a single advertisement will attract that sort of interest, a more widely spread publicity campaign surely would provide more than enough applicants for training at such a centre —which, I am told, would cost about £200,000 (which is roughly the same as a youth training programme centre), would provide something like 30 jobs a year for young people and, more important still, would train those young people so that with computer technology they would be better able to take permanent jobs having been through the course. Furthermore, such a centre, which is geographically ideally suited in Comber, would be of spin-off assistance to other business and commerce by being able to provide services free to program the various requirements for the services and products of that industry and commerce.
Under Class III, we welcomed the information we were given last year about the piping of natural gas from Kinsale but the Minister responsible, Mr. Adam Butler, gave us some disquieting news recently and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has substantiated that news this afternoon: that whereas we had been led to believe that the agreement with the Government of the Republic originally had been something that was signed, sealed and tied up, we are now told that it was not an agreement but just an understanding —and this pulls the carpet from under the feet of those who were trying to resuscitate the gas industry in Northern Ireland. The gas undertakings had been hanging on by a thread. The Kinsale project looked as though a lifeline was being provided. Sales of gas appliances, cookers and so on had been declining and there was every prospect that they would begin to improve once again and that employment in the gas distribution industry would be ensured. Now there is doubt. Now it is going to be difficult to retain confidence, and this is something which is indeed to be deplored.
Under Class IV, once again I must deplore the delay in approving funds for the cross-city rail link in Belfast. I know I have raised this matter before and I was told that it could not be put high on the list of priorities. Since then Northern Ireland Railways announced a good result for last year. They have put a lot of effort into trying to improve passenger traffic on the Lame Line which is now somewhat isolated, and they have had a measure of success in so doing. If we just had the cross-city link, that line would be able to resume its position as a major part of the railway network.
Furthermore, those of us who are members of the Northern Ireland Assembly cannot help marvelling at the extensive road works which are taking place around about the Stormont building. It is not just resurfacing but road remaking, and we ask why? Those roads do not carry much traffic. The contract has been going on since, so far as I can remember, early April. Why is that necessary when there are so many more urgent roadworks that need to be carried out? I can quote two examples in my own constituency: the Salt Water Bridge is one. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister has had the opportunity to have a drink in that very congenial pub between Gray abbey and Portaferry. The second is the Shaw Road at Ballyhalbert which has been a standing problem for a long time. There is no footpath at all and the vehicular traffic has increased a great deal. The cars whizz within
506
a matter of inches of the front doors of the houses and of anyone who is trying to get out.
Under Class VI, it is with some regret that, having received a favourable response from Her Majesty's Government to my previous representations about aid for listed buildings used for ecclesiastical purposes, we learned that the likely total amount of funds to be allocated per annum is going to be only £150,000. I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for having agreed to bring Northern Ireland to the same point as the rest of the United Kingdom which has such buildings grant aided, but I respectfully suggest that £150,000 is not going to go anyway at all towards meeting the demands.
For instance, next Tuesday I am joining in launching an appeal for £350,000 for Down Cathedral. That is only one building which is suffering from dry rot. I know of two, if not three, other Church of Ireland buildings, which are in need of funds, and that is not to mention other denominations. Among conservationists —members of the Historic Buildings Council, members of the National Trust, members of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society —the feeling is developing that as little as £150,000 per annum is hardly worth administering; in other words, the cost of administering it would hardly he justified. I regret having to say that but it is necessary to do so.
Finally, under Class II I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, saying that he includes the Official Report of the Assembly among his light reading and that he appreciates the nuances of the oratory which is delivered there. I hope that, reading between the lines, he finds that the mood in the Assembly is good on the whole. There is an ambience of bonhomie punctuated only rarely by acrimony, and acrimony not much worse than the sort of verbal abuse to which I was subjected in your Lordships' House last night. I hasten to add that abuse was not offered by the noble Lord the Minister but by a noble Earl, and I told him that I was going to say this. The mood is good, and the work in the committees I would say is particularly useful; not just for the scrutineering work they do but also because it has brought together politicians of different parties who have come to know and be on friendly terms with each other. Since our separated brethren, the official Unionists, have returned the situation has improved still further.
I am glad to say that I have become on friendly terms with members of the Democratic Unionist Party whom I would not have known before. We work together on the agriculture committee as a team as we do with the official Unionists now that they are back, and as we would do with the SDLP if they would just return. The SDLP would be welcome: they would find that they would not be up against people who would reject or spurn them in any way; they would be part of the team and they would find they would be working in concert with the rest of us for the common good of the people of Northern Ireland. I realise Mr. Hume's difficulty because he went into the Assembly election on the abstentionist ticket, but I wish now that we have got the Forum report and the European election behind us that he would try to find some way of coming back. My party would certainly facilitate him in any way possible and assist him to get off whatever uncomfortable hook he finds himself on.

507
As I say, the mood in the Assembly is good. I try to miss no opportunity to harass, to irritate and to mock the reverend and honourable Member for North Antrim who is chairman of the agriculture committee. He takes it, I may say, in the best of good humour and reciprocates with quick witted repartee. I shook his hand the day before yesterday and congratulated him on having obtained a record number of votes in the European election. So, contrary to the impression that noble Lords may have from the media reports, the mood in the Assembly is good.
I therefore urge Her Majesty's Government not to lose their nerve but to let others lose their nerves. The official Unionists lost their nerve over the boycott. They have come back. We welcomed them; we did not jeer at them. Let us hope that the SDLP will do the same. In the meantime, let not Her Majesty's Government over the coming Recess allow any doubt to enter into the future of the Assembly because as far as our party is concerned —and I think I can truthfully say as far as the DUP is concerned —we are going to do our utmost to keep it going, to make it successful and bring it to a stage whereby at least a measure of devolution can be granted. I apologise for taking so long.
7.59 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister just one question which does not need an immediate answer. It is a question which may ring in his ears in these early pristine days while his mind is clear of other things.
May I congratulate the noble Lord the Minister on his appointment and assure him of our prayers. We know of his humanity, cheerfulness and Christianity. He has a lot going for him and we support him. I am pleased to say that because I believe that many of us are praying for him.
I speak as someone who was immensely helped by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and who has family interests in the North. Will the British Government seek to overcome the isolation which seems to me to be one of the most crippling facets in the problem of our relationship with the North? I throw in these suggestions. I wonder whether it might be possible to consider some way of encouraging lower air fares so that more people may be able to travel backwards and forwards. Secondly, can more visits of schoolchildren from the North be encouraged? Whenever I meet schoolchildren here in the Palace I make sure of talking with them.
Thirdly. I ask the Government to encourage, without pressing. of course, the BBC to continue its magnificent "Songs of Praise" programmes from the North. which open the eyes of many people to the loveliness and beauty of that part of our country.
Fourthly, in this Christian Heritage Year the Government should do all they can to encourage publicity concerning tourism so that those who have never been to the North may find that it is one of the most lovely and, in perhaps 93 per cent. of the acreage, the most peaceful of all parts of our nation. My one question, therefore, is simply to ask the noble Lord the
508
Minister to do all he can to encourage the overcoming of isolation between the North and the mainland.
8 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have listened with no little interest and with gratitude to the kind words that have been spoken by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill; especially on this occasion which is my first major effort on a very far-ranging and wide-ranging debate which concerns so many people in Northern Ireland and so many subjects which are vital to the life of the Province.
I shall try to reply —as I hinted in my earlier remarks —to as many as possible of the points which have been made this evening and of which your Lordships were kind enough to warn me in advance. I am still a relative neophyte at coping with the wave upon wave of paper that arrives and if I miss any points I assure your Lordships that it is in no way a discourtesy. We shall very carefully cull everything that has been said tonight, including the small details raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I shall cover all these points when replying to the questions he asked.
As I pointed out during my introductory speech, we hope that the prospects for the Northern Ireland economy are seen to be encouraging. I stress to your Lordships that many commentators have suggested that Northern Ireland should get more public expenditure. This facet was referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, and other commentators have been quick to suggest the need for additional funds in particular areas. But few of these commentators and these ideas that flow in have been able to suggest or point to where any corresponding savings can be found to fund these increases in public expenditure.
We agree that Northern Ireland has special problems in social and economic as well as in security matters. In recognition of those problems —a point raised by the noble Lord. Lord Underhill —the Government spend substantially more per head of the population than in the rest of the United Kingdom; between 30 and 40 per cent. more. We believe that that is a measure of the Government's commitment to Northern Ireland. Therefore, we believe it is important that the argument should concentrate on whether we are spending the available money in the best possible way and whether we have our priorities right.
I stressed earlier that our priorities are, first, law and order; then industrial support and development; followed, in the social and environmental field, by the housing programme. The industrial development programme has been designed to help strengthen and expand the industrial and commercial base in Northern Ireland. By this means we hope to deal with the economic problems of the Province and to continue the fight against unemployment. However, I am very conscious that the unemployment situation is very serious. Indeed, many people in Northern Ireland have been unemployed for over a year. Certain measures have been introduced in an effort to alleviate their situation.
During the current financial year the Government propose to make available an average of at least 4,000

509
jobs specifically for the long-term unemployed in what we call Action for Community Employment projects and also in Enterprise Ulster. We were grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. This commitment represents an increase of some 250 jobs on the combined total for these schemes last year.
I appreciate that there is concern about the rate of supplementary benefit which is payable to the longterm unemployed where only those who are over 60 years of age are eligible for the higher long-term scale rate. However, I emphasise that social security is handled essentially on a United Kingdom basis and, therefore, this is not merely a Northern Ireland feature. The cost, rather than the principle of extending the scheme, is the main obstacle. This is in the region of an extra £500 million a year which would be needed for the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sure this subject will feature during the current review of the supplementary benefit scheme.
I turn as briefly and as accurately as I can to the questions which have been raised by your Lordships during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, opened the bowling and, if I may say so, he was particularly accurate, relevant and courteous. I congratulate him on the clarity with which he has examined the Votes: he has clearly done a great deal of homework. The noble Lord referred to the report from the Economic Council. The Government welcome this report as. indeed, we welcome all contributions to the debate on how we can allocate our public expenditure. I am happy to assure the noble Lord that we intend to use the report of the council to inform our work on the 1984 public expenditure survey. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has indicated to the chairman of the council that we will comment in detail on the report later this year.
The noble Lord had one or two things to say on the milk quotas, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I shall come to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, later but. first, briefly reply to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The noble Lord referred to the statement earlier this year of my right honourable friend the Minister of State. Mr. Butler, that there were no plans to compensate those who disposed of dairy cows. In fact, as the noble Lord will be aware, since then a scheme to compensate farmers who wish to give up milk production has been announced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 25th May this year in recognition of the special needs of Northern Ireland. The scheme provides for 5 per cent. of that quota for Northern Ireland to be bought up. This is over a period of five years at a cost of £8.5 million, as opposed to the mere 21/4 per cent. of that quota which is available for redistribution in Great Britain. The quota which is to be released by this method will be used to help the small milk farmers and the special cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also raised the eternal problem of unemployment and jobs. He rightly referred to the problem of unemployment in the Province and mentioned programmes such as the LEDU and the youth training programmes. These spearhead our attack on the problem. I shall, I am afraid, have to write to the noble Lord on the detailed points he raised, but I assure your Lordships that we are taking all the measures we can to create greater
510
employment stability. If I may raise one more point on unemployment, the drive for new jobs, whether by the IDB or the LEDU, is not constrained, and nor has it been constrained in the past, by any lack of cash available to the promotion agencies.
The noble Lord also raised the problem of lignite. As he will be aware, and as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and other noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already commissioned and received a report from specialist energy consultants on the potential uses for lignite. In addition, we are examining very carefully the possibility of using lignite in the generation of electricity as part of a review which is currently being carried out on the future generation strategy for the Northern Ireland electricity service.
The question of converting any power stations to use lignite is one of the options which we are currently considering as part of this major review. The mining company for lignite and the Northern Ireland electricity service are naturally in close consultation about the technical aspects of using lignite for electricity generation. but I am afraid that I have to say that it is still very early days. I understand that the private developer of the deposits intends to concentrate in the short term on analysing, and testing a bulk sample of lignite, but this particular phase is likely to take up to two years. Until all these tests have been completed, it is unlikely that the company will be able to determine the commercial and industrial potential of these deposits.
The noble Lord also raised the question of Short's. I have to say that there is no change from the position that was set out in the Statement by my right honourable friend Mr. Butler, when, on 26th April, he said that the Government had yet to take a decision on whether to return Short Brothers to the private sector, or indeed what would be the continuing position of Short's. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that, as with any other company in this field, our aid for Short's —if we take, for example, launch aid for the SD.360 and aid for research and development in that and in other fields —is all geared to stabilise the performance of Short's and to enhance its profitability.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the question of the certification and production in Northern Ireland of the Lear Fan. The management of the company remains entirely confident that it will obtain a certificate of airworthiness for the aircraft. This is forecast for February 1985. The greatest security for the future of the Northern Ireland operation will be the profitability of the enterprise. The financial assistance agreement specifically requires the company to continue to develop its Northern Ireland operation with a view to its becoming the principal production unit for the Lear Fan 2.100 and to retain it as such except in extreme commercial circumstances beyond its control. I hope that that will be of some help to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked me about cross-border economic development. I am able to tell him and your Lordships that the Government have continued to examine that complex issue in the context of a proposal for a feasibility study of a cross-border integrated operation. The noble Lord will be

511
aware, as I am sure will the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that this was put forward by the Foyle Donegal Strabane Co-ordinating Group. This operation was supported by the European Commission, which naturally sought the views of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Ireland about this proposal. I am able to tell the noble Lord that discussions are under way between the Government and interested parties. It is our intention to reach a decision as soon as we possibly can.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also raised the question of the Newry customs post. I think that there are several details here. I wonder in the interests of time whether the noble Lord will permit me to put the details, which amount to about a page and a half, in written form, and I think that would meet the approval of your Lordships this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised several interesting points. First. may I just take two minutes of your Lordships' time to thank him for his very kind welcome? He may have forgotten that 10, 11 and even 12 years ago I was speaking from the Back Benches here on Northern Irish affairs. I think that I made eight or nine speeches on the green, the British and other dimensions. I always admired his forthright delivery and his immense knowledge then, and I admire it greatly now. I understood that the husband of my noble friend Lady Trumpington taught the noble Lord at the school to which he referred. I am afraid that that privilege was denied to me. He has mentioned that hospitality is paramount. Indeed, I have found that in my very short stay so far in Northern Ireland. Not a hundred miles from the residence of the noble Lord is one institution where last week I was offered whipped or pouring cream. I surprised the management by requiring both, since I regarded that as my duty.
I stress to the noble Lord, and indeed to your Lordships, that I read the proceedings in the Assembly in Northern Ireland with great interest. I try to read them with the utmost seriousness. Your Lordships may not be aware that the noble Lord is a very distinguished Member of that Assembly, being a Deputy Speaker. and naturally features in many of the serious discussions. Those of your Lordships who, like me, take the trouble to read this may find that just from time to time one has to ask a few questions about the detailed political nuances and little remarks that are made around that Chamber. Certainly I, the Government and indeed your Lordships salute the Assembly, and, above all, we salute the noble Lord for his continuing efforts in that political institution and for all the work that he does.
The noble Lord naturally put me on my mettle about milk quotas and the schemes for dairy farmers. I hope that he will accept that the levels of special aid for agriculture were given in the Statement of my noble friend Lord Mansfield on 17th February. I stressed in my comments to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. that a scheme to compensate farmers who wish to give up milk production was announced on 25th May. I also mentioned the figures for the outgoers' scheme.
Nobody who has been in any way concerned with Northern Irish affairs over the past two months, least of all myself, could be unaware of the extremely strong
512
feelings which have been aroused by the milk quotas. As the noble Lord stresses, we have met at Stormont Castle twice, indeed three times. I assure the noble Lord. all your Lordships and everybody in Northern Ireland that the Government are taking that problem very seriously indeed. Even as I am speaking, I know that there are continuing efforts being made both here and in Belfast to see what we can do about this problem, which, the noble Lord will accept, affects agriculture in Northern Ireland possibly to a slightly greater extent than it affects agriculture in the rest of the United Kingdom. Certainly this is what people in Northern Ireland believe, and it is our opinion that they have a case.
The noble Lord also mentioned job creation. The Government have placed considerable emphasis on the promotion of indigenous industry in Northern Ireland. It was my right honourable friend Mr. Butler who last year launched the local enterprise programme. The programme is designed to reinforce the existing generous and comprehensive range of assistance available. Secondly, we want to provide a framework and to encourage and to maximise local self-help job creation initiatives. This programme is administered by the Province's small firms agency LEDU. The principal components comprise a formation grant of up to £2,000 a year and grant aid of 50 per cent. towards the purchase, refurbishment and sub-division of premises for small businesses. Although the scheme has been in existence for a short period, we believe that it has been extremely successful. This was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. We are very encouraged with its success.
The noble Lord also raised the question of the information technology unit at Comber. As the noble Lord will know, I read the Assembly reports. One member of the Assembly found considerable difficulty pronouncing that word. The member of the Assembly came from north Antrim, and various other members of the Assembly could not understand his pronunciation. My colleague, the Minister of State, who has responsibility for the youth training programme in Northern Ireland, is considering the facilities for computer-aided training in the total YTP provision and also the requirements for the information technology centres in this particular region. The Comber high tech proposal will be examined in the context of this overall survey of needs.
The noble Lord raised the question of the cross-city rail link. We appreciate the benefits of the link, But the implementation of any project of this magnitude —the noble Lord will realise that it is a fair size —must necessarily be related to the availablility of funds and other expenditure priorities. We are satisfied that the continuing deferment of the cross-harbour bridges is appropriate having regard to the foreseeable traffic needs of Belfast but, I am afraid, also to our other priorities for public expenditure.
The noble Lord raised the question of car parking. I had heard that this problem arose in the village —or is it the town? —called Crossgar. I am afraid that I have not been there. I do not know whether it is in the noble Lord's constituency. I am advised that the funds that we have available are limited. But we do intend to continue to provide off-street parking facilities in towns and in villages throughout Northern Ireland on

513
a priority basis. We have to take account of the present on and off street spaces, and indeed the commercial demand which is calculated on retail sales.
Provision of car parking facilities for amenity purposes is a local authority function. I do not therefore think that I can comment on it. I would, however, mention that the enforcement of waiting restrictions in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Its resources are already fully committed. The department is reluctant to introduce further waiting restrictions except in the case of especially serious needs.
The noble Lord mentioned the problem of grant aid to listed churches. The figure off £150,000 a year has to be borne in mind when considering the current level of funding for repairs to listed churches in Great Britain and the amount available for listed secular buildings in Northern Ireland. If we take account of the numbers of listed buildings in the various regions of the United Kingdom, we believe that the figure for Northern Ireland is comparable in proportion. I would stress that the entire £ 150,000 is expected to be available for repairs to the fabric of historic churches and is separate from any costs involved in administering this particular scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, was kind enough to warn me in advance of the points that he might raise. I thank him for his speech and for the attention that he paid to the figures before us. The noble Lord mentioned his interest in the Foyle Bridge. I regret that this is one area that I have not yet visited. It is an important addition to the road network in the northwest of the Province and also to the infrastructure for the social and economic development of Londonderry. The bridge, as the noble Lord is no doubt aware, is partially open to traffic. I understand that traffic flows of up to 10,000 vehicles a day have already been recorded. By the end of the summer, the bridge will be fully opened to traffic. The noble Lord raised the question of traffic flows. When partially opened, we understand that it is up to 10,000 vehicles a day. As to the total capacity of the bridge when fully opened, I am afraid that I do not know the answer. If I am able to discover a figure, even an approximate figure, I will write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord raised the question of Lear Fan, which I hope that I have covered.
The noble Lord asked me about unfitness. I should like to give him a brief definition of unfitness in relation to housing. The definition is given in Article 46 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. This provides that a dwelling shall be deemed to be unfit if it is so far defective in one or more of the following respects as not to be reasonably suitable for occupation: repairs, stability, freedom from damp, internal arrangement, natural lighting, ventilation, water supply, drainage and sanitary conveniences and facilities for the preparation and cooking of food and the disposal of waste water. I shall certainly ensure that we cull through the remarks of the noble Lord, and if I have missed anything, we shall reply in writing.
The noble Lord also raised the problem of the statistics of the growing population of working age. According to the census of population, between 1971 and mid-1983, the latest available estimate, the
514
population of working age, classified as 16 years and over, increased by approximately 10 per cent. from 1,034,000 to 1,138,500. There is a table which I shall send to the noble Lord showing that the figure for males rose by 11.6 per cent. and for females by 8.8 per cent., making a total overall of 10 per cent.
I have, I am afraid, somewhat overstayed my welcome in explaining all that I have set out. I have tried to cover as many of the points that were raised as possible. I assure your Lordships that we shall read carefully the points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will agree, I think, that this is the only chance annually that we get to discuss these Estimates. There may be another later in the year. I am not sure about the procedures, but doubtless I shall be soon. I hope that I have been able to satisfy your Lordships. I am sorry that I am unable to answer the questions of the right reverend Prelate. I shall, however, reply to his three questions later.
I should like finally to thank all those noble Lords who have participated in an interesting debate. I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed. Some of these concerns bear on a number of difficult problems that face the people of Northern Ireland. I have tried in my remarks to re-emphasise the commitment of the Government to policies that create conditions of greater economic and social stability. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Security Bill
8.30 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 11.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 15, line 20, at end insert ("except for those people with mental disorders, as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983, for whom the applicable age shall be 30;")
The noble Lord said: We return to the question of the severe disablement allowance. Before we interrupted discussion on this Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, had moved that the qualifying age should be raised to 25 for everyone. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, told him that that was considered to be too expensive. The amendment that I am moving is more limited in scope. It seeks to raise the age from 20 to 30 for a specific group of people. They are people with mental disorders as defined in Section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, was perfectly right in one thing that he said —that although we are grateful for the offer which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, made about further consultation on certain matters, we should not slide over things during the course of the Committee stage. So my object in moving this amendment is to put down a marker for discussions with him in the first place, and then, if they are unsuccessful, for a return to the matter at Report stage.
It is the case with the mentally disordered that the cut-off at the age of 20 is, in my submission, particularly damaging. That is so on two grounds. The mentally disordered, of course, encompass both the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. In the case

515
of the mentally handicapped, it is well known that their social development is more retarded than that of the average member of the population. In the case of the mentally ill —this is a point which has already been raised more than once this evening —the age at which most of them are first admitted to hospital is often over 20. Those are two substantial reasons why the age of 20 is not suitable for this group.
There are also educational considerations. As I have said, mentally handicapped people develop slowly. Often they stay at school until 19, and thereafter may attend a college. That could have the effect of extending, over a considerable period of years, their education and incorporation into the normal activities of society. They might well continue their education up to 25, at a further education college. Therefore, the effect of setting the age at 20 could well be to discourage this process, to discourage mentally disordered people, in particular mentally handicapped people, from attending special schools and from continuing, between age 20 and 25, their training in some form of activity. In fact, we are building into the Bill, as it is drafted, a disincentive to work.
A similar problem exists with people with mental illnesses. We are seeing more and more people who have never worked because of the unemployment situation experiencing their first hospitalisation after 20. After illness, the effect of getting back into work, or obtaining work for the first time, may be similar to that in the case of the mentally handicapped person, except that, because not already on SDA, he will not have the therapeutic earnings concession as he struggles to become fit for work. The mentally handicapped person. who is eligible for SDA before 20, will obtain the therapeutic earnings concession while working towards fuller employment and the mentally ill person will not.
Those seem to me to be very substantial reasons for my submission that the age of 20 is quite inappropriate to this group of people. If the Government are going to argue against this on grounds of cost, may I say it is quite obvious that the cost would be nothing like that of raising the general age to 25. I have here an estimate —I can say only that it is an estimate —that there are about 160 physically and/or mentally handicapped 16- to 19-year-olds in the ILEA special schools. I am afraid I have not got a breakdown of the figures as between physical handicap and mental handicap; nor can I extrapolate that figure over the country at large. But I think it will be clear to the noble Lord that in financial terms the number will not be prohibitively great.
The noble Lord has often told us about his special interest in the mentally disordered, and he has a special responsibility for them. He should consider this amendment sympathetically. I will tell him right away that I am not going to press it to a Division. I am putting it down as a marker for future discussion with him. and possibly for raising it again at Report stage if that discussion is not successful. I should like to commend the amendment to him. in view of his particular responsibilities for the mentally disordered. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My noble friend Lord Ennals is unable to stay for the end of today's proceedings, and
516
he apologises for that. He hopes that the subject matter of this amendment will find its way on to the agenda of business with the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has advanced the case in support of the amendment, and there is very little that I can add to that case. Earlier in the day we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and many other noble Lords that they consider the age of 20 generally to be inappropriate. During the course of the afternoon we have had certain reassurances from the Minister.
I wish to make one point which I do not think was made earlier. It appears to me that, if we agree the age threshold at 20, many young people will be placed on the horns of a dilemma: do they continue with their training. their treatment and their education and run the risk that they will be stranded so far as the SDA is concerned? Do they do that? Long term it is very much in their interest that they should receive training and education, so that they can be integrated into our community. Do they place that at risk, or —and we are in times of great difficulty —do they nevertheless accept the training, the treatment and the education and put their SDA at risk?
It appears to me that in life we can make a mistake when we have to take certain decisions. Here we are dealing with people who have the whole of life ahead of them. If they make a mistake in deciding to go for the SDA, or to continue with treatment and educational training. that is a mistake that cannot be rectified in the short term and it will be with them throughout their lives. I do not think it is right that people should be put in that position at the age of 20, when they have the whole of their lives before them. But I very much support the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and I trust that it will find its way on to the Minister's business agenda.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with care to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and. yes, I certainly do have a special responsibility for the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, and so I have looked particularly carefully at this amendment and will continue to take very seriously indeed what noble Lords say.
Those who would gain from the concession which the noble Lord advocates would be the people with a mental disorder who became continuously incapable of work between the ages of 20 and 30 and who were not sufficiently disabled to qualify under the 80 per cent. disablement test. The numbers and costs involved —and the noble Lord. Lord Kilmarnock, particularly asked about costs —are uncertain, but it is worth noting that in many cases the person concerned is likely to have been working and paying national insurance contributions and, consequently, he or she could expect to qualify for contributory sickness and invalidity benefits.
Although I am sure that we all sympathise with the sentiment which lies behind the noble Lord's amendment, I must ask your Lordships to look carefully at its implications. It would mean drawing a distinction between claimants according to whether their incapacity was bodily or mental. The household

517
duties test has been criticised by nearly everyone as being entirely arbitrary in its effect. I believe that this amendment would introduce a new anomaly no less arbitrary than the household duties test. Those excluded from the concession would in my view have a genuine sense of grievance. I do not believe that this is a position which would command acceptance; and such further concessions would, of course, increase the cost.
Perhaps at this point I might say a few words about the numbers who will qualify for SDA, since it is worries on that score that lie behind this amendment. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, pointed out that around 60 per cent. (that is, 81,500) of the 145,000 who currently qualify for NCIP are shown as suffering from a mental disorder, and he went on to suggest that as many as 26,500 of them would not in future qualify for SDA. I should first confirm that all those already drawing NCIP or HNCIP when SDA is to be introduced will automatically be transferred to the new benefit, and this will continue in payment simply on a test of incapacity for work. Consequently, no-one will actually lose benefit.
As regards those who will newly qualfify for SDA in future, the available information suggests that the large majority of those who newly qualify for NCIP at present have been continuously incapable of work since before age 20, and consequently they will continue to be entitled to SDA simply on a test of incapacity for work. This applies as much to those who presently qualify for NCIP because of mental disorder as to other groups. The statistics do not distinguish between those suffering from mental handicap, which generally arises at birth or in the early developmental years, or other forms of illness. But it is likely that the large majority of the 81,500 currently drawing NCIP because of mental disorder fall within the former category. And it is precisely for such people, the congentially handicapped or those disabled in childhood, that the age 20 rule for SDA has been designed —to preserve benefit entitlement based simply on a test of incapacity for work. Overall, therefore, we estimate that the number who will qualify for SDA in future under the easier under-20 rule, including those suffering from mental disorders, will be broadly equivalent to the number who presently qualify for NCIP.
There may be some men and single women who would at present qualify for NCIP but who in future will have to be 80 per cent. disabled to qualify for SDA. We estimate, however, that the number will be small and most will still be entitled to supplementary benefit. I should also make it clear that national insurance credits which could count towards a retirement pension can still be awarded, whether or not benefit is payable, subject only to the production of satisfactory evidence of incapacity for work. I might also point out that single women drawing SDA on the under-20 rule will in future retain the benefit when they marry. At present about 750 women a year lose NCIP on marriage because they fail the household duties test for HNCIP.
I note the fears that have been expressed, and I hope that I have allayed some of them so far as concerns the way in which the introduction of SDA will affect the
518
mentally ill. I fully accept that we cannot guarantee that our estimates of the number of people likely to qualify for SDA will be correct. As my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled has repeatedly made clear in another place, our statistics in this area are not as comprehensive as we should like. We have had to make the best estimate on available information. In the longer term, the new survey of disabled people commissioned recently by my right honourable friend should throw more light on this area, but I do not believe it would have been right to have remained with the existing unsatisfactory benefit until then.
In view of this uncertainty over numbers we have undertaken to monitor very carefully the start of the new scheme. If it transpired that particular groups of beneficiaries were adversely affected by the new benefit we would, of course, look carefully at possible remedies. I am sure it is sensible to proceed in this way rather than to provide at the outset a concession to deal with a problem which might not arise, and, what is more, a concession which would in itself create an anomaly at least as discriminatory, if not more so, than the household duties test. Therefore, with that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. I have already said that I am not going to press the amendment at this stage. But it seems to me that even this brief discussion has turned up a number of problems to which we should address ourselves.
The noble Lord referred to the mentally ill who already have a contributions record. It would certainly be interesting to get more information about them and to find out roughly the number of people concerned. The noble Lord said that those already on NCIP will be automatically transferred. If that is the case, then it takes care of the current situation; but it does not have any effect on the future. The noble Lord himself referred to the paucity of Government statistics. I think I am quoting him correctly as saying, "They are not as comprehensive as we should like". I was glad to hear him say that the uncertainty over numbers would lead to monitoring once the scheme was under way. That is something of which we would obviously approve.
Before the next stage of consultations on this subject it would he useful if the noble Lord could try to get a slightly more accurate statistical base from which we could try to identify the numbers who are likely to be involved in this particular problem; that is to say, the problem of the mentally ill, with the problem of the mentally handicapped being taken separately.
Furthermore, the noble Lord said that there is always the fallback position of supplementary benefit. That, of course, is perfectly true. But the noble Lord would probably agree with me that the safety net of supplementary benefit already has a great many more fish in it than it was ever intended to bear. So I do not think we can consider that to be necessarily a desirable way out of the problem. That really is the worst fallback position, the worst way out of the problem.
I hope that the noble Lord will bear all these factors in mind before we come to discuss this matter. If we cannot come to any satisfactory accommodation on it,

519
we shall certainly have to return to it at the report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 not moved.]
8.50 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 16, line 7, after ("faculty") insert ("or a mental disorder as defined in subsection (2)(b) above.").
The noble Lord said: I understand that it is suggested in the groupings that amendments Nos. 51 and 54 should be taken together. It seems to me that Amendment No. 51 is really consequential upon Amendment No. 47, to which I have just spoken. As Amendment No. 51 refers to mental disorder, perhaps we may take it as a useful bridge to Amendment No. 54, to which I should like to speak, if that is for the convenience of the Committee.
Amendment No. 54: Page 17, line 6, at end insert —
('; and
(e) shall contain new criteria for assessment of levels of disability due to mental disorder as defined in subsection (2)(b) above and these criteria shall be published for consultation with interested parties prior to the coming into force of the Regulations.").
We pass here into the area of the criteria. During the discussion on earlier amendments, there was some criticism of the inadequacy of the industrial disablement method of assessment for people who are likely to be or who will have to be assessed under this new scheme. The most serious problem with the new proposals is the way of determining disability by requiring an assessment at 80 per cent. disability before the benefit can be paid. The method of assessment is based on the schedule of prescribed degrees of disablement of the industrial injuries scheme and on the war pension scheme. In our view this is wholly inappropriate for considering disablement through mental disorder, and I am talking about mental disorder. It would seem that this process is not really objective in determining disability due to physical disorder and is certainly inappropriate for those physical disorders due to heart disease, arthritis and other such disabling conditions. The process can only be seen as objective in terms of industrial accidents and loss of faculty, which is what it was designed for.
Whatever level of percentage disability is eventually determined, considerable work needs to be put into considering the criteria on which the disability is to be determined. The proposals that the criteria for considering mental disorder should be, to quote the DHSS:
"similar to those that are already used when people claim industrial disablement benefit or a war pension",
are in our view totally inadequate. Even after extensive consideration and research, it will still be difficult to determine criteria which have any objectivity when considering the level of disability of a person with mental disorder in comparison to:
"normally healthy people of the same age and sex".
It has been suggested that a possible approach to the level of disability of a mentally disordered person would be for an independent multidisciplinary assessment by a panel including a psychiatrist, a social
520
worker and other competent professionals with experience of mental health problems. I shall leave on one side for the moment the question of the percentage of disablement, and whether or not it should be 80 per cent. I shall later propose that it should be 60 per cent.
From what I have said, I think that the noble Lord will have to acknowledge that this is a very unsatisfactory way of assessing mental disorder. I believe that the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Croy, tabled Amendment No. 53, which he said he would not move, in which he suggested adding the words:
"or meets other criteria which may be prescribed in regulations".
It will be seen that my Amendment, No. 54, goes a bit further and is rather more specific than that in relation to this particular group. Whether or not it is in exactly the right form, I frankly do not know, but I believe that this is a matter that we shall have to discuss in greater detail. I hope that we can put it on the agenda for the discussions that we shall have with the noble Lord. Again, if we are unable to reach a satisfactory solution, we shall certainly have to revert to the matter on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: Again, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the experience of the industrial and war disablement assessment shows that those suffering from chronic mental illness tend to get a very low percentage assessment. That may suggest that the process of assessment is inappropriate and inadequate. Indeed, there is support for these figures from another source. It is worrying that at 31st May 1982 the number of HNCIP cases who were suffering from mental disorder came to no more than about 5·5 per cent. of the total cases.
Therefore, that prompts the worrying question whether the doctors are applying the right assessments. That is why I particularly welcome Amendment No. 54. It appears to me that Amendment No. 54 is pointing the Committee in the direction in which we ought to be moving if we are to do justice to those people who are disabled as the result of mental disorder. Therefore, it gives me pleasure to support the amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: The additional disablement test for those who first become incapable of work after the age of 20 is intended to concentrate the available resources on the most severely disabled. In assessing disablement, we propose to use the same criteria as currently apply with success in the industrial injuries and war pensions fields. I shall elaborate on that in a moment.
I think that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about the way in which these criteria will apply, especially in relation to the assessment of mental handicap or mental illness. There is no question of the additional disablement test being conceived solely, or even principally, in terms of skeletal or muscular factors. Any illness, disease or disability will constitute a relevant loss of physical or mental faculty for SDA purposes.
With this in mind, there would seem to be little purpose in adding to the Bill a specific reference to disablement arising from mental disorder as the noble Lord. Lord Kilmarnock, suggests in Amendment No.

521
51. There is nothing in the definition of "mental disorder" as contained in Section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983 which is not already covered by the concept of a "loss of mental faculty".
In assessing the level of disablement there is no question of the adjudicating medical authorities taking account only of those injuries for which a degree of disablement is prescribed in regulations. People may have been misled by the fact that the schedule of disabilities necessarily concentrates on loss of limbs, or parts of limbs, and also on blindness and deafness. They say that percentage assessment is inappropriate for diseases, particularly mental handicap or illness. But the assessment of disability due to disease is part of war pensions and industrial injuries, and there is experience in these schemes of the assessment of a wide range of conditions. The schedule simply provides a series of reference points, or a framework within which the assessment of other conditions fits. according to the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned and in comparison with a normal healthy person of the same age and sex.
I accept that in terms of published statistics, which generally relate to the primary disabling condition, mental illness has not until now figured very high among the conditions assessed by our doctors. But they certainly do not lack experience. I have to tell those of your Lordships who are concerned that what we do at present with war pensioners has no bearing on the issue that more than 10,000 war pensioners have a primary disabling condition which is of a psychiatric nature, and that our doctors estimate that around 10 per cent. of the general run of war pensions cases falling for assessment each year have some psychiatric component. For certain categories, such as the 1,000 assessments each year for ex-Far East prisoners of war, the proportion is as high as 60 per cent. Similarly, in the industrial injuries scheme it is not unusual for our doctors to have to take account of the psychiatric effects of a physical injury. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys Davies, from my particular responsibility also for war pensioners, that the doctors bend over backwards to try to help. They are fully apprised of the conditions. I am certain that this will he carried forward in the new benefits which we now propose.
It might be helpful if I explained in a little more detail how our doctors go about assessing mental illness and mental handicap. When dealing with these subjects, the adjudicating medical practitioner will aim to build up a complete picture of the condition based not only on statements provided by the claimant and those who care for him but on doctors' reports, hospital case notes, and information obtained from special schools, social services departments, and other bodies.
The factors that will be taken into account include the extent to which the claimant can carry on the functions of every-day living without help or prompting, the way he spends his time, and the degree of involvement and comprehension he shows in responding to people and activities. Obviously, assessment will vary considerably according to individual circumstances. A claimant who, though capable of carrying out all the functions of every-day living unaided can do so only when instructed and has
522
not the initiative to perform them without prompting, will probably be assessed as 100 per cent. disabled.
I accept that there is no perfect way of assessing disablement. But, in building on the criteria which have been successfully applied for many years with general public acceptance in the industrial injuries and war pension schemes, I am confident that the 80 per cent. disablement test will provide a much fairer and more objective basis of benefit provision then the present household duties test for HNCIP.
I ought to repeat what the Social Security Advisory Committee have said in commenting on the 80 per cent. disablement test. They said:
"We are aware that there has been long experience of the use of this test for industrial injuries and war pensions purposes, and, if it can successfully be applied to the kind of civilian disablements most likely to be encountered in NCIP/HNCIP, we would regard SDA and the loss of faculty test as a potentially important building block in the development of a comprehensive benefit system. As you know, in our second report we proposed a loss of faculty assessment ourselves as the basis of one of our two suggestions for a partial incapacity benefit".
I do not agree that the assessment of disability due to loss of mental faculty is so deficient or arbitrary a system that we need to consider alternatives. We believe that the test can be successfully applied to SDA and we shall of course be carefully monitoring the new system with a view to improving its administration and operation in this and other respects. We shall do everything possible to ensure that a body of expertise is built up from what is available at present. I am sure that it is sensible to proceed on this basis rather than to enter into further consultations which could seriously delay the ending of the much disliked household duties test. the abolition of which we have spoken about so often this afternoon. I hope that, with that rather greater definition of how we shall look at mental illness and mental handicap, the noble Lord will feel a little reassured.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the care he has taken in answering this amendment. I take on board some of the points he has made. He said that industrial and war injuries cover a wide range of disabilities. He said that any loss or impairment, however incurred, will be considered, and that that will of course include the loss of mental faculty, although the question of how we are to measure this still seems to me to be rather in the air.
He has spoken of the Government's proposal as a framework. He mentioned 10,000 war pensioners who are already suffering from mental disorders of some kind, though one wonders whether civilian mental disorders are likely to be of the same type. He said that doctors do not lack experience in this field.
They are all points which it was reasonable for him to make, and I was glad to hear him make them, but I still think that in this particularly tricky field we are going to need some additional safeguard. He talked about the adjudicating medical practitioner taking all sorts of things into account. For applications under mental disorder it would be advisable to have a special panel with a psychiatrist and a social worker, perhaps with some guidelines, who could assist the adjudicating medical practitioner on how to apply the regulations.

523
The noble Lord referred to the phrase, "a building block", used by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That is a good indication of where we ought to go. A building block is by no means the end of the edifice. It is the beginning of it. When we discuss these things first of all privately with him and later at Report stage I hope that we shall be able to put one or two more blocks on to this initial building block in order to arrive at a satisfactory way of assessing mental disorder. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 16, line 8, leave out ("80") and insert ("60").
The noble Lord said: Here we come back to the percentage of disablement. I am prepared to accept that this is almost inevitably going to be a rather rough and ready form of measurement, but I would submit that 80 per cent. is too high. The severe disablement allowance mixes incapacity and disablement. That is one of the criticisms which has been levelled at it. Many people at 80 per cent. or higher loss of faculty on the industrial injuries scale are perfectly capable of work and indeed hold down demanding jobs. Everyone who is wholly blind is assessed at 100 per cent., but a significant number of blind people are able to work, and do work.
On the other hand, many illnesses can render somebody incapable of work but do not lead to an identifiable loss of faculty. The inference to be drawn from the proposal is that incapacity caused by initial or congenital disablement is somehow worthier than incapacity caused by illness or by injury arising later in life which is in effect no less incapacitating.
The DHSS claims that there is no history of public disquiet and concern over the loss of faculty test. The public at large, however, is not involved, because the test is only used for war and industrial disablement and, ever since 1979, for vaccine damage claimants. It is almost impossible for one person assessed on either scale to discover whether someone with a similar disability has received the same assessment, and the cases that have been seen, for example, by RADAR have often appeared extremely arbitrary, especially at the lower level.
The special disablement allowance boards will be expected to assess disablement arising from illnesses which are rare, if not unknown, in the industrial injuries scheme. Very few back injuries, which render somebody incapable fo work, reach 80 per cent., nor would such disabling conditions as high blood pressure. How would the boards assess somebody with epilepsy which prevents him from taking employment or somebody with multiple sclerosis whose functional loss varies from week to week? I am aware that this is a point that has already been raised and I do not think that it ought to be dropped.
The noble Lord is aware that RADAR has advanced the view that there should be a new comprehensive benefit based on disablement, but this should be kept entirely separate from benefits for incapacity. The distinction between disablement and incapacity is a
524
fundamental one which ought to be maintained. The attempt to distinguish in regard to people receiving incapacity benefit on the basis of their disablement is quite unjustifiable; in effect it is almost impossible so to distinguish. This is a point which I am sure we shall argue again more fully in your Lordships' Chamber on another occasion. In the present Bill we can only strive to improve it.
Since the Social Security Advisory Commitee has been prayed in aid on a number of occasions and various interpretations of its general view on the Bill have been advanced by different noble Lords, I should like to point out that in regard to this issue the committee was particularly concerned. On page 2 of the deputy chairman's letter to the Minister, from which I have already quoted —the letter is undated, but I think the noble Lord knows which letter it is —it is stated:
"The main concern we ourselves have, and which we believe is shared by the main organisations concerned with disabled people, is that the illnesses and disabilities with which doctors have experience in the industrial injuries and war pensions scheme are very different from the conditions they will encounter in SDA, and may not easily be susceptible to the same kind of measures. We are of course aware that the doctors concerned with war pensions applications have had experience in assessing mental illnesses and other problems, whose effect is much less obvious than the amputations which dominate the scheduled degrees of loss of faculty. We also know that there are no prescribed degrees, the standard of comparison is with the capacities of a fit person of the same age and sex. However, this must inevitably be a somewhat subjective judgment which —particularly in the case of mental illness or handicap or a progressive weakening disease —does not readily lend itself to precise degrees. It may consequently he harder to be seen to achieve an acceptable standard of national consistency in these cases than it is to assess the consequences of injuries. Morover" —
This is an important point —
"since the consequence of failure to meet the 80 per cent. rate is not simply a reduction in benefit, as with the industrial and war pensions scheme, but total debarment from access to benefit, the fairness of application of the test will necessarily command attention".
I am sorry to have read that out in full, but it strikes me as being an important paragraph in the committee's submission to the Minister.
The letter later states that the committee would accept an 80 per cent. test, but it is also stressed that,
"we should have been happier with a 60 per cent. level which would probably encompass most of those who could be described as severely disabled".
I think that is an important point to put on the record. I shall not press this amendment, either, but I want to have it there for future discussion and so as to be able to return to it at Report stage if we do not get the satisfaction that we hope to get from the Government on this point. I beg to move.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: One does not require a great deal of foresight to see that in practice the test of 80 per cent. is likely to be felt to be unjust by a large number of disabled people. We are really building up problems for the future. I was impressed by a number of the questions asked by one of the organisations for the disabled relative to the application of the 80 per cent. test. That organisation asked whether one can measure, with any degree of accuracy, the loss of faculty suffered by people with congenital handicaps, such as the mentally handicapped. That was one of the questions.

525
Another was: at what stage does the loss of faculty of a person suffering from multiple sclerosis move from 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. and to the magical 80 per cent.? That leads us to the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has indicated; namely, that with the 80 per cent. test we are in an all or nothing situation. If the disabled person's loss of faculty is assessed at 80 per cent., he receives the full allowance; if it is assessed at 75 per cent., which is still a high degree of loss of faculty, he receives nothing. It is this that will lead to a sense of unfairness among those persons with a high degree of loss of faculty but who fall short of the 80 per cent. and therefore will receive nothing.
There are two possible ways of attempting to deal with a thoroughly unsatisfactory position; either, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has indicated, one reduces the threshold to a lower figure fixed at a level which will ensure that all persons with substantial loss of faculty will be eligible for the benefit —that is one way, and the amendment suggests that that be fixed at 60 per cent. —or one ensures that the benefit graduated between 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. Indeed, I read in one of the documents from the organisations for the disabled that it should be graduated between 40 per cent. and 80 per cent. At least if you have a graduated scheme of benefit you do not have a person with substantial loss of faculty who gets precisely nothing.
We hope that the Government will have second thoughts and will accept that the proposed scheme —the all-or-nothing scheme —will lead to a sense of unfairness, a sense of resentment and, indeed, a sense of injustice among the disabled.
The Earl of Caithness: There are a number of reasons for setting the level of disablement at 80 per cent. It broadly equates with the functional tests for mobility and attendance allowance, and it corresponds to the level of impairment needed to qualify under the vaccine damage payments scheme. We think that 80 per cent. loss of faculty is therefore a fairly clearly defined level in terms of medical assessment, and is generally acceptable as a fair measure of severe disability. Consequently, given that a line has to be drawn somewhere, setting it at 80 per cent. is a sensible and reasonable way of ensuring that the limited resources available are directed at the group with the highest priority for help.
There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the test, and in this context I should explain that the fact that a person is even 100 per cent. disabled does not mean that there is absolutely nothing that he or she can do. For example, under the general benefit regulations someone who is totally blind or is totally deaf will automatically be assessed as 100 per cent. disabled. People who have lost both legs or hands, or a hand and a foot, will also automatically be assessed as 100 per cent. Other disabling conditions will be assessed in relation to the prescribed degrees of disablement laid down in regulations and by comparing the claimant with a person of the same age and sex whose physical and mental condition is normal.
It is proposed to use the powers in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Bill to introduce regulations which
526
will enable the adjudication officer to dispense with a reference for a medical examination and to determine the disablement questions himself in prescribed circumstances. We intend that this will apply where a claimant is registered blind or partially sighted; where he is receiving attendance or mobility allowance or war pensioners' mobility supplement; where there is already an industrial injuries or war pensions assessment of at least 80 per cent.; where an award has been made under the vaccine damage scheme; or where a claimant has an invalid trike, car or private car allowance under the NHS or war pensioners' vehicle scheme.
We estimate that reducing the level of disablement from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. for those whose incapacity for work begins over age 20 would bring in an extra 40,000 beneficiaries over and above those already expected to qualify for SDA, at an additional cost of some £40 million a year. We have to reiterate that resources on this scale are simply not available at present. As it is, we estimate that the 80 per cent. disablement test will initially bring in an extra 20,000 beneficiaries (as a cost of an extra £20 million) and that the number of married women who will in future qualify for SDA will be some 10 per cent. higher than the number who presently qualify for HNCIP. These are considerable steps forward at a time when resources are severely limited. It is in fact an 11 per cent. addition to the present 1983-84 costs for NCIP and HNCIP. The amendment would require a 200 per cent. increase in the provision of additional funds.
The noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord PrysDavies, stated that those who do not get the 80 per cent. will, as it were, miss out. Surely, if one follows their argument through to its logical conclusion, those who do not get the 60 per cent. will also miss out. We have to draw the line somewhere, and we believe that 80 per cent. is right. The noble Lord, Lord PrysDavies, also mentioned the 75 per cent. disablement or nothing. In fact, I am pleased to be able to tell him that assessments will be rounded up to the nearest 10 per cent.; in other words, 75 per cent. would be rounded up to 80 per cent.
Let me conclude by saying that we shall of course monitor the new scheme very carefully, and if it transpires that take-up falls substantially short of our expectations we shall be prepared to re-examine the rules, including the percentage disablement test, if it appeared appropriate. Any further changes, however, would depend on priorities at the time and on available resources. I hope that for these reasons the noble Lords will be able to reconsider their thoughts on this amendment and withdraw it.
Lord Kilmarnock: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. He says that 80 per cent. is sensible and reasonable, hut, of course, it depends on one's interpretation of "sensible and reasonable", because it may vary a little bit. I take his point that you can have 100 per cent. disablement, as in the case of the blind, where people are still able to work.
He talked about the money, and it is quite fair that he should bring that forward. He talked about an additional £40 million, so what he is telling us is that the line being drawn here is really an actuarial line and not one which is addressed to the special problems of disability.
The Earl of Caithness: If the noble Lord will forgive me, when he reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that I put it forward on good medical grounds that are already established and used.
Lord Kilmarnock: It seems to me that the question of our disagreement about the disablement line (which is what we are talking about at the moment) really takes us back to the earlier amendment on the establishment of better criteria. If we could establish better criteria for certain groups which do not fit particularly well into the 80 per cent. category, we might help to take care of the problem to some extent. That is something, as I have said, that we should like to revert to at a later stage.
I was glad the noble Earl said that there would be rounding-up, and I was glad that we have it on the record that 75 per cent. will be interpreted as 80 per cent. That is a useful hit of enlightenment that the noble Earl has given us, and I am grateful to him for that.
On the point of monitoring, we must continue to do that, but it is no use having monitoring if the Government would not consent, at the end of six months or a year or whatever the monitoring period is, to show some signs of flexibility if the system is not working as well as might be expected. I will say no more for the moment. I have told the noble Earl I shall withdraw the amendment, and we shall probably want to come back and dicuss this hard line of 80 per cent. when we meet the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 56 not moved.]
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 56A:
Leave out Clause 11 and insert —
("Amendments to subsections (2) and (7) of s. 36 1975 Act.
11. Section 36 of the Social Security Act 1975 shall be amended as follows —

(a) in subsection (2) the words "and a woman" to "normal household duties" are repealed, and

(b) in subsection (7) the words "as incapable of performing normal household duites" are repealed.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment and, in doing so, I would say straightaway that it is different, as noble Lords will have noted, from Amendment No. 56, in so far as this amendment would virtually revert to the status quo. That is why I did not participate in the debate on the recent amendment, because there appeared to be a contradiction at that stage.
The amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and myself would in fact retain the status quo but with the abolition of the household duties test, with no further qualifications. It is an important amendment to all those who have taken an interest in the Bill, certainly outside your Lordships' House; and it gives an opportunity for that point of view to be stated in this Committee, which is an important thing to do.
I should like also to reiterate that I congratulate the Government on the attempt to abolish the household duties test. It has to he said that that attempt was at least a step in the right direction, and it gave us the opportunity to discuss it. That it went wrong, or that
528
it has not gone right, is a point which we might develop in the course of the discussion. That is why my amendment would remove the second test of eligibility for married women. The first test is the incapacity of married women to work. I would take away the second test which would introduce a number of hazards which would be even worse than the existing situation.
Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will recall the campaign mounted by organisations and individuals, both outside and inside each House of Parliament, and by all parties to abolish the household duties test. This was mentioned at length at Second Reading. Among other reasons, it was based upon an outmoded assumption concerning the status of married women today. In an article in New Society of 24th May 1984 Lady Howe quotes figures showing that 60 per cent. of married women are in paid employment. Between the ages of 34 and 49 the figure rises to nearly 70 per cent. Other statistics show just how much society is changing. We have to recognise and accept this change in relation to married women.
I was among the first to welcome the proposal to abolish the household duties test when it was announced on 1st December 1983. I was a little surprised, to say the least, that legislation relating to the severe disablement allowance (Clause 11) was published the following day. I shall not labour the point. but in reply to a previous amendment the Minister mentioned the consultative process. But we did not envisage that kind of consultative process.
We were assured, both in reply to questions and in debates in the other place, that when the report of the review, which took three and a half years to complete, was published, there would be a debate on it. The debate did not take place. Nor were there consultations of the kind for which we had asked. In other words, there ought to have been consultations with the organisations involved, not the kind of consultations envisaged in the previous amendment. As the noble Lord rightly said, that kind of consultation did take place. However, consultation with outside bodies did not take place after the report had been published; nor did the promised debate take place, either in the other place or here. I take the view that both a debate and consultation still have to take place if we are to reach an acceptable situation.
The clause will result in a major change in the social security system as we know it. I have always taken the view that the voluntary organisations ought to be consulted about any major change. If that consultation had taken place, I doubt whether the Government would have come forward with such a set of unsatisfactory proposals. They would probably have come back with a proposal to phase out the present household duties test over a period as they worked towards the more comprehensive disablement income situation which they had stated in their manifestoes in 1979 and thereafter.
Therefore both this amendment and the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, are probably the only opportunities —though very inadequate opportunities, in my view —that either House has had to debate this extremely import change in the social security system, to discuss the alternatives, and to listen to organisations such as

529
the Disablement Income Group, the Spastics Society, MENCAP, MIND, RADAR and others which have expressed serious reservations about Clause 11.
Some of these organisations have even abstained from suggesting amendments because they feel that the clause cannot be adequately amended and ought not to have been included in the Bill. They would far rather have the existing system and hold consultations as to how to bring about improvements.
The new test proposed in the Bill will abolish the household duties test and end discrimination against some disabled married women, by introducing a second test for everyone who is over the age of 20. But not all disabled married women (and we have heard this in respect of other amendments) who would be eligible for the existing HNCIP will be eligible for the proposed severe disablement allowance. The Government estimate that around 16,000 disabled married women who are incapable of work and who would have passed the household duties test, and who would thus have been eligible for HNCIP, will not be eligible for SDA. I submit that one form of discrimination against some married women is being replaced with discrimination between other groups of disabled —including married women.
First, there are those who apply for SDA before they are 20 years of age and who will have to pass only one test. Those who apply after the age of 20 will have to pass both the test of incapacity for work and the 80 per cent. disability test —so there is discrimination there. There are also those disabled in adulthood with an adequate contribution record, who will qualify for invalidity pension on the basis of incapacity for work. But those without an adequate contribution record will have to show incapacity for work and 80 per cent. diability to qualify for SDA. Again, there is discrimination between groups.
Married women will still be discriminated against because although the severe disablement allowance will bring 21,000 married women into benefit, as my noble friend Lord Ennals said, it will leave 219,000 married women "out in the cold". Again, there is discrimination. On the basis of figures I have obtained from the Disability Alliance, I understand that in future years only 500 extra married women per year are expected to qualify for SDA at a cost of £1/2 million; and 1,280 women per year who would have qualified for HNCIP will receive no benefit at all.
Here, it is apposite to quote the Disablement Income Group. Their review of the new tests states:
"A test of degree of disablement is wholly inappropriate in the context of a benefit for total incapacity for work. Some people who are merely 20 per cent. disabled may be unable to work on account of their disabilities, whereas some people who are 100 per cent. disabled may be quite capable of earning a very good living. There is no correlation between degree of disablement as measured by the industrial injuries scale and capacity to work and earning ability. It is therefore illogical to connect the two in respect of an incomes maintenance benefit for those whose disabilities prevent them from doing any work".
They go on to elaborate upon that argument.
The change proposed will discriminate against everyone except those under 20 years of age with an inadequate contribution record. That is a situation we have all been arguing against for many years. As has been suggested, it might have been better to have left
530
the arrangement as it was and to have discussed a phasing out or some other alternative. In time, following the introduction of a disablement cost allowance, it might have been possible to float off all the substantially disabled people from supplementary benefit. That would have been something to consider. But it will not be possible now, with the introduction of the severe disablement allowance. Indeed, the new allowance will lead to more disabled people having to apply for supplementary benefit. Instead of taking them away from it in line with one of our original ideals, this change will force more and more disabled people onto supplementary benefit for income maintenance; there will be many who cannot work but who are less than 80 per cent. disabled and who are more than 20 years of age.
The proposals contained in this clause complicate still further an already over-complicated social security system. In my view, they will not take us any nearer a
"more coherent system of benefits for disabled people".
Those words should appear in quotes because I have taken them directly from the Conservative Party election manifesto of 1979. They take us no nearer to that ideal, although it was promised by the present Administration.
I am heartened by the number of letters I have received since putting down this amendment —from all the organisations I have mentioned and a number of others —because it seeks to end discrimination against those without a contribution record, which both the household duties test and SDA do. I beg to move.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: The issues at the heart of these amendments have received considerable attention during the course of the debate today and I do not propose to go over all that ground in detail again. We have never made any secret of the fact —and this seems to be something shared by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals; and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. heard him earlier —that abolishing the household duties test and permitting married women to receive NCIP simply on the basis of incapacity for work was not a viable option. It was not a viable option because it would bring in about 240,000 additional beneficiaries over and above those already drawing NCIP and HNCIP and it would increase expenditure by £275 million a year at current benefit rates. We have continually made clear that money on this scale is not available, and even if jit was I am far from convinced that spending it in this way would be the best use of scarce resources. There are many competing pressures for improvements in the field of benefits for disabled people and the extension of NCIP to married women is only one. Perhaps I can give the noble Lord a few examples: £275 million in all would pay for the introduction of a blindness allowance at £100 million, the extension of invalid care allowance to married women at £60 million and a partial incapacity benefit along the lines of that suggested by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It would go a considerable way towards paying for the removal of upper age limits for mobility allowance. For those who

531
become incapable of work later in life, it is right to concentrate resources on the most severely disabled where the disability is greatest —as is the additional cost to the disabled person and his or her family. The household duties test achieves this at present but does so in a way generally regarded as unsatisfactory.
The new disablement test represents a fair, rational, non-discriminatory alternative to SDA and constitutes a considerable improvement on the present position. It will initially enable a further 21,000 disabled people to qualify for benefit for the first time and this at an extra cost of £20 million. The Government take pride in the fact that we have been able to find these additional resources at a time of financial stringency. It is an illustration of our concern for disabled people. Expenditure on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled was estimated at £3·95 billion in 1983 –84 and that is an increase of about 30 per cent. in real terms since 1978 –79.
Our proposals for SDA represent another step towards what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, mentioned and that is our declared aim of achieving in the long term a more coherent system of benefits for disabled people. I hope that if the noble Lord presses his amendment to a Division it will be rejected.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I do not agree with all that he has said. Time is against me, otherwise I should like to go into this discussion about £275 million. I could make many suggestions as to where we could save perhaps far more than that. It would not be very difficult to think of some examples. I stick to my view. I rather think that this scheme, admirable as it may be in parts, was
532
bodged up in order to comply with the EC directive. It had to be done in a rush because something had to be done; and the Government took the opportunity at the same time to develop this scheme that would save money. If that sounds cynical, that is how I view much of the present Government's approach to social security spending and benefits in general. I have umpteen quotes from Ministers and Secretaries of State to say that everthing has to be on a nil-cost basis and that we have to save money wherever we can. It was inevitable when they were presented with this directive and they had to do something that they took the opportunity to say: "We have to do it. Let us do it. We are under pressure from our own people as well and we can save money at the same time".
They came up with what was from their point of view an admirable scheme, but I do not accept it. I think it goes against all the long-term ideals and aims of the disablement movement itself and those of us who support them in moving towards a disablement income policy. In fact, I think it goes against the Conservative Party's 1979 manifesto commitment, which was repeated in 1983.
I do not think we shall ever agree on those points tonight, so for the time being I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment and reserve my position for the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Severe disablement allowance]:
[Amendments Nos. 57–59 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
9.41 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 59A:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Uprating of blind allowance.
. Persons in receipt of the blind allowance shall be paid an uprating of this allowance linked to the increase in other statutory benefits.").
The noble Baroness said: In the immortal words of Goethe, "Time is infinitely long", but I gather that it is not infinite tonight because we are asked to finish at about eleven o'clock, and so there is still plenty of time for us to discuss Amendment No. 59A.
I make no apology for taking some time in this amendment because in doing so I must say that I think the Government have behaved disgracefully in the management of this legislation. There should have been three Bills. There should have been a Bill on the opticians, there should have been a Bill on the health services, and there should have been a third Bill on social security provisions. Because everything has been jammed into one Bill we come only at this late hour, towards the end of the proceedings, to discuss social security provisions. It is no fault of this side of the Committee that we are only now beginning to discuss some of these important points about social security. I have sat here through three days of the Committee stage like a sort of transvestite Trappist, and I cannot be accused of having taken up a great deal of time.
I am now moving what I think is an important amendment. I am asking that persons in receipt of the blind allowance shall be paid an uprating of this allowance linked to the increase in other statutory benefits. I do not think that the blind people of this country, whom I am trying to represent in some modest way tonight, will think that twenty to ten is a very dark and difficult hour.
I think it is very important that the Government should make up their minds about the allowance for blind people. It has been traditional in our social security arrangements that there should be some special consideration for blind people. Going right back to the Blind Persons Acts of 1920 and 1938 there was a scheme (it was part of the national assistance scheme and involved a continuation of local authority practices) under which there should be special help for blind people. Between 1948 and 1980 there were separate blind scale rates. The adult rate in July 1948 exceeded the ordinary scale rate by 15 shillings —if I may use that old-fashioned term. Then an extra allowance was set at £1 5s. —what I think I should call £1·25 —in November 1969. This was incorporated as part of the supplementary benefit as an addition for a blind person in 1980. If that extra allowance had been increased in line with the movement in the retail price index, it would now have been £8·21.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, told me on 21st March 1984, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, that the Government have no plans to review the allowance. It was very disappointing, when the upratings were announced at the beginning of this week. that there was still nothing for blind people. I know we have been discussing today all sorts of
534
disability and the last thing one wants to do is differentiate between one disability and another, but I have only tried to suggest that there is something traditional in our arrangements of special help for blind people.
The latest figures that I have been able to get suggest that there are about 41,000 people on supplementary benefit who are also getting the additional allowance —but of £1·25 a week! How can this possibly make up for the extra expenses which blind people have to incur with their inability to make do and mend, to go about without help and to shop around? We are in a situation where, if there is any imagination or understanding, we must surely all agree —and there could be nothing less of a political point —that blind people have special expenses and need special help. As I have sought to suggest, this has been accepted since about 1920.
There are blind people who, very bravely, go to work. Many of them are assisted because they have dogs to help them. However, these are not dogs which can be fed on a few biscuits a week. It is very expensive to keep a guide dog. The veterinary fees and the food that these very special dogs need are an enormous expense. When we have these people trying to fulfil their lives as citizens and then being told that the £1·25 is the only extra they can get, I honestly feel that it is time for your Lordships to look again at this matter sympathetically.
I will he perfectly fair. There is a blind person's tax allowance of £360 a year which I understand, although I can never add up, is worth about £108 to a standard rate taxpayer. Therefore, there seems to be a very strong case for the Government to look at this again. There are about 130,000 registered blind people in the United Kingdom, according to the statutory definition. I know that many of them are above retirement age but there are also many younger people who need extra help. If the Government are saying that they are looking at disablement right across the board and that they are not doing anything special for blind people, then let them have the courage to abolish the £1·25 allowance. However, if they accept the principle of a blind allowance and say, "We will go on handing out these pennies", they must revise their policy.
Some blind people are, of course, getting an attendance allowance and there are others, as I have said, who are trying to work. But blindness imposes great additional expenditure. Blind people often need special equipment for their telephones. They need help with travel and with services. A blind person may have to spend more than £70 on a special braille typewriter, whereas a sighted person can manage with a cheap ball pen. The Government provide a wheelchair free for a person who requires one but do not provide a blind person with even a free white cane. A blind person must pay for his own disability and, in the case of the cane, that can cost between 98p and £5 according to the sophistication of the cane. Those are just a few examples.
I propose this amendment with all good will. I am sure that the Minister is sympathetic, but I feel it is time for the Government to decide whether they are going to help blind people. If so, there must be an uprating in accordance with the other allowances. If they are not going to help blind people, they might as well say so and abolish this pitiful £1·25. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. As she pointed out, blind people on supplementary benefit receive £1·25 per week supplement. That is quite clearly a derisory sum. When I raised this matter on an Unstarred Question in February the Minister said that he understood that it had been at that level for 22 years, and that if it was uprated it would now be £8 a week. That is not very much; but what we have to realise is that, while we were prepared to pay £8 a week 22 years ago, we are prepared to pay only £1·25 a week now in terms of real value. What we have really said is that the blind should have less and less as time has gone on.
In the course of the debate on that Unstarred Question I suggested that it might be an idea for the Government to turn the tax allowance into a positive cash payment, as has been done in the case of child benefit. That would have provided a little more — £2 per week —and it would have gone to every blind person. But even that was not possible: it would have cost £14 million.
The trouble is that Governments are inclined to let some national insurance benefits run down. They uprate some and they leave others to decline in value, like this benefit and the death benefit. Then they leave it so long that when people say that it is outrageous and ought to be put right they say that they cannot put it right because it would cost too much money to do it.
I believe that national insurance benefits should be uprated every year, at least in accordance with prices. If Parliament decides that a benefit is no longer necessary, or no longer necessary at the same level, and takes a positive view on that, that is a different matter. But what happens at the moment is that Parliament does not take any view about it at all and it is allowed to decline. I think that the least we can do is to see that from now on, at any rate, the small amount which is paid under supplementary benefit to the blind is index-linked.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has referred to the Unstarred Question which he introduced on 22nd February in your Lordships' House, when we last had a debate on this subject, to which I also made a modest contribution. I think we must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that we are grateful to her for raising the matter again. It is obviously not a matter that can be left to lie without any further action being taken.
It is obviously true that if the allowance to which the noble Baroness has referred — £1·25 —were updated in line with inflation, it would be something in the region of £8. Unfortunately, even that would not cover the (I
536
think) 50,000-odd blind people who, I seem to remember, we calculated derived no benefit either from the supplementary benefit addition or from the tax allowance because they were below the tax threshold.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has made an unanswerable case for the annual uprating of benefits. If they had been annually uprated, we should not have been landed with this absurd gap between£1·25 and £8, which obviously in financial terms is extremely difficult to bridge. That is incontestable. I think the whole picture is extraordinarily unsatisfactory. It must lead us back to the necessity for a blind person's allowance which would take these people out of supplementary benefit. That surely must be the only way ahead.
Let me refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said to me at column 841 on 22nd February. He referred to an estimate of the number of people which I now see is 59,000, who receive no state help. He went on to say:
"I am afraid I cannot give the figure".
That is odd because he had already given it.
"The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, raised this as well. He is probably right when he says that the people who do not benefit from supplementary benefit or tax allowance are pensioners on small incomes or those who work on very low pay. There are, I am afraid, no definite figures for evidence on this matter".
That is all that he had to say. The matter was, in effect, dismissed in those words. Whatever the calculations of people who fall into what I think has been called the blindness trap who neither get the allowance to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred, nor the tax allowance, it is obviously imperative that something must be done. I hope therefore that the Government will take the occasion of this short debate to address themselves once again to the problem and come up with something a little more positive than they have produced so far.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, for putting down the amendment. It would be sad if a Bill of this nature was to go through its Committee stage in your Lordships' House without her tremendous help and experience. On the question of how much the £1·25 allowance would be worth, the noble Baroness is right in saying that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur said that had it gone up in line with the retail price index since 1948, it would be £8·21. However, if it had gone up in line with the retail price index since it was last increased in 1969, it would be £6.
Our general policy is that benefits for disabled people should be aimed at the needs to which the individual's disability gives rise rather than at particular groups of disabled people. As the noble Baroness says, for historical reasons, an additional weekly sum is payable to those on supplementary benefit in respect of blindness although not for any other disability. But we have taken the view —this follows the view taken by previous governments —that an increase in the addition would not be a justified use of scarce resources. The main social security benefits for disabled people are not based on particular types of

537
disablement but on the extent to which a person's everyday life is affected.
Blind people can qualify for attendance and mobility allowance and sickness and invalidity pension in the same way as anyone else and the same will apply to severe disablement allowance. In addition, all supplementary benefit claimants are entitled where appropriate to additions to their benefit for special expenses on things like special diets, laundry and heavy wear and tear on clothing. The Government consider that this approach of concentrating on the basic needs rather than on particular disabilities is the right one, especially at a time of necessary constraint on what can be afforded for the social security budget as a whole.
I would confirm that the Government are, however, committed in the long term to the introduction of a coherent system of cash benefits for all disabled people including the blind.
The noble Baroness raised the question of guide dogs. I am sure that she is aware that those with guide dogs have every chance of getting help from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association if the dog came from that home in the first place. An extra amount worth at present £5·35 a week for those on the ordinary scale rate or £6·85 for those on the long-term scale rate which includes pensioners is added to the supplementary benefit of blind non-householders, those living in someone else's household other than the boarders. This amount is uprated in line each year with the increase in the supplementary benefits scale rates.
We do not treat the matter of the blind with anything but the utmost seriousness. But we have followed a tradition of trying to concentrate resources where they are most effective and where they can be utilised to the best advantage. Given what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jeger: The logic of what the noble Earl has said is that the blind allowance should be abolished altogether. He has said quite clearly that it is not justified as a special allowance and that it is the policy of the Government to concentrate help according to disability and not according to any particular category. It would be more honest if the Government were to come out clearly and abolish the blind allowance rather than say that it can stay at the miserable sum it is and cannot be increased.
I also take exception to the fact that the Minister seemed to be taking some credit for the work that the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association carries out. This is a voluntary association, and it is not for the Government to take any credit for it. In fact, it should be more of a disgrace to the Government that blind people have to rely so largely on this voluntary association to provide them with help with their dogs, and for veterinary fees, feeding and other expenses in connection with dogs for the blind. It is absolutely disgraceful that a Government Minister should suggest tonight that we need not worry about the situation because there is a voluntary organisation doing this work.
538
I am very disappointed at what the Minister has said. I am particularly disappointed because I know he is a sympathetic and kindly person. He cannot help the wretched policies of his Government. I should have liked to divide the Committee on this, because there are many noble Lords from all sides who understand these difficulties and who would be sympathetic. But in view of the time I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment tonight; but I promise the noble Earl that I will not forget it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Dependent children]:
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.2 p.m.
Lord Banks: Clause 13 implements Schedule 5, which phases out the short-term child dependency allowances. As I have explained before, we on these Benches support the replacement of the child dependency allowance by child benefit. Our complaint has been, and remains, that child benefit has not been increased sufficiently to compensate for the gradual withdrawal of the CDAs, a process which the schedule would complete. Thus the result has been to reduce the level of benefit. The total child support, that is, CDA plus child benefit, which is received by a short-term claimant is today £1·70 per week less than it would have been but for the policy pursued since 1980 by the present Government.
This Government policy has been strongly criticised by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its first annual report, in which it said:
"In principle, we fully support the objective of successive Governments that child benefit should replace child dependence additions to short-term contributory benefits. But we are equally clear that the present method of achieving this is wrong. The objective is a sound one only if there is no loss of income in real terms to families dependent on contributory benefits".
The schedule also introduces a new restriction on the payment of CDAs to those on long-term benefits, other than widows. Where the claimant's spouse is earning more than £80 a week, no CDA will be payable for the first child. For each subsequent child the earnings limit is increased by £10. The long-term CDA is currently £7·60 per child. I understand that existing beneficiaries will not be affected by this, but it will apply to future claimants.
There is an earnings limit applied to the claimant if he or she is earning more than £65 a week, the principle there being that he or she is not fully retired. There is a discernible principle there, although it is not one that the Government accept because they are pledged to remove the earnings rule although they never seem to get round actually to doing so. There is an earnings limit applied to the claimant's spouse, if the claimant's spouse is earning more than £45, the argument there being that the spouse is not really a dependant. But a child remains a dependant. Therefore, there is no clear principle discernible here at all. It is simply a means test to ration a national insurance benefit and as such it is a breach of the national insurance principle. After all, we are dealing here with national insurance benefits, not with

539
supplementary benefits. We are dealing with benefits for which contributions have been paid.
Long-term CDAs have suffered in the same way as short-term CDAs from the change in the uprating method introduced in 1980. They are now worth £.2 ·15 per week less than they would have been under the original uprating method. To revert to the short term for a moment, I point out that in 1979 the total benefit provided for two children whose parents were in receipt of unemployment pay, represented 38 per cent. of the benefit paid to the couple; it now represents only 30 per cent., and that is a disturbing trend.
It is for all those reasons that I am opposing the implementation of Schedule 5 and, therefore, opposing the proposal, That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Jeger: I support the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in his proposition. It seems to me that in this clause we have an understanding of the Government's attitude to the problem of the abolition of child dependency and child allowances. The whole problem of child support is of the foremost importance in dealing with the question of family poverty. In fact, many of us want assessments not only increased to keep pace with inflation, but also to transcend inflation, because there will never be a real rise in the standard of living unless people are able to receive more than the increase in inflation. We want to look forward to an enriching of life for the whole family. It is in that context that some of us are looking at the Question, that Clause 13 stand part.
I want to be as brief as possible tonight, but I hope no briefer than the seriousness of the Question demands. I want to suggest to the Government that they are really not making a good case for their alleged support for family life and for child benefit and child support. Those who were below tax have not benefited at all from the changes in income tax; they are the poorest people and they will remain the poorest people. I gather that for those paying tax, the personal allowances will have increased 73 ·,8 per cent. for married couples between 1979 and 1984, whereas child benefit will have increased 71 ·3 per cent., and because I am not totally innumerate I have taken those figures from what the Secretary of State said at col. 25 of Hansard for 18th June. So it will be seen, even by my arithmetic, that personal tax allowances for people, whether or not they have any children at all, are running ahead of the increases in child benefit.
The Government have stated their intention to subsume—.that is an ugly word, but I think that we all know what it means—.these child dependency allowances and increase child benefit. But I have to ask the Minister whether this is happening. I understand that present child benefit is worth 10p more in real terms than it was in 1979. Under this clause the Government will be taking away in child dependency allowances at the lowest 15p a week, and more for some large families. So I cannot make that add up to any help for family life.
540
In 1981 the Social Security Advisory Committee said:
"We support the Government's objective of including short-term child dependency additions in child benefit, but only in so far as the overall value of child support for people on contributory benefits is maintained in real terms".
I am waiting to hear the noble Lord the Minister say that that principle has been applied. But I am worried that there is a real loss of income, particularly in some larger families. I have quoted the figure of a loss of 15p a week for some families, but I understand that, where there are more children, there could be a loss of £.1 ·70 a week. Of course, particular hardship will be felt among the children of the long-term unemployed. They form the biggest group of claimants with children, and they are also the one group which does not have access to the long-term scale rate. Now we are taking away from them even this child dependency allowance.
It is generally acknowledged that the Government might have some case for abolishing the child dependency allowance if only they were to do this by an equivalent up-rating of the child benefit. I understand the Government's attitude is that this allowance is so small—.as I have said, sometimes it is only 15p a week—it may as well be abolished. I believe that that is a very strange and a very mean attitude. The Government are saying, because they are so mean and are only giving these children 15p a week, that they may as well give them nothing. I should have thought that it would have been more logical to increase the allowance to make it worth while for the families receiving it.
In fact, it seems to me that, if the child dependency allowance had been upgraded with the other benefits, that 15p a week should by now be about £.1 ·70. I am open to correction on this. If this allowance were to be subsumed in child benefit, that total sum should surely be more like £.8 ·50 a week than the present £.6 ·50. I wonder how much the Government are saving by this mean deprivation. The figures that I have—.and I took them from Hansard of another place—.show that the Government would save £.4 million gross, or £.2 million net (and I do not know the difference). I submit that that is a crumb in terms of Government finance. But this £.2 million (and I take the lower figure) is £.2 million taken from the pockets of the poorest families in this country. Where else does it come from? If, by docking this 15p a week, the Government say, "We save £.2 million", that is £.2 million less for the families concerned. I understand that the change will affect about 225,000 families and will include 425,000 children. Some may be compensated by higher supplementary benefit, if that is applicable, but what about the others?
I submit that this is a very mean change and I hope that the Government will greatly regret it, because, although I understand that there may be a case for trying to pull together all the different assistances for child support, this is not the way to do it, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
Lord Glenarthur: The short-term child dependency addition is paid mainly with unemployment and sickness benefits and it has been steadily reducing over the past few years as child benefit has been going up.

541
Child benefit is now set at £.6 ·50 a week, having received a large rise last November of 65p from £.5 ·85 a week to £.6 ·50. It has always been the Government's intention that child benefit should eventually supersede the short-term addition to national insurance benefits and we have come to the conclusion that the time has now arrived to do this.
The addition is now set at 15p a week, so that with child benefit the unemployed or sick person receives a total of £.6 ·65 for each child. When we abolish the short-term rate (this will be in November) there will be a simultaneous rise in child benefit of 35p—.and I hope that the noble Baroness is aware of this figure, because it is of some relevance to what she was saying—.bringing the rate up to £.6 ·85.
In addition, I can say that any family on supplementary benefit will not lose by this proposal because anything that is lost from the withdrawal of short-term benefit child addition will be picked up by increased supplementary benefit. The noble Baroness referred to the numbers of families involved. I understand that 225,000 beneficiaries are concerned (mainly in receipt of unemployment benefit) with a total of 425,000 children affected. Of these about half will not suffer any financial loss because they are receiving supplementary benefit and will receive an increase to replace the 15p that they lose.
I know that the abolition of the short-term child dependency addition would have been much more acceptable had child benefit been set at a higher rate, but unfortunately it is an extremely expensive benefit and a rise of 50p a week would cost £.250 million in a full year. Extra expenditure on any benefit has always to be weighed against the need for expenditure elsewhere.
I now turn to the other matter introduced by Clause 13 to which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred. It is an earnings condition attached to the remaining child dependency addition; those paid with long-term benefit. The higher rate of addition, at present £.7 ·60 a week for each qualifying child, is paid to the children of beneficiaries getting a long-term benefit; for example, retirement pension and widowed mother's allowance.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, seemed to ask why should national insurance child support be subject to an earnings rule because generally children do not have an income. The earnings rule proposed will apply to the earnings of the spouse of the national insurance beneficiary. It is as well to remind ourselves that the extra benefit paid for a child is awarded in recognition of the child's dependency on the beneficiary, but where one of a couple has a high earnings and the other a national insurance benefit it is perfectly rational to consider the child as a dependant of the spouse with the earnings. In practice of course that will be the case.
Nor is it true to say that this is a back-door means of testing national insurance benefits. There has always been an earnings rule to determine entitlement to the extra benefit for an adult dependant. The proposed earnings rule for CDA simply ensures that the extra benefit paid for a child is limited to those beneficiaries for whom it was intended; beneficiaries who have children who really are dependent on them.
542
The noble Baroness asked about savings. There are some useful benefit savings. She quoted a figure of £ ·2 million net, and that is correct. The earnings condition introduced for the higher rate of child dependency addition will reduce expenditure by about £ 5 million at once, rising to about £.18 million in 1986–87. The reason we will not save all this money at once is that we are giving full transitional protection to existing beneficiaries so that they can keep their child dependency additions on the same terms as they now have.
In answering this amendment and the points raised particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I have been able to explain that child benefit will rise at the time that this particular benefit goes in November. I hope that she is reassured, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will not see fit to press that this clause shall not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Banks: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. He spoke rather quickly, and I shall read it very carefully to make sure exactly what he said. He said, if I understood him correctly, that child benefit is going up. Yes, that is true, but what I was objecting to was child benefit not going up by the same amount to compensate for the withdrawal of the child dependency allowance. I gave figures in that respect. The increase in November, to which the noble Lord referred, is to compensate for inflation and not for the withdrawal of child dependency allowances. He spoke about increased supplementary benefit offsetting, to some extent, the withdrawal, but it is no satisfactory exchange to have supplementary benefit instead of a national insurance benefit to which one is entitled by right. I do not think very much of that argument.
The noble Lord seemed to suggest that the national insurance means test was quite usual, which it is not, and he quoted the earnings rule for adult dependants. The question is: Are adult dependants dependent, or are they not? If they are earning more than a certain amount they are not dependants. A point that I made in the course of my remarks to which the noble Lord did not pay any attention was that a child is always a dependant.
I think the noble Lord will gather that from what I have been able to understand him to say I am not particularly satisfied, but I will read his reply most carefully and in detail, and at present I shall not press my opposition to this clause standing part of the Bill any further.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
10.22 p.m.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 59B:
After Clause 15 insert the following new clause:
"Long-term supplementary benefit.
("The long-term rate of supplementary benefit shall be paid in respect of unemployed persons under the age of 60 after 12 months of continuous unemployment.")
The noble Baroness said: This new clause would make it compulsory for the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to be paid to unemployed persons under the age of 60 after 12 months of

543
continuous unemployment I appreciate that this has been discussed in other contexts, and I am sure that some noble Lord will tell me that I am not strictly in order tonight in seeking to insert this new clause into the Bill. I do so because many of us were very disappointed that in the uprating that was announced on Monday there was no improvement for the longterm unemployed.
There are people in all parts of this Committee and in the other place who do not understand why longterm unemployed people should be expected to subsist on short-term benefits. I know that the benefit was originally limited for the under-60s because it was thought that to give a long-term benefit might be a disincentive to people seeking employment. I suggest that in the present climate of opinion that is no longer the situation. We are giving the long-term benefit to men over 60, but is there anyone in this Committee who does not know a man over 50 who will never get a job again? Do we not all appreciate that the longer a man or woman is out of work the poorer he gets? Savings are eroded, household goods wear out, clothes wear out; and the longer this misery lasts the poorer people get. It seems to me to be absolutely inconceivable that this is not obvious to every Member of your Lordships' Committee. It is certainly obvious to many voluntary bodies and to many people of all political opinions outside.
I can only come to the conclusion, perhaps sadly, that the present Government, having conscripted millions of people in this country into unemployment, are now not prepared to look after them. The 1982–.83 Social Security Advisory Committee has been quoted. I have quoted it and I make no apology for reminding Ministers that number one priority was given by that Committee to the long-term unemployed. I understand that in 1982 1·19 million people were out of work for more than a year; that 400,000 of them had been out of work for more than two years; and I am sure that by now those figures have increased. By 1973 the long-term rates of supplementary benefit were introduced for all except the unemployed. It seems to me that the question of reducing incentives no longer applies. I have already made that point so I hope that the noble Minister will not think it necessary to make it back at me.
The Social Security Advisory Committee said that,
"The denial of the long-term rate to the majority of the unemployed seems to us to be wholly unjust"
and recommended the long-term rate for unemployed claimants as a priority. I asked the noble Lord a couple of questions yesterday, which he did not seem to understand, for which I do not blame him. It seems to me that the whole heart of the problem with this Government is that the Treasury collects the money and the unfortunate Minister at the DHSS has to give it out but they do not seem sufficiently to talk to each other.
When I asked the noble Lord yesterday about the extra income that was coming into the Treasury as a result of the taxation of benefits and how much the Government had given away in income by the abolition of the unearned income surcharge and stamp duty, he said that he could not tell me about these figures. I tried to look them up and I can tell him that.
544
by the taxation of benefits the Government are collecting £725 million and that they have given away in unearned income surcharge relief and stamp duty relief £520 million. If we put those two figures together the sum is infinitely less than the money for which we are asking for the long-term unemployed.
The Prime Minister often talks about good housekeeping, but good housekeepers look at their income as well as their expenditure and have some sense of priorities about what they spend their money on. This seems to me to be the most appalling case of bad housekeeping because they are taking in money and not using it for those who are most in need.
Perhaps the noble Minister will tell the House what difference it would make to an unemployed person to get the long-term benefit rather than the short-term benefit. I understand that it amounts to £.7 30 a week for a single person and to more than £11 a week for a married couple—more if there are children. Having accepted the principle for the over 60s, because of the understanding that it will be difficult for them to get jobs in the future, why. if the Minister cannot afford to do everything we ask, can he not consider reducing the age to 50? If he does not know that it is difficult for men over 50 to get jobs, he does not know what life is about in present Tory Britain. I believe it would cost about £.90 million to reduce the age to 50, which is certainly not a large sum compared with the other sums to which I have referred.
The Social Security Advisory Committee said that if the Government could not accept the whole suggestion, they might start with families with children. It is absolutely impossible for logical, understanding and intelligent people to understand why there must be this brutal withholding of benefits from the long-term unemployed. The long-term unemployed are the poorest people in this country at the present time. They need most help.
Everything that the party opposite said in their election manifesto and their propaganda protested their concern for the poorest and those who are most in need—.and the concentration of help to those most in need—.but in this very important item they deny everything that they have represented. I submit to your Lordships that until the question of those most in poverty in this country—.the long-term unemployed—.is faced up to and dealt with, the Government are in disgrace with the people of this country.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Baroness seemed to fear that it might not be in order for her to seek to insert this new clause in this Bill before the Committee. I do not think that is the case at all. Social Security Bills are notoriously a ragbag of all sorts of measures, and I do not think there is any impropriety here. The difficulty that faces the noble Baroness is that she is, in the terms of her amendment, asking the Government to take the very large number of 1,191,000 people off short-term and on to long-term supplementary benefit, which is obviously a very expensive operation indeed.
Although we support the general thrust of her argument, we on these Benches would like to put forward a more moodest proposal, and indeed the noble Baroness herself seemed to be moving in that

545
direction towards the end of her speech when she suggested that perhaps those over 50 should be moved up to the long-term rate.
I have found what I consider to be some rather interesting figures in the Manpower Services Commission's Labour Market Quarterly Report for last month, which gives the current position of longterm unemployed by sex, age and duration in Great Britain for April 1984. These groups and subgroups are broken down into fairly small discrete blocks. It seems to me sensible to suggest to the Government the following. For example, of those who have been unemployed for over three years, 64,000 were 55 or over. It must be clear that these people are almost certainly never going to return to the labour market, and therefore it seems to me reasonable perhaps to make a start with that. The Government have already made a start by passing those over 60 on to the longterm rate. I would have thought the next group to go for would be those over 55 who have been unemployed for over three years. You can then move on to those over 55 who have been unemployed for between two and three years: they amount to 42,000. If you are still taking 55 as the age, you can then move up to those who have been unemployed for one year; and they are 68,000 in number. Those are three groups you can start to tackle.
One might have a different system of priorities. One might decide, having taken out the 42,000 who are over 55 and who have been unemployed for two years, to go back to those who had been unemployed for three years and take out the group between 45 and 54, who number 54,000.
I will not go into any more detail, but it seems to me that there are here some relatively small subgroups which could be tackled at no enormous cost to the Exchequer, and that this would be the proper way to go about it. In fact, I made a suggestion in slightly less detailed form to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, when this question arose—on an Unstarred Question I think it was—only yesterday. But I shall be very glad to hear whether he would not agree with me that that would be a reasonable, proper and not unrealistic way for the Government to proceed in this matter.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. Some of the figures are too selective when one looks at unemployment in the general sense. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, suggested that 177,000 ought to be added to those in receipt of long-term supplementary benefit. But there is a minimum of 3 ·5 million unemployed people in this country. I am not suggesting that the 175,000 should be deducted from the 3.5 million. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was not referring to those aged between 60 and 65 who probably form a substantial part of the total of 3 ·5 million. It is safe to assume that this leaves 2 million to 21/2million people adrift and drawing unemployment benefit.
I do not know whether any noble Lord has suffered the trauma of unemployment in the last 12 months or two years. Because of electoral misfortune last year, I
546
happened to suffer unemployment for a few weeks, and I can tell your Lordships that it is the most devastating experience that anybody can suffer. Those who have worked hard and diligently all their lives who are suddenly, through no fault of their own, but because of national or international economic policies, or a combination of the two, thrown on the scrapheap after paying full national insurance subscriptions, and all that that implies, for 30 or 40 years do not take kindly to it.
One of the first acts of this Conservative Government in the previous Parliament was to "rat" on previous agreements and to do away with earnings-related benefits. Some of those who are now drawing the basic dole subscribed heavily towards them. Leaving the very young out of the global picture and concentrating on those aged 22, ·23 and upwards, many of whom have families to keep, it is totally impossible to expect them to exist on minimum unemployment benefit.
Despite the persistent questioning of various Ministers on the Benches opposite, who always repeat that the Government's policies are working and that the policies they are pursuing are in the best interests of reducing unemployment in this country, the one fact which emerges beyond all argument is that the number of long-term unemployed is increasing month by month. We are not, therefore, dealing with a static figure. Only a week or two ago, the Minister of State admitted in this Chamber that I had been correct when I said that the Secretary of State in another place had indicated that there was no guarantee that jobs could be found for the 165,000 people who are expected to come on to the labour market between now and the end of the year. There has been a frank admission from the Secretary of State that the Government are not confident that they can find additional jobs to cater for those who are coming on to the labour market. What possible hope is there for people who have already been on the market for one year, two years or three years? What hope is there that, in the near future, they will be given an opportunity to earn a living once again, to keep their families, and to live with some dignity?
This particular proposal is one of the most important facets of the Bill. I regret most sincerely that this matter is being debated tonight in a Committee that is almost empty. I wish that some of the noble Lords of different parties who showed concern the other night, at a much later hour than this, in taking some freedom of action away from trade unions because it suited their particular idiom, would show as much concern about 31/3million people who have almost become the army of the forgotten.
People ask why it was that in this country only 32 per cent. of the electorate registered a vote in the European elections. Can anybody wonder that people lose hope and refuse to vote for anyone at all? This Chamber, to which I had the privilege of being appointed last year, has a tradition of having a heart that sometimes transcends the actions of the Government in the Commons. I submit that this is one of the occasions when it should have followed that tradition—.but the paucity of the attendance in the Committee this evening, by comparison with Monday

547
night, shows that noble Lords opposite have their priorities appallingly wrong.
Lord Glenarthur:I do not believe that there would be any merit in having a lengthy debate at this time of night on the relative attendance of either side of the Committee. Nor do I need to speak at considerable length about this particular issue. As the noble Baroness knows, this matter was raised yesterday. I then explained that although the Government are well aware of the arguments (and they have been explained admirably tonight) for extending the long-term scale rate to unemployed claimants after they have been receiving supplementary benefit at the ordinary rate for a year—.which is the usual proposal—.this would cost £.480 million, and that on cost grounds alone it would have to be ruled out.
There are other aspects, too. The amendment is technically defective because the extension of supplementary benefit long-term scale rates to the unemployed would require amendment to supplementary benefit legislation.
I do not have a great deal to add. All I can say is that the long-term scale rate was introduced in 1966 by a Labour Government, and no Labour Government extended it to the unemployed, either. We have reduced the qualifying period from two years to one year: we have given automatic entitlement to the longterm rate to all men aged 60 and over; and from 1983 we made receipt of long-term incapacity benefit a qualification for the long-term scale rate, thus solving the invalidity trap. All those steps have been at considerable cost.
I am aware of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and I am aware, too, of the concern of the noble Baroness. The fact remains that these benefits cost a great deal of money. We have done a lot to help, and I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick:I should like to press the noble Lord further in respect of the figure he used of £480 million as being the cost of some of the provisions for which we have asked. How does he consider £.480 million extra spent on the unemployed of this country would compare with the monolithic sums of money which the Government have found to ensure the quality of life of the Falkland islanders? Is there something different about the unemployed citizens of this country; are they second-rate citizens by comparison?
Lord Glenarthur: No one is suggesting that anybody is a second-rate citizen. The noble Lord is stepping very wide of the amendment. He is starting a debate on a totally different and much wider matter of economic policy and on questions concerning foreign affairs which have nothing to do with our debate on this particular amendment.
I can answer one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, concerning the possible extension of the long-term scale rate to claimants age 50 or over, or even age 55 or over. To extend it to those age 50 or over would cost some £.90 million; to those age 55 or
548
over. £45 million. They are both appreciable sums of money. Unemployed people in this age group do not warrant priority over other unemployed people. In the case of men age 60 and over, they are not required to be available for work, as it is accepted that many will in effect have retired from work. It would certainly be too pessimistic to regard all unemployed people in their 50s as having retired fully from employment.
Lord Kilmarnock: Before the noble Lord sits down, my suggestion to him was of those over 55 who had been unemployed for three years, and I think that they would work out cheaper.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not have the figures for that group, but this is something we shall look at, and we shall do some calculations.
Baroness Jeger: It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that it is not right to regard unemployed men over 55 as retired, but the policies of this present Government are retiring very many men over 55. They are conscripting these people into unemployment. Then, to say calmly that the Government do not regard them as retired is really a very ungracious and unfair assessment of the situation. The noble Lord seemed in a hurry. He seemed to consider it late. I can tell him that those of us who have been honed in another place do not feel that this time of night is a bit late. We feel that these are very important matters and that the lateness of the hour should not detract from the importance of these questions.
The noble Lord said that to do what we asked would cost £.480 million. That should not be looked on as wanton expenditure. This £.480 million would go into the pockets of the long-term unemployed. It would go to expenditure; it would go to the purchase of goods. They might even be able to buy some more shoes, or be able to buy some new furniture. What else would they do with the money but spend it? That would generate demand, and would be good for the economy of the country. It should not be looked on as £.480 million put down the drain. This should be part of the rejuvenation of the economy, and I am sure that there would be good results, both in social terms and in economic terms.
Clearly we are not going to have a Division tonight, but I am sure that there are many people who are disappointed with what the noble Lord has said. I can assure him, in case he is unaware of it that the unemployed people in this country, and their families, will not forgive him for what he has said tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn,
Clause 16 [Constitution of panels for social security tribunals]:
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 59C:
Page 20, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert—
("persons who appear to the President to represent employed earners; persons who appear to the President to represent employers and earners other than employed earners and persons who appear to the President to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area concerned and of the problems of people living on low incomes.

549
(2A)Before appointing members of a panel, the President shall take into consideration recommendations from such local committees representing employers or employed earners or both, from organisations concerned with the interests of employers or employer earners or from such other organisations as he considers appropriate.
(2B)There should be on each Tribunal, drawn from the appropriate panel, one person nominated to that panel by an organisation or local committee concerned with the interests of employed earners.".")
The noble Lord said: This particular amendment, set down in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Scanlon, is another defence of the trade union movement and of some of the historical rights that successive Governments have accorded them and, in some cases, instituted—.and these were Governments of varying colours; not just Labour Governments but Conservative Governments and National Governments. This, too, is a very important amendment, and once again I have to repeat that I am sad that apparently it is not important enough to produce a bigger attendance on the other side of the Chamber, because it is trade union legislation. I have no doubt that if they considered it to be serious enough, the Back-Benchers on the other side would have been here in substantial numbers, as they were the other evening to carry out their coup d'état.
To move this amendment is going to take some time because there is a lot to it. One or two of us understand the history of what has taken place and how the tribunals came about. First of all, the Social Security Adjudications Act was passed in the last Parliament to provide for the amalgamation of the national insurance appeals tribunals and the supplementary benefits appeals tribunals into one set of social security appeals tribunals. I do not think anybody made the case as to why it was necessary to weld the two together. Nevertheless, the last Government must have deemed that it was desirable and went ahead with it.
That Bill, of course, included the necessary legislation to deal with this matter and, as originally presented, the relevant Bill at that time included a clause to end the separate workpeople's panels, but this was withdrawn prior to the dissolution of Parliament last year before the general election. The clause has been reintroduced in the present Social Security Bill. Instead of separate panels, the Bill proposes one panel to be composed of persons who appear to the president of the social security appeals tribunals to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and to be representative of persons living or working in the area.
The workpeople's panels and the national insurance and supplementary benefit appeals tribunals have different histories. Each consists of a chairman and two other members, each from a separate panel. In the national insurance appeals tribunals, the two members represent, respectively, employers and self-employed and employed earners. In the supplementary benefit appeals tribunals one panel consists of one member appearing to the Secretary of State to have knowledge or experience of the conditions in the area concerned and of the problems of people living on low incomes. The two bodies had somewhat similar functions and their terms of reference were drawn up slightly
550
differently. Other representative workpeople provide the trades councils with members.
The national insurance appeals tribunals go back to 1911 and reflect the source of contributions to the National Insurance Fund. The supplementary benefit appeals tribunal structure originated from the unemployment assistance tribunal set up as far back as 1934. They must have been almost as busy then as they are now under a similar type of Government. In its present form it dates back to 1948. It is widely agreed that the Secretary of State's member is generally a person of good standing in the community and that it is the trades council member who is likely to have the knowledge and experience included in the statutory description of the Secretary of State's panel.
What are the effects of the loss of trade unionists on that panel? It is proposed that trades councils and trade unions will still be able to nominate to the new single panels. However, in the selection of members for each tribunal as it sits there is no guarantee that a trade union nominee will be included, and the claimant is denied the right to have a representative of workpeople on the tribunal as a matter of right. In fact, it gives the chairman who is appointed as chairman for that year—
Lord Denham: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way for just a moment. We obviously shall not get any further than the noble Lord's amendment tonight. I think he probably knows that we have to rise at 11 o'clock tonight. If we are to complete his amendment before that time, we obviously cannot move on to further amendments and we shall have to get a move on with this particular amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am bound to tell the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip that shall I find it extremely difficult to finish the case on behalf of six million trade unionists by 11 o'clock. I can assure the Government Chief Whip that this is not a filibuster.
Lord Denham: I was trying to be helpful. I have to adjourn the House at 11 o'clock. I did not want to adjourn the House in the middle of the noble Lord's amendment and if he wishes to try to finish it by that time—
Lord Dean of Beswick: I do not think that is possible. I would rather come back another day.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Portsea Harbour Company Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to with an amendment.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.

  MENTAL HANDICAP SERVICES: DISCUSSION
  MENTAL HANDICAP SERVICES: DISCUSSION
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (INTERIM PROVISIONS) BILL: ACTIVATION
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (INTERIM PROVISIONS) BILL: ACTIVATION