Sitting of 26 June 1984

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

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

    WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Poseidon Submarines
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any change in arrangements for basing United States Poseidon submarines at Holy loch.
    Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any change in the arrangement for the basing of the United States Poseidon squadron at Holy loch.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): No, Sir, but these arrangements are of course kept under review.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister give an absolute guarantee that none of those Poseidon submarines will be either modified in any way or retro-fitted to carry Trident missiles, and then based at Holy loch or anywhere else in this country? What we want is a guarantee.
    Mr. Stanley: I know of no proposal to do so. If the Americans had any such proposal they would, of course, put it to us.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister take any account of the fact that the majority of people in Scotland are strongly opposed to the deployment of nuclear weapons in Scotland? Can he give us an undertaking that the British authorities will be consulted if the Americans want to deploy Trident missiles at Holy loch? For that matter, will Parliament be consulted?
    Mr. Stanley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, American ballistic-missile-firing submarines have been based at Holy loch for some 20 years, and the conclusions of the British people on the matter were well expressed in 1979 and 1983.
    Sir Antony Buck: Is not my right hon. Friend's last point a very cogent one? These arrangements have satisfied successive Governments of different colours, and they are to be regarded as satisfactory.
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for what he has said. I agree with him.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: The American base at Holy loch is in closer proximity to a centre of population than would be permitted under American law for an American base in the United States. Is the Minister happy that that situation should exist in a British sovereign state?
    Mr. Stanley: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the safety arrangements which apply to the Americans at Holy loch are the same as those which would apply in the United States. Those arrangements have endured well for 20 years.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of people in this country support the NATO Alliance and the maintenance of adequate defences? Has he observed that of the 22 questions tabled by Labour Members for oral answer today, 19 are designed to cast doubt on our American ally or the adequacy of our nuclear forces? Does this not tell us more about the Labour party than about NATO?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend asks a most pertinent question. As I have said before, I am ceaselessly struck and disappointed by the fixation of the Opposition with the weapons of our allies, and their failure to take into account the threat posed by the weapons of the Warsaw pact.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about this matter, as he said that it was under review and yet, as I understood him, there are no proposals to install Trident missiles? What on earth is the review about? Why should the Government not start winding up the base as 360 Trident warheads and 160 cruise missiles are coming to Britain? Why do we need Holy loch as well?
    Mr. Stanley: I said that the basing arrangements were under review, as they always are in relation to operational needs. I also made it clear that the American Government have made no proposal to us to base Trident missiles at Holy loch.

    Trident
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had to revise the costs of Trident since the publication of the defence Estimates.
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if, since the publication of the defence Estimates, there has been any change in circumstances that require the revision of cost estimates for the Trident programme.
    Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for Defence if, since the publication of the defence Estimates, there has been any change in circumstances that requires the revision of cost estimates for the Trident programme.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The estimate, 'which I announced in March, of £8·729 million is that which, by convention, was used for this year's re-costing of the defence programme. The estimate will be reviewed in the context of the 1985 long-term costings and I will announce the revised figure to

    791
    Parliament next spring. Since I made my announcement in March there have been movements in the assumptions in both directions.
    Mr. Powell: Does the Secretary of State agree with the first report of the Defence Select Committee, which says at paragraph 41 that
    "a more realistic Trident estimate is around £9,400 million"
    at 1984 prices? Will he give his views of paragraph 13, which says that an effective space-based anti-ballistic missile system
    "could negate what we have in mind to do"
    with Trident?
    Mr. Heseltine: A space-based anti-ballistic missile system is still very much a research project. Nobody knows whether it is technically achievable or whether it will enter service, and we cannot build a defence strategy on those hypotheses. I have read the views of the Select Committee. It took into account the changing exchange rates. That was a matter of fact, although one cannot know what the exchange rate will be on the next update or during the rest of the life of the Trident programme. I shall stick to the precedents when I revise the defence Estimates which I make available to the House.
    Mr. Roberts: When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for the Environment he forced local government always to have regard to the revenue consequences of any capital expenditure. Does he agree that the running costs of the Trident system might be about £120 million—similar to the estimates for Polaris—or will it be more? Does that not put the cost of Trident up to £12 billion?
    Mr. Heseltine: The estimates that I have sought and given are the capital costs through the life of the Trident programme. There are associated running costs, but if the hon. Gentleman's figure is right, seen against the background of a defence budget of about £17 billion, it shows what an even better bargain it is than we thought.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State happy with the fact that only £4·6 million of the contracts on Trident will be awarded to British companies? What is he doing to ensure that 45 per cent. only of the contracts are allocated to firms in the United States?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have secured from the Americans an agreement that British companies will be free in many cases to tender for parts of the programme, which is 45 per cent. American procured. I must make the important caveat that, as this is an established and continuing programme, it is relatively difficult for outside contractors to break in to such an existing set of arrangements.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: When considering the effect of Trident, if any, on the rest of the procurement budget, will my right hon. Friend give special attention to the European fighter aircraft, bearing in mind that about 50 technicians from the design department of British Aerospace have already left this year? They are anxious about Trident and would welcome my right hon. Friend's reassurance that it will not have an effect on the procurement programme.
    Mr. Heseltine: I know of my hon. Friend's concern in these matters. That is why it is important to point out that the average cost of Trident is probably one sixth of the increase in the defence budget for which the Government have been responsible.
    Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that much of the excitement about the cost of Trident that has been generated in some quarters is misplaced because, as a proportion of the defence budget, it is, if anything, less than the Tornado programme in its day?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to make that important point. Perhaps an even more relevant example is the fact that the Labour party managed to modernise the existing Polaris system with the Chevaline process. The cost of Chevaline more than doubled in real terms during Labour's tenure of office, and Labour forgot to tell the House either of the programme or of the increased costs.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State will recall that in last week's defence debate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said that while the unit costs of cruise missiles were lower, an independent deterrent based on cruise missiles and delivering the same number of warheads as Trident would prove more expensive. How can he expect the House to accept those figures when he will not say how many warheads Trident is planned to have?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have not yet reached a decision on the number of warheads that Trident is to have. That is something to which the Government must address themselves, and they will. However, I wish that the party for which he speaks and the party associated with it would make up their minds about whether they want us to have an independent nuclear deterrent. If so, I wish they would say when they thought that a decision was necessary and then tell us what they would do in place of taking it.
    Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of their position on Trident, both the Labour Opposition and the alliance—or perhaps part of it—are being driven into the absurd position where they are the only people asking Britain to spend more on defence irrespective of our needs or resources vis-a-vis the Health Service or education, and irrespective of value for money?
    Mr. Heseltine: If I understood my hon. Friend, I think that I must remind him that the principal Opposition party has passed a conference resolution threatening to reduce conventional defence expenditure by about a third.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State refer back to one of his earlier comments about the Select Committee, namely, that if the "star wars" concept takes place, and it very much looks as if it will, it will negate the need—indeed, the purpose—of Trident? When will we know, and when does the Secretary of State expect to know, at what point in the development of Trident he will have to come to a decision on whether to go ahead or negate it?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the Government have taken the decision to go ahead with the Trident programme. We are committed to that, we have expended money in furtherance of it, and we intend to see the policy through. He is perfectly correct to ask about the hypothetical circumstances relating to the Trident programme and the "star wars" concept. It is not possible for us to take certain decisions now on the hypothesis of certain developments which may or may not take place, and the timing of which we cannot possibly foresee.

    RAF Leuchars (Radar)
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to introduce a secondary surveillance radar facility at RAF Leuchars.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Yes. It is planned that a secondary surveillance radar will be operational at RAF Leuchars by 1988.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive reply. Will he confirm that this is a recognition of the importance which Leuchars enjoys, first as the premier airfield in that part of the world, and, secondly, because it is so helpful to civilian aircraft, the number of which passing through that air space has more than trebled in the last 12 months? It is because of that help that Leuchars desperately needs this equipment.
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Leuchars is an extremely important front-line air defence base. SSR will provide automatic identification and height information and will considerably facilitate the safety aspect associated with the very substantial increase in air traffic.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Will this surveillance system make it possible to establish whether low-flying military aircraft in the east of Scotland are breaking the regulations?
    Mr. Lee: I am not aware that it will have that particular advantage.

    Trident
    Mrs. Beckettasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in targeting policy or strategy of the United Kingdom's strategic forces as a result of Trident acquisition.
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in the strategy of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent forces as a result of Trident acquisition.
    Mr. Allen McKayasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in the targeting policy or strategy of the United Kingdom's strategic forces as a result of the Trident question.
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be any change in the targeting policy or strategy of the United Kingdom's strategic forces as a result of the Trident acquisition.
    Mr. Heseltine: No. As we made clear in the Open Government Document 80/23 "The Future United Kingdom Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Force", the British Government's concept of deterrence is concerned essentially with an ability to pose a potential threat to key aspects of Soviet state power. That concept will remain the basis of our approach when Trident enters service.
    Mrs. Beckett: As Trident's accuracy makes it a first-strike weapon for use in fighting a nuclear war, and as United States policy has adjusted to meet that change in availability, should not the Secretary of State now admit that either our Government's policy has changed in the same way, or he has wasted the country's money?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady must be fully aware that Trident is a replacement for the Polaris system, which the Labour Government supported for many years.
    Mr. McNamara: Enhancement of the deterrent, not replacement.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman says that as though it were a condemnation. It is an enhancement because the Soviets have introduced a new generation of radar and ABM systems.
    Mr. Bidwell: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the British public as a whole are far more worried about the prospect of nuclear warfare than they were a few years ago? As Polaris is not supposed to be a first-strike weapon because of the placing of the silos of the Soviet missiles, what faith can we have in the story that Trident will not be fully aimed? How are the Russians to know that? Does this not bring us nearer to the prospect of nuclear war?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not know whether the public are rightly or wrongly more concerned today. I know that they have always been concerned, and that is understandable. The one thing that I know about public opinion is that the public believe that the maintenance of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent is an essential part of our defence strategy.
    Mr. McKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are to purchase D5 missiles from the United States, with complete MIRV facilities? If we purchase them, will the missiles be with the 17-warhead capability, and if so, is it the Secretary of State's intention fully to utilise that capability?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have not yet taken the final decision about the procurement of the systems.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Trident 2D5, unlike Polaris, has the capability to destroy Soviet missiles in their silos? While that may not be the British Government's purpose, is not the fact that it has that capability enormously destabilising?
    Mr. Heseltine: I wish that Labour Members, before telling us about the destabilising effect of our deterrent system, would spend more time concentrating on the threat that we face from the Soviet Union, with its continuing enhancement.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the Japanese had had a nuclear deterrent such as Trident at the end of the second world war the Americans might not have dropped their atom bombs? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend further accept that it is a jolly good justification for our nuclear deterrent?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises a key point. We have had a nuclear deterrent in this country for nearly four decades, and we have lived in peace. The coincidence does not escape any independent observer of the scene.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no hon. Member has yet made a convincing case for an alternative to Trident which constitutes a credible independent nuclear deterrent?
    Mr. Heseltine: That is why the Government took the decision that they did. I support what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the submarines based in Scotland, however efficient the targeting system, and however effective the warheads, could not, under any circumstances, knock out the SS20s?
    Mr. Heseltine: The purpose of basing submarines in Scotland, along with a whole range of other decisions that we take about weapon systems, is to prevent a war breaking out, not to calculate the precise use of weapons that would be made in the event that it did.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Secretary of State accept that any first use of Trident would be suicidal, both nationally and throughout the world? Will he give a clear commitment on behalf of the Government that there will be no first use of Trident and other British nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Heseltine: I give precisely the same assurances as those which the last Labour Government gave when they were responsible for these matters. Everybody knows the consequences of the use of the weapon systems and their very existence is the single greatest guarantee of peace that we have.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Secretary of State recall that he said to the Select Committee a few weeks ago that neither side would contemplate using nuclear weapons, on the basis of a rational judgment, because of their horrendous nature? If he accepts that he is a rational man, as I am sure he does, does that mean that he would not contemplate the use of Trident or any other nuclear weapon? If that is the case, what does that do to the Government's theory of deterrence?
    Mr. Heseltine: I was going to say that I am as rational as the previous members of the Labour Government, but that is a pitfall into which I would rather not leap. No responsible Secretary of State for Defence would spell out in advance the hypothetical circumstances in which our deterrent would be put to use. The whole purpose of our weapon system is to deter, and in that it has been extraordinarily successful.

    Equipment Sales (Norway)
    Mr. Favellasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the sale of defence equipment to Norway.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The wide range of defence equipment manufactured in this country is generally available for sale to Norway, as to our other NATO Allies.
    Mr. Favell: May I remind my hon. Friend that Britain is about to enter into its largest single contract—for the purchase of £20 million-worth of gas from Norway's Sleipner field? What steps are being taken to alert the manufacturers of British defence equipment, and what steps are being taken to assist them?
    Mr. Pattie: The manufacturers of British defence equipment are already fully aware of the opportunities for them in the sale to Norway. When the Secretary of State met his opposite number in Norway in February, he had conversations about the possibility of a memorandum of understanding being signed. My right hon. Friend said
    796
    then that if suitable opportunities for collaboration could be defined it would be worth proceeding. So far no such opportunity has been ascertained.
    Mr. McNamara: The question of general defence sales to Norway, to other NATO Allies and elsewhere is fraught with political difficulty and enormous secrecy. Why is the Ministry not at least prepared to tell the House the value of the sales to particular nations, the extent to which they involve high technology and the two-way street involved in the sales? Without that information we do not know the effect of our sales elsewhere or the effect of our purchases. When one considers the ratio of United States purchases to United Kingdom purchases—whatever happened under the last Labour Government—are we not in enormous deficit against the United States, the most closed market for defence equipment in the world?
    Mr. Pattie: It is not true to say that we are in an enormous deficit with the United States. When the Conservative Government came to office in May 1979, the imbalance against us was 4:1. Today it is about 2:1 compared with the ratio for other European nations of about 9:1. One of the main reasons for a degree of confidentiality about such transactions is the will of the purchaser. Purchasers wish such details not to be widely publicised.

    Jet Trainer
    Sir John Farrasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many all-British tenders have been received for the contract to supply the Royal Air Force with a new basic jet trainer.
    Mr. Pattie: None. Invitations to tender were only issued on 18 June.
    Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he assure the House that when a decision is reached, all things being equal, the aircraft chosen for this all-important task will be that which provides most jobs for Britain and for people working in this country?
    Mr. Pattie: I can certainly give my hon. Friend and the House an assurance that such considerations will be among the most significant of the factors that we shall take into account when arriving at our decision.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the test that my hon. Friends will apply to the placing of the contract for the RAF's new basic jet trainer will be the net British job content involved? Will the Minister be a little more sensitive, more protective and aggressive about home-based jobs when he comes to place the contract than he was when he placed the order for Harpoon?
    Mr. Pattie: I shall not weary the House by listing the occasions on which we have achieved deals which have been advantageous to British industry and British job content. British job content is one of the many important factors that will be weighed with all the others.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend accept that the choice should be made on the basis of providing the best aircraft to train the best pilots for the Royal Air Force and that it should not be tied to sales to or purchases by foreign countries? Does my hon. Friend agree that Firecracker, British designed and built, holds great hope for the future?
    Mr. Pattie: I agree that the fundamental question is whether the Royal Air Force receives the plane that will do the job that it requires. As the tender invitations only went out on 18 June, it would be dangerous to start particularising across the Floor of the House about precisely what percentage of which of the individual contenders is British.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Does the Minister agree that more British jobs will be provided if the award is given to the jet trainer most likely to gain the most sales to other countries?
    Mr. Pattie: That is another of the factors that we must take into account. Obviously, I am aware of what lies behind the right hon. Gentleman's question. We have great regard for the industrial capability of Short Brothers, following its success with the United States air force.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition will specifically look for an order on the British mainland that will meet the needs of the declining British aerospace industry and compensate for the lay-offs that have taken place? When will a decision be taken? To what extent will speculative agreements be taken into consideration, as opposed to positive orders on the table?
    Mr. Pattie: I said in my original reply that the invitation for tenders to be submitted went out on 18 June. It is our intention that tenders should be returned by about the middle of September. We hope that a decision will not be unnecessarily prolonged after that.
    I am not quite sure that I fully understood the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question. I assure him that during the evaluation of the tenders we shall be assessing only what we consider to be real and firm returns to the tender process.

    Cruise Missiles
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest ground-launched cruise missile testing programme.
    Mr. Stanley: The overall flight testing of the ground-launched cruise missile has been satisfactory.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the newly created right hon. Gentleman seriously think that the British people will think that the programme has been satisfactory when it appears from reports in the United States that more than half the missiles fired have not worked properly? Can he confirm that, although there are four tubes on each launcher, the best that the United States has managed so far is two missiles fired from each launcher? As Ministers have told us about previous American weapons installed in Britain, can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether there has been any previous example of so untested a weapon being introduced in Britain by the United States?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman's figures are not accurate. Of the 10 flight tests of ground-launched cruise missile, only one was classed as a failure.
    Mr. Alexander: The women at Greenham common have made it clear that they intend to disrupt the testing programme. Can my right hon. Friend estimate the numbers now protesting at Greenham common and confirm that under no circumstances will they succeed in disrupting the testing programme?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will be aware that we are considering the flight testing programme of the cruise missiles. As he referred to the off-base training programme, I am delighted to confirm that it has been carried out satisfactorily and that it has not been impeded by demonstrators.
    Mr. Barron: Have the tests on cruise missiles shown that they can be used in the way outlined in the MOD document handed out at Greenham common—as an alternative to surrender or all-out nuclear war?
    Mr. Stanley: The operational concept of cruise missiles is to add to deterrence and to provide an offset against the SS20 capability. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take into account the fact that before the NATO INF deployment decision was taken, there were 243 SS20 warheads targeted against us, but that figure had risen to 729 by the time that NATO deployment had actually began. Those are the facts about which we should hear more from Opposition Members.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when Members of Parliament were given an opportunity to visit Greenham common, Labour Members chose to posture outside the gates rather than take full opportunity to visit the base? Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who visited the base and took the opportunity to study the system were impressed by it, and especially by the safeguards built into it?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I am certain that that visit was beneficial for those who took part in it in full and that it confirmed to my hon. Friends that the safety arrangements at Greenham common were undoubtedly satisfactory.
    Mr. Cartwright: If the Netherlands Government finally reach a firm conclusion not to accept their 48 successfully tested cruise missiles, will the remaining four basing nations be expected to take a larger share of cruise missiles so as to maintain the original NATO concept of 572 warheads?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question. We hope that it will remain hypothetical and that the Dutch Government will be able to adhere to the original NATO deployment programme.
    Mr. Dalyell: If the figures of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) are not accurate, the right hon. Gentleman must have in his brief the accurate figures. May the House have them?
    Mr. Stanley: As I recall, I have already given details of the flight testing arrangements and have said that, of the 10 flight tests, only one has been classified by the Americans as a failure.

    Military Bases (Senior Officers)
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many military bases there are in the United Kingdom at which the senior military officer is an American.
    Mr. Stanley: American service personnel at military bases in the United Kingdom are all under the command of an American officer. At most bases there is also a RAF commander acting in a liaison role but not subordinate to the American commander.
    Mr. Hoyle: Whether or not there is an American commander, will the Minister say which bases house nuclear weapons? In particular, will he, in view of the fears of my constituents, say whether there are nuclear weapons or missiles stored at Burtonwood, Warrington? Will he take action to stop the heavy military manoeuvres by American helicopters at night, because they are disturbing the peace of the neighbourhood?
    Mr. Stanley: The policy of the American Government is exactly the same as that of Her Majesty's Government in this matter; we do not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons in individual places.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not still the case, as it was formerly, that there are no American bases in the United Kingdom but that certain British bases are placed at the disposal of our American allies and that the British flag continues to fly over them?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has described the position accurately. The arrangements which exist today concerning the use of British facilities by Americans in this country are exactly the same as those which have existed for many years, including under previous Labour Governments. They are arrangements that have commanded the support of those Governments.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) misled the House when he said that Labour Members did not go inside the cruise missile base at Greenham common? Not only did we go inside, but we learnt——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be related to the main question.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only did we learn that the base is under the command of a United States officer, but that he alone can decide whether to fire a cruise missile? Is he further aware that the nonsense of claiming that there is dual control was smashed out of existence by those of us who had an opportunity to talk to the American military forces?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening carefully, because the position is quite different from that which he suggests. No cruise missile can be fired in this country without the consent of the British Prime Minister.
    Mr. Dorrell: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports of moves in the American Congress which could result in a reduced commitment of American service personnel to the defence of western Europe? While that may be welcome to Labour Members, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would represent a significant shift in the balance of advantage from West to East and would represent a major coup for Soviet propaganda?
    Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that extremely important point. We welcome the fact that the Congress resolution to which he referred, which called for a reduction in United States forces in Europe, was not passed. The spirit and tenor of many of the questions posed by Opposition Members can hardly encourage our American allies to continue their current level of presence in this country.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what connection military personnel or bases have been used in connection with the current mining dispute?
    Mr. Stanley: As has been said on many occasions, there is no involvement by military personnel in support of the civil authorities in that dispute.
    Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that within the NATO Alliance, the great shield of the West, the nationality of the individual commander is immaterial? There are surely plenty of British commanders on the mainland of Europe.
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right. The position whereby American forces in the United Kingdom are under American command is the same as that of British forces in Germany, who are under British command.
    Mr. McNamara: Is it possible at any American base in the United Kingdom for British liaison officers to veto American operations?
    Mr. Stanley: American operations will be carried out under overall NATO directions, because American forces in the United Kingdom are working within the NATO command structure.

    NATO
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future size of the United Kingdom's financial commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Heseltine: Defence expenditure will show further real growth in 1985–86, when it will be about one fifth higher than in 1978–79. Some 95 per cent. is devoted directly or indirectly to Alliance tasks.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State accept that unless service pay increases are held down to 2·5 per cent. in 1986–87 there will be no real growth in defence expenditure? Will he hold down service pay to that extent, or will he withdraw other NATO commitments?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's calculations. Service pay is only part of the defence budget and within the budget there are cash assumptions to take us from one public expenditure period to another. There is a need in this area, as in all others, to recognise the overall requirement for constraint.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend had any conversations with the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, who requested that Britain, along with the rest of the membership of NATO, should increase its defence budget by more than 3 per cent?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am fully aware of the views of the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, who, in the light of the growing Soviet threat, is urging that larger resources be made available for defence. I think that he will be the first to recognise the real contribution that the Government have made, having increased the defence commitment by £3,000 million per year since we were elected.
    Mr. Douglas: What representations has the Secretary of State made to our NATO allies about taking cognisance of the fact that in years to come Trident will consume 30 per cent. of the Navy's procurement budget and is therefore likely to denude naval resources of Britain's real and specialised role within NATO for its frigates and other ships?
    Mr. Heseltine: Rather than misrepresent the position to our NATO allies I would tell them the truth, which is

    801
    that throughout this decade real expenditure within the Navy budget will be higher than it was when the Government came to power, despite the fact that we have also to pay for Trident.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that today Lord Carrington should be taking up his position as the head of NATO? Does he agree further that NATO should begin a period of introspection and examine its own structures? Should we not insist that there should be a thorough overhaul of the institution and its strategy?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It gives me the greatest possible pleasure to support his warm tribute to Lord Carrington. I am sure that the House will recognise that no more admirable or qualified person could have been found to take on the job of Secretary General of NATO. It is necessary to keep under review the strategies and procedures of the NATO Alliance, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the Alliance has helped to deliver the longest period of peace in contemporary European history.

    Tenders (Small Firms)
    Mr. Bellinghamasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of small firms which (a) tendered for and (b) received contracts for amounts less than £10,000 in 1983–84.
    Mr. Lee: Ministry of Defence policy is not to discriminate between large and small firms as such. Consequently, at this stage, there is no requirement to distinguish between the size of firms which tender for, or win, MOD contracts. In 1982–83 MOD headquarters placed some 30,000 contracts for values less than £10,000 and small firms secured a significant proportion of these. The figures for 1983–84 are still being evaluated but are not likely to be very much different.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the MOD could still do more to help small businesses, especially by instructing main contractors to devote more of their subcontracts to smaller businesses?
    Mr. Lee: We want very much to encourage more competition among subcontractors. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the excellent booklet entitled "Selling to the MOD". About 35,000 copies of that booklet have been distributed. This has produced a substantial and marked increase in inquiries.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the greatest dangers to small contractors and subcontractors is a mergers trend, such as the GEC-British Aerospace merger, within the defence industry, and that the more mergers there are among larger firms, the more smaller firms will be gobbled up?
    Mr. Lee: The biggest danger to the defence budget would be the Labour party's plans to reduce defence expenditure, which would affect defence contractors. We want to encourage small firms to compete. At the same time, we must have an eye to the success of our large firms in the international market.

    RAF Binbrook
    Mr. Leighasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Binbrook.
    Mr. Lee: After the phasing-out of Lightning air defence aircraft in 1987–88 RAF Binbrook will remain an RAF station, although its precise role has yet to be determined.
    Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend comment on speculation that the Tornado air defence variant will be based at RAF Leuchars and Coningsby and that the hangars at RAF Binbrook have not been hardened for that reason? Is he satisfied with the position whereby Binbrook closes as a fighter base, leaving this country with only six front-line squadrons defending it?
    Mr. Lee: It is correct to say that the Tornado F2 will go to RAF Leuchars in due course. Binbrook will remain an RAF station, but we are examining all the options. I cannot at this stage say how active the station will be.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is attending a meeting of the European Council at Fontainebleau.
    Mr. Flannery: When will the Government admit that their anti-trade union laws have proved to be completely unworkable? Do they intend to arrest all the miners and then all the railwaymen? Is it not a fact that the inexorable march towards a general strike, provoked by the Government, is now relentlessly under way? When London comes to a complete standstill tomorrow, will wiser counsels prevail in the Conservative party than those of a dictatorial Prime Minister and the ineffable and wretched Mr. MacGregor, who have provoked this action between them? Can we expect the Government to come to the negotiating table, announce that the pit closures will stop and discuss with the miners what will be done?
    Mr. Biffen: It is highly irresponsible to speak in terms of a general strike. Those who do so invite the suspicion that there are elements which would like to use industrial action to secure against the Government what the ballot box failed to secure. It is highly damaging to make the kind of personal and inflammatory remarks that the hon. Gentleman has just made about the chairman of the NCB. That does nothing to assist the process of conciliation. The offer still exists for the National Union of Mineworkers to get around the negotiating table with the NCB, and the sooner the talks are resumed, the better.
    Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public concern at the news this morning that an unauthorised person—a vet—last month took part in a major surgical operation on a constituent of mine?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a bit of a change.
    Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend take steps as a matter of urgency to allay public fear so that such illegal and dangerous practices will never happen again?
    Mr. Biffen: The matter raised by my hon. Friend is clearly of immediate and topical constituency interest, but it touches on an issue of wider general concern. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will seek to allay the anxieties to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. Steel: What does the deputy Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] have to say about the widespread condemnation among the 29 countries attending the East-West environmental conference in Munich of the wholly negative attitude adopted by the British Government at that conference? Does he agree with the Canadian Minister that the cost of inaction is even higher?
    Mr. Biffen: To comment briefly on the right hon. Gentleman's initial premise, I am not deputy Prime Minister [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I say that merely to put the record straight. I leave it to the memoir writers to interpret the meaning behind the right hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase.
    On the substantive point, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, sulphur dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom have fallen by 37 per cent. since 1970 and further measures are under consideration to secure a further improvement. It is on that tangible and proven record that we wish to build.
    Mr. Patchett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that millions saw on their television screens a constituent of mine on a miners' picket line being viciously truncheoned by a policeman, although he was not resisting arrest? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the loss of faith in British justice among my constituents and many others at the response of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make a statement and to condemn police brutality?
    Mr. Biffen: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a police complaints procedure to which his constituent can have recourse—[Interruption.] All those who jeer at that retort are part of a wider movement seeking to undermine the authority and effectiveness of the police in this country.
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ordinary maintenance grant for students for 1983–84 is only 92 per cent. of the value of the grant in 1980, which was low enough already? Does he agree that that is disgraceful and typical of the Government's meanness? If the Government do not wish to discourage further education, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee an uprating of those grants for 1984–85?
    Mr. Biffen: I can give no guarantee in the terms sought by the right hon. Gentleman but, as we have a grant system rather than the loan system which is operated in many parts of the Western world, I believe that, broadly speaking, higher education in this country gets a jolly good deal.
    Mr. Fallon: Has my right hon. Friend read the report today that a shadow Minister recently had to be recalled to Standing Committee duties in the House over the public address system at Royal Ascot? If that is true, is it not a rather encouraging explanation for Labour absenteeism?
    Mr. Biffen: I was not aware of that report, but I am prepared to be generous and agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when he agreed in Cabinet to the changes in supplementary benefit arrangements made last week he consented to the removal of £86 million from some of the very poorest people in the land, including a large number of old people who depend on long-supplementary benefit?
    Mr. Biffen: We are convinced that, taken in its broader sense, the package provides a very good deal and underwrites the Government's performance, which shows that during the lifetime of the Government scales of payment for social security recipients have risen by 81 per cent. compared with a rise in prices of 71 per cent.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer the question that I asked? Does he realise that because of the changes nearly 2 million very poor people are losing from 50p to £1 a week on incomes that can be as low as £36 a week? If he did not know what he was consenting to, will he give an undertaking to work to change it? If he did consent to it, is he not disgusted with himself?
    Mr. Biffen: No, although I was conscious that the available scale margin to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was introduced by a Labour Government in 1966 and increased in 1968. The decisions that have been taken by my right hon. Friend are perfectly explicable in that context.
    Sir David Price: Will my right hon. Friend take advantage of his opportunity to convey questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, in connection with her negotiating position at Fontainebleau, stress that the whole of British coastal shipping waters are open to coastal ships from other EEC countries, whereas five of our major EEC partners preclude all British coastal ships from trading on their coastlines, which is quite contrary to the treaty of Rome? Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister use that as a negotiating card when she is accused of being anti-European?
    Mr. Biffen: That is exactly the sort of question that can be legitimately directed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she returns from Fontainebleau. That is a very good reason for my not anticipating her answer.
    Mr. Terry Lewisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lewis: Can the Lord Privy Seal justify the Government's intention to stop dole payments to unemployed Olympic athletes when an hon. Member will be participating in the Olympic games on a full parliamentary salary?
    Mr. Biffen: I must say at once that I am unaware of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I shall not seek to answer his question. I shall refer it to the Secretary of State for Social Services.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is intolerable, and perhaps ironic, that the travelling public will be inconvenienced yet again by a 24-hour rail strike in support of the miners, many of whom, like my constituents, are not on strike but at work? Will he remind the chairman of British Rail that this sort of secondary industrial action is unlawful and that there is a remedy, which he should be encouraged to seek today?
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure that many will have noted what my hon. Friend said concerning secondary picketing and his advice to the chairman of British Rail.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the description of the Prime Minister in The Guardian as a politician whose tact and diplomacy has all the finesse——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Lady is relatively new to the House, but she must ask the Lord Privy Seal a question for which there is ministerial responsibility.
    Mrs. Clwyd: In that case, Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the Prime Minister that she should use some real tact and diplomacy rather than, as yesterday's description of her in The Guardian states, using all the tact and diplomacy of a soccer hooligan on the terraces of Europe? Does he agree that the Prime Minister will return from Fontainebleau with only half a cake and not the budget rebate that she has consistently promised the House in the past few months?
    Mr. Biffen: As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be answering those very questions in a much more authoritative fashion than I could ever dare essay. Meanwhile, I totally reject the hon. Lady's description of my right hon. Friend and, above all, deplore the rather lacklustre language employed by The Guardian, which is usually of a much higher literary standard.
    Mr. Marlowasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marlow: How does my right hon. Friend react to the ugly scenes that we saw on television last night, when two working miners were savaged by the mob? How is it that in this 15-week catalogue of violence, intimidation and criminality, not one single picket has been sent to prison? Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Government have yet sufficiently taken on the Fascist Mafia of Arthur Scargill?
    Mr. Biffen: It is for those who use the rhetoric of working class unity and fraternity to excuse the disgraceful scenes that were portrayed on television last night of the treatment of those two miners.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister the fact that the miners will not succumb to the Government in the dispute and that their determination grows day by day? If the Prime Minister is not convinced of that, I invite her to come to my constituency and to see it at first hand. Does the Leader of the House believe that the Government have no responsibility in any circumstances for the hardship being caused to miner's wives and their families?
    Mr. Biffen: I have no reason to doubt that the social security arrangements are being applied equitably in the mining districts as elsewhere.
    Mr. Sumbergasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 26 June.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of recent elections to the NUM in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, where those who want to work have kicked out of office those who want to strike, including the brother of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Does that not show that the so-called tribute of the people has failed to follow the Churchillian maxim that one should trust the people?
    Mr. Biffen: I am sure that we make our own judgments and inferences, as my hon. Friend has. One thing is clear. The central feature of the dispute is that it divides mining community from mining community. That is the explanation of the frustrated bitterness shown by Arthur Scargill and his supporters.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that at the Bolsover election five miners who have been on strike out of a committee of eight were re-elected, so they have a majority? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the secretary at Welbeck colliery, who has been on strike from day one, has also been re-elected? As for my brother, he has been nominated by the Nottinghamshire NUM as the Labour party parliamentary candidate for the Sherwood constituency. That constituency is currently held by a Tory—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and after the next election there will be two Skinners here instead of one.
    Mr. Biffen: I am not sure whether my immediate reaction should be that I do not know whether that pleases the Leader of the Opposition, but, my God, it pleases me. My second thought is that I should like to pay respect to this family contribution to ensure that Sherwood remains a Tory seat.

    WELSH AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That the matter of rural affairs in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Railway Accident (Morpeth)
3.31 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have had an opportunity to study yesterday's Official Report, and you will have noted most carefully what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said about the cause of the railway accident at Morpeth:
"The cause of the accident seems likely to have been excessive speed on entering the curve. The reason for this has not yet been established."
Later I said to the hon. Gentleman:
"Will the Minister withdraw his outrageous and scandalous remark?"—[Official Report, 25 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 688–90.]
It seems to me that it will be difficult to have a free, independent and fair inquiry after the Minister has prejudged the situation. Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister, while he must admit to having uttered those words, should come before the House and say that he has committed an error in making those remarks in view of the fact that it is now impossible to have a free and independent inquiry into the reasons for the railway crash?
Mr. John Ryman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this tragedy occurred within a few miles of my constituency, I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). I give notice that I should like, to argue the matter fully tomorrow at 3.30 pm because, in my respectful submission, there has been a breach of the sub judice rule——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not give me notice about an argument that he might seek to make tomorrow at 3.30 pm. He must put a point of order to me today.
Mr. Ryman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say that yesterday's statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, when he announced the establishment of the inquiry, contravened the sub judice rule of the House because of the manner in which the announcement was made. Would you kindly hear my argument, Mr. Speaker, and rule upon it?
In my respectful submission, the rules of sub judice and the rules of procedure in the House prevent comment by a Minister upon a matter that is sub judice. Sub judice is dealt with by the rules of criminal and civil cases. The establishment of a board of inquiry to investigate the serious railway accident comes within those civil rules. Therefore, the Minister was wrong in law and in breach of the rules of this House to state before the inquiry began to take evidence what the cause of the accident was.
The hon. Gentleman's announcement alleged that the cause of the accident was excessive speed by the train, which inhibits an inspector conducting the inquiry subsequently from establishing the cause of the accident. The Minister made the whole point of the inquiry useless because of the way in which he announced it. He announced the result of the inquiry and suggested the reason for the accident while he was establishing the inquiry. That constitutes a serious breach of the sub judice rule in civil cases.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the driver of the train, Mr. Peter Allen, is one of my constituents, I shall add my
808
voice to the expressions of anxiety of my hon. Friends. I implore you to do what you can to protect individual citizens from indiscretions of the sort made by the Minister.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The press published remarks made by the Minister after his statement which suggest that he realised that he had made a mistake. For the good name of the House and in keeping with our procedures, that is all the more reason why he should atone for his mistake on the Floor of the House. If he were prepared to do that, it would clear the matter and show that he had been exceedingly careless. It would also mean that his remarks would not have great bearing on the inquiry, which must inevitably take place into questions of such dimensions.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Inquiries into aviation accidents could provide a precedent. It is often said that such accidents are caused by height, speed or weather.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member and the House must realise that the points raised, although important, are not matters for the Chair. I remind the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) on the subject of the sub judice rule that the Minister in his statement said that he would appoint one of the Department of Transport's senior inspecting officers of railways to conduct the inquiry. It is not a matter before the courts.
Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the question whether the sub judice rule was breached a matter for you? In the light of our representations and the serious prejudice that may arise, will you consider the matter afresh and find out whether the rule was breached? If it has been breached, it is a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Speaker: It is not before any court. There is to be a departmental inquiry. If the matter was before the courts, that would be a different matter.
Mr. Ryman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, that is not right.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Distinguished lawyer though the hon. Member is, he must not say such things to me.
Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise only because I believe that no proper distinction can be made between a court of law and a tribunal which is appointed with the same functions as a court of law. I therefore believe that the distinction that you drew between the two is one that, on reflection, you would not wish to sustain. If that is so, and if the tribunal is as capable of being prejudiced as a court of law, it is a matter upon which you are duty bound to give a view.
I was in the House yesterday and listened to the exchanges. First, the Minister referred to what appeared to be the cause of the accident. Secondly, he referred to a previous case, as though it were analogous with the present one, on that stretch of line where an accident had occurred because the driver had exceeded the authorised speed limit.
In the light of the Minister's remarks, it is right that, if he has been misunderstood, he should make it plain that he is making no such suggestion or allegation.
Mr. Speaker: I must repeat what I said before. The sub judice resolutions passed on 23 July 1963 provide that matters awaiting or under adjudication in either a civil court or a criminal court should not be referred to. This is a departmental inquiry. The Patronage Secretary is present and he will have heard what has been said about the Minister's statement yesterday.

Local Government (Access to Information)
3.41 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the public's right to attend meetings of committees and sub-committees of local authorities; to establish a public right of access to information held by local authorities including memoranda, reports and research data, and minutes of decisions taken and recommendations made by committees and sub-committees and delegated individuals; to require local authorities to inform the public of their rights; and for related purposes.
Since 1960 it has been the view of the House, and the majority of the people whom we represent, that local and central Government should be carried on in public and not in private. There has been a perpetual battle to ensure that that basic principle of democracy is adhered to once people are elected to office. This afternoon I seek, with the support of the hon. Members for Bootle, (Mr. Roberts) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), on behalf of the three largest political groupings in the House, and the support of right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, to expand much further the right of the public to know what is done in their name by people elected to do jobs for them in town halls.
In 1960, the present Prime Minister introduced and promoted in the House the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Bill. She said:
"publicity stimulates the interests of local persons in local government. This is also very important."—[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1351.]
Later she said:
"It is clear that when the public as of right attend meetings of authorities they may well not understand what is going on unless they are supplied with documents which make clear the subject matter under discussion."—[Official Report, 13 May 1960; Vol. 623, c. 774.]
The Bill was passed in 1960.
In 1972, a further step was taken, opening up even more local government processes to public scrutiny in the practical ways that are important—for example, when someone finds that land opposite where he lives is subject to a planning inquiry or application, or wants to know why the school down the road is being closed, and how the economic arguments led the local authority to make that decision. Hundreds of decisions made day by day and week by week throughout the land were opened up to public scrutiny.
Today, although it is fairly late in the Session, I introduce a Bill, if the House will permit it, in order to take a third step towards opening up local government. We want first to make sure that sub-committees as well as meetings of the full council are open to the public. It is a fact, regretted by many, that since local authorities were obliged to open up their full business to local people or any other interested parties, more and more decisions have been taken in sub-committees or by small groups of delegated councillors behind locked doors. Subcommittees as well as whole committees and the whole council should be open to the public so that they can hear the debate and understand what decisions are taken in their name.
If the public are to participate in that process and influence it, they will also need to be able to see beforehand the documents produced to enable those

811
decisions to be made. As long as members of the public pay a reasonable fee and ask at a reasonable time, they should be able to obtain copies of relevant documents. If a member of the public is not able to attend a meeting, or if he is alerted afterwards to a decision that has been made, he should be able at that stage to obtain the information.
There are occasions when the privacy of the individual or the particular confidentiality of the item under discussion is a good reason for a matter not to be opened there and then to public debate. [Interruption.] We have set out a schedule of very limited exempted categories. We intend that in future the presumption will be that people will be able to attend unless the matter falls into one of the categories in the schedule.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is the answer.
Mr. Hughes: No, it is not the answer. People will not be able to say that something is an exception unless they clearly state, at the meeting or in the documents, why that is so. That decision will be susceptible to challenge in the courts.
A few years ago a change was made so that when one applied for bail and was refused one was told the reason so that one could challenge the decision. That was a useful change in procedure. [Interruption]. There has never been a similar presumption in local government, and we believe that it is time that there was.
The Bill will seek to ensure that local authorities must give the public on demand, to see and take away, a list of all those elected in their name, with their addresses and the places where they can be contacted. More importantly, the Bill will also give people a right to be given a list of their rights to access to information in local government.
Mr. Skinner: And of who finances the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a fair run today. He must not intervene from a sedentary position.
Mr. Hughes: We look forward to the day when the Bolsover council will support the Bill, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage.
The Bill has already been supported by many eminent organisations such as the Town and Country Planning Association, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, the British Safety Council, the Guild of British Newspaper Editors, and the National Housewives Association. It is also supported by local bodies such as the Southwark Chamber of Commerce, the Chiltern Society, the Gateshead law centre, the Ford and Pennywell advice centre in Sunderland, the Hartlepool housing aid unit, Plymouth youth aid, the Anglican diocese of Birmingham and the Bangladeshi women and children's welfare project.
The Bill has already been supported by parish councils throughout the country. They have not just supported the Bill—they have supported it in fulsome words.
When Horton parish council wrote——
Mr. Skinner: Has the right hon. Gentleman just come back from a health farm?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have this argument on the Front Bench below the Gangway when a ten-minute Bill is being moved.
Mr. Hughes: Horton parish council was asked whether it would support the Bill. It replied:
"The feeling at the meeting was so positive that a simple letter saying that we support your effort hardly seems enough but no doubt you will let us know if there is any more that we can do."
Wadebridge town council said:
"Thank you for your letter, this was put on the agenda for the June meeting and after a full discussion the Town Council agreed fully to support this project."
Parish councils have been among those who are leading the way, telling the House that the Bill must be passed speedily into law. District and county councils of all political colours have begun to enact the Bill's provisions because of the pressure that it has brought to bear. I pay special tribute to Bradford, which has taken the lead and incorporated the Bill in its standing orders. The London boroughs of Hackney, Lewisham and Islington, the city councils of Bristol and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the county councils of Tyne and Wear, West Yorkshire and Derbyshire, Yeovil, Northampton and Harlow district councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have said that they support the Bill and hope that it becomes law soon.
We want the Bill because there are some amazing examples of local authorities not understanding in whose name they do their job. When asked whether it would support the Bill, Sefton replied:
"I regret that severe restrictions on our staff do not now permit us to respond to questionnaires of this nature."
The Isle of Anglesey borough council, when asked what issues it did not allow to be disclosed, gave the simple answer, "Controversial issues." Northavon district council said that it would refuse to produce the documents because
"Should you require any such details relating to Northavon District Council I would certainly want to know a little more about your Company and the people who have expressed such concern".
Many people do not yet understand the meaning of access to information. The Community Rights Project has brought the Bill to the House as part of the 1984 freedom of information campaign. I hope that Ministers who have supported freedom of information for the past 24 years will support the Bill and ensure that, by the end of the year, town hall discussions are open to the public—just as they were intended to be.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Ken Weetch, Sir Bernard Braine and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.

Local Government (Access to Information)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)
  Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to extend the public's right to attend meetings of committees and sub-committees of local authorities; to establish a public right of access to information held by local authorities including memoranda, reports and research data, and minutes of decisions taken and recommendations made by committees and sub-committees and delegated individuals; to require local authorities to inform the public of their rights; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
Orders of the Day
  Rates Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Rates Bill
    Clause 1

      POWER TO PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM RATES AND PRECEPTS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, page 2, line 10, after first "to" insert "(a)"
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said' amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 16 and 18 to 21. I inform the House that Lords Amendment No. 1 involves privilege.
      Sir George Young: We are considering two groups of amendments here. The purpose of the two amendments to clause 1 is to regularise the position of London boroughs as regards the levy to be imposed under that Bill by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. London Regional Transport is to be funded partly by Exchequer grant and partly by a levy issued to all the rating authorities in London—all the London boroughs. It would not be right to expect the LRT levy to be funded from within a rate-limited authority's expenditure level or rate limit, and these amendments to clause 1 will allow that levy to be excluded from any maximum. This is the same arrangement that we agreed for the precepts of the major precepting authorities and the Receiver of the Metropolitan police.
      The other amendments, all of which are to schedule 1, are consequential upon the setting up of London Regional Transport in place of the London Transport Executive.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The Opposition would like all authorities to be excluded from rate capping. However, I do not argue against the amendment but merely comment upon it, because in many ways it adds insult to injury.
      Democratically elected and accountable bodies in London are to be rate capped. I shall stick to the London example because the amendment specifically relates to London Regional Transport. A whole range of its services will have to be met from within the limits of its rate-capped income, yet the Government are making an exception for London Regional Transport and the Metropolitan police. In effect, those two authorities, which are neither directly elected nor directly publicly accountable, will be given some form of exemption. That is like rubbing salt into the wounds.
      The setting up of London Regional Transport and the removal of responsibility for London Transport from the GLC have nothing to do with the efficient organisation of transport needs in London, but has all to do with making the Government's already thin case for the abolition of the GLC a little stronger. Therefore, transport is to be taken away from the GLC.
      The Secretary of State for Transport will be responsible for the tranport needs of Londoners. I have great fears for London's transport system if it falls into the tender mercies
      814
      and cavalier hands of the right hon. Gentleman. He will no doubt try to flog it off. Perhaps he will be more successful than his attempt to flog off Sealink.
      The GLC—a democratically elected authority—is to be penalised by having London Transport taken away from it, and the Minister will allow the rate-capped authorities to fund their side of London Regional Transport without incurring penalties. What about all the other services that are of equal importance to the boroughs? No exception will be made for them.
      The exemptions from rate capping, including London Regional Transport and the Metropolitan police, are part of the Government's approach to local authorities. Underlying it all is the Prime Minister's paranoia about the GLC and Labour-controlled local authorities. It seems that if local authorities get in the way of the Prime Minister their powers are taken away. In essence, that is what the Bill is all about.
      Alternatively, selective hit lists are drawn up to get at Labour-controlled local authorities. That is the selective vindictiveness under which I am to be dragged in front of the Committee of Privileges. The Government are quite capable of—and perfectly willing to do it—drawing up a selective hit list when it suits their own purpose; then if the local authorities still get in their way they decide to abolish them.
      This is a crazy way to approach the strategy for local government. It is an appalling attitude, given the way in which the Government seem to have made art absolute virtue out of their total hypocrisy and cant.
      Another strand in the strategy is even more worrying. How much does the Secretary of State know about this morning's incident, when Mr. Bill Bush, the head of Ken Livingstone's private office, was arrested on Waterloo bridge and accused of handling a leaked Cabinet document? It had the Secretary of State for the Environment's signature on it when it was shown to him in Rochester row. How much does the Secretary of State know about the arrest of the head of Ken Livingstone's private office? Is this all part of the hotting up of a campaign of paranoia, hatred and victimisation against the Greater London council?
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The hon. Gentleman asks how much I knew about the arrest of Ken Bush. The answer is, absolutely nothing.
      4 pm
      Mr. Banks: As a matter of fact, it was Bill Bush. I shall accept from the Secretary of State that he knew nothing about this case, but I cannot believe that none of the Ministers who are now sitting on the Front Bench were entirely in ignorance of that incident this morning. It just shows that we have reached the point where local authorities can be harassed by the Government in legal terms, and, when that clearly fails to gain electoral support, no doubt the instructions will go out to the police to start harassing GLC staff. There will be other quest ions asked of other Ministers to see whether they were involved in that incident.
      This amendment adds insult to injury. London transport is to be taken away from a democratically elected GLC and given to an unelected, unaccountable quango. The Secretary of State for Transport will then be able to decide whether he will install certain services or cut them, and

      815
      what fares will go up. The Government are giving themselves an exemption while attacking all others. This is one more example of the selective vindictiveness that comes from the Tory party.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on one point. For the first time in many years, perhaps ever, the running and responsibility for a local service, in this case London transport, is being taken by the Department of Transport and there is no other body than the London Passenger Transport Committee available for consultation, except the quangos set up in the Bill. If the money is to come from the boroughs—I understand the Minister's exemption, which is both welcome and unwelcome for the reasons that my hon. Friend has mentioned—that means that there will be taxation without representation, other than by Members of Parliament. In other words, the Secretary of State for Transport of the day will be responsible to the users of the service either through consultative committees or through hon. Members. I put that point on record because it is one of constitutional accountability. If and when there are arguments as to the terms of reference for questions or anything of that sort, the fact that there is taxation with representation only through hon. Members should be borne in mind.
      Mr. Jack Straw: I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on the amendment. Within the scheme of a thoroughly objectionable and undemocratic Bill, it is necessary to excuse from the criteria for rate capping those parts of a district's rate bill that are nothing to do with that district. That would include the Metropolitan police and London Transport.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West was right to draw attention to the double standards that the Government will now operate, and one such case that the Under-Secretary has not mentioned. The Metropolitan police are subject to no serious control over their activities. It is well known that their costs have risen far faster over the past five years than even those of the county police authorities, yet their efficiency is the lowest of any police force, even allowing for special circumstances.
      London Regional Transport hovers like a terrible spectre over the future of London's public transport system. If previous experience of transferring services from democratic authorities to controlled Government boards is anything to go by—the experience of Conservative Administrations with water authorities and ambulance services—Londoners can look forward to higher charges and a much worse service.
      I rarely accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West of understating his case or not going far enough. However, he said that there was a thin case for abolition of the GLC. I know that he was using a piece of litotes to emphasise his point, but there is no case for the abolition of the GLC and no case for removing the control of London Transport from the GLC.
      I travel on the London transportation system—an experience that many hon. Members enjoy, but one that is alien to the Secretary of State for Transport, who neither cares nor knows anything about the London transport
      816
      system. One of the great things about London Transport is that one can read the posters while waiting for a tube—one has to wait a much shorter time than one used to. The posters show the good news that there are improvements in services. It is possible to get a number 3 or a number 195 bus without waiting an inordinate length of time.
      These are real and tangible improvements which have been made for Londoners who voted for them, but which will be taken from them by an authoritarian Government who hate the fact that London voted for an authority of a different political complexion from themselves. They cannot cope with that fact. They therefore wish to remove from its control the running of London transport and many other services and to abolish it. Not only did the people in London in 1981 elect to control the GLC a party of a different political complexion from the Government, but if elections were held in 1985 those people would, as the Secretary of State knows only too well, overwhelmingly re-elect a Labour-controlled GLC. The metropolitan county councils would be similarly re-elected.
      We have been lectured this afternoon about the rules of sub judice. Apparently, they permit Ministers to pre-judge with impunity the outcome of railway accident inquiries. However, it would be neither right nor proper for me to pre-judge the outcome of the case of Mr. Bill Bush, who was arrested this morning but has now been released. However, there is a connection between that case and the authoritarian way in which the Government have removed the powers of democratic control over London Transport and have then sought to abolish councils and elections because they disagree with those councils.
      In today's climate it is possible for members of the special branch to detain someone who works for an opposition party and to interview him over a leaked document that is related not to national security but only to the Government's embarrassment. Before Thatcherism and its authoritarian tendencies became rampant, there would not have been a climate in which the police could even have considered using their power to arrest and detain someone who worked for an opposition leader of a London council. What a hue and cry there would have been 10 years ago if somebody from Central Office had handled a leaked document—many leaks were being handled then—and had been arrested on Westminster bridge. This is not somebody who would have signed the Official Secrets Act. The hue and cry would have been enormous then, but now the climate is such that this is apparently likely to become commonplace.
      I hope that, with the leave of the House, the Under-Secretary will seek to reply to the debate and will deal with the double standards that the Government are establishing. Under those double standards crucial services that could have been run by the district authorities are to be screwed down by the legislation. As we know from the experience of the water authorities and the Metropolitan police, there will not be proper accountability or democratic control over these new quangos and Londoners can look forward only to higher charges and a worse service.
      Sir George Young: The debate has verged on a Second Reading debate on the London Regional Transport Bill. I shall try to reply to some of the arguments.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) exhibited almost terminal paranoia. He produced not a shred of evidence for his wide-ranging accusations about Ministers and others. He should use with care the

      817
      words "selective vindictiveness" of which he accused Ministers in connection with the case that has gone to the Committee of Privileges. I regret that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) associated himself with the innuendo in which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West indulged.s
      There is no disagreement about the principle. The object of the Bill is to curb local authority expenditure, so it makes no sense to include the LRT levy within the rate-capped expenditure of local authorities. Opposition Members were misleading in what they said about accountability. The LRT levies will be decided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport who will be accountable to the House for his decisions. He will have to place the levy before the House in an affirmative order. He will want to ensure that LRT is run as economically as possible. No further powers will be needed to achieve that end.
      It would be unacceptable if LRT were subject to rate limitation. That would amount to one Secretary of State capping another. That would be foolish and unnecessary, although perhaps somewhat amusing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will strive to ensure that London Transport is run efficiently and effectively. I reject what the hon. Member for Blackburn said about the future of London transport when it comes under the LRT. I am confident that under the new administration Londoners will enjoy an efficient and effective transport service. I ask the House to accept the Lords amendment.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 2

      DESIGNATION OF AUTHORITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 37, leave out from beginning to "subject" in line 39 and insert—
      "(3) If the total of relevant expenditure as estimated for the purposes of the Rate Support Grant Report for any financial year (other than the first) in which this section is in force is greater or smaller than the total of relevant expenditure as estimated for the purposes of the Rate Support Grant Report for the previous financial year, the Secretary of State shall by order substitute for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (2)(a) above (whether £10 million or an amount previously substituted under this subsection) an amount which is proportionately greater or smaller except that any substituted amount may be rounded to the nearest £100,000.
      (3A) The power to make an order under subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument"
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 14.
      Mr. Jenkin: The first of these amendments provides for the £10 million cut-off level, below which small local authorities will be excluded from selective rate limitation, to be uprated annually. The other amendment is consequential.
      These are short amendments but they are important. They were made in response to proposals from Lord Sandford and they have been warmly welcomed by the Association of District Councils of which he has the honour to be president. In the amendments we are making it clear that, whilst we are intent on achieving savings from
      818
      excessively overspending councils, we do not want to apply rate limitation to the large number of small authorities whose total expenditure is a small proportion of local government spending. We particularly wished to avoid tying up scarce resources by rate capping a large number of small authorities. That was the purpose of the £10 million cut-off provided in the Bill as it was first brought before this House. Now we are providing that after the first year of operation when the limit will be £10 million the limit will be adjusted annually in proportion to the increase or decrease in the total of relevant expenditure as detailed in successive rate support grant reports. The increase or decrease will be rounded to the nearest £100,000. We do not want to become involved in an unrealistic degree of precision. Our purpose is to maintain the present value of the £10 million exemption.
      We estimate that in 1985–86 about 277 authorities will be exempt from any risk of selective rate capping under the clause. The majority of such authorities will continue to be excluded from selective rate limitation thereafter. That means that we can concentrate on the larger authorities which are seriously overspending by significant sums in the aggregate.
      Dr. John Cunningham: The irony about the amendment and the original provision is that the size of an authority bears no relation to the Bill. Small authorities do not necessarily charge lower rates. Many small authorities are responsible for some of the largest increases in rates that have taken place in the past three or four years. The claim that the Bill is about protecting people from rate increases is neatly turned on its head by this part of the measure. We are not against the amendment, but it demonstrates that the Bill is not about protecting people from increases in the rates. It is about something entirely different. It is about giving the Secretary of State powers to control authorities which he chooses to control for entirely different reasons.
      If the Secretary of State wanted to give real force to his commitment to exclude some authorities absolutely he would abandon the general power in the Bill. It is significant that he and his colleagues in another place steadfastly refuse to do that because they know that in the end, if significant savings in expenditure are to result from the Bill, almost certainly such general powers will have to be used. We shall not oppose the amendment, although it highlights the inconsistencies in the Government's approach to the issue.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. John Cartwright: I support the view expressed by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The amendment is logical in that it continues the Bill's approach. Ministers say that ratepayers welcome the Bill's proposals. That claim is made frequently on behalf of the Government and there is probably some justice in it. Ministers argue that help is at hand for ratepayers who experience constant difficulty through oppressive councils deliberately forcing up rates. The Government, like the United States' Fifth Cavalry, are galloping to the rescue of hard-pressed ratepayers living in areas where the local authority spends large sums. People who live in areas where the authority spends less than £10 million will not receive Government help through the legislation. Some ratepayers in smaller areas may feel let down when they find that the help that they thought they might get is not forthcoming.
      Mr. Peter Pike: I do not oppose the amendment, but it is illogical and goes against the principle of the Bill as expressed by the Government. Burnley will welcome the amendment because its budget is below £10 million. If the Government operated on the basis of grant-related expenditure being the target, Burnley would be 56 per cent. over that target. It seems illogical that a small authority with a budget below that level should be exempt. I want Burnley to be exempt, but is seems a wrong move from the Government's point of view.
      Mr. Straw: I am pleased that Burnley will be exempt. Blackburn featured in at least one of the exemplifications for rate capping under one of the measures. I should feel aggrieved, when its expenditure over grant-related expenditure is about half that of Burnley, if it became a candidate simply because it had gone over a capricious and arbitrary limit.
      Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is correct. Because the budget of an authority such as Blackburn happens to be higher, it is illogical—whether the cash target figure or GRE is used—that size should be the determining factor. Burnley and Blackburn are two good examples. They are in close proximity. Burnley spends well over the target on one basis but only marginally over it on the other basis.
      The only reason why the Government support this amendment is to appease a large number of authorities that happen to be Conservative-dominated. Obviously I shall support it on behalf of my local authority, but it is illogical for the Government to support it.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) spoke I wondered whether the present leader of his local authority would have been pleased to hear him apparently arguing that his authority should be capped and not come within the exemption. I understand that the hon. Gentleman had the honour to lead his authority. However, he redeemed himself at the end of his speech and said that he would support the amendment.
      The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said that ratepayers in the small authorities would feel let down because their authorities would not be capped. The ratepayers of Greenwich would feel considerably let down if they heard their Member of Parliament—and not a Labour Member—say that he disagreed with the current spending of Greenwich, but was not prepared to concede that Greenwich was spending too much.
      Mr. Cartwright: The Secretary of State constantly makes that point. It is the one thing that has stuck in his brain since the Committee stage. If he is surprised at my reaction, rather than simply visiting Liverpool and expressing surprise at the conditions he finds there, he should come to Woolwich and see the problems that face my constituents. He might then understand why I want to see more money spent in the right direction.
      Mr. Jenkin: I recently paid a visit to Greenwich when I visited the Thamesmead estate.
      The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that there was an illogicality in the exemption of a large number of very small authorities. That is not the case, and I firmly refute it. It is the operation of the well-known principle of de minimis. The hon. Gentleman should bear
      820
      in mind that the proportion of the total rate burden that any ratepayer must pay attributable to the district rate—if he is living in a shire district, and therefore bears his share of the county precept and the district rate—may be very small indeed, between 15 per cent. and 17 per cent., less than one fifth. In many cases, it may be a great deal smaller than that. Therefore, even if the district rate rose more than proportionately, the burden on the ratepayer proportionate to his total burden would be very small indeed.
      Dr. Cunningham: Is not what the right hon. Gentleman said yet another illogicality? When we discussed these matters in Committee, he said that the increase in rates would be one of the criteria that he might use for the designation of an authority. He is now saying that small authorities can increase their rates by as much as they like and are absolutely free from all possibility of being designated.
      Mr. Jenkin: Let us take the example of Basildon, which has increased its spending mightily, is now 68 per cent. over GRE, and spending above £10 million. It has taken itself out of the exemption. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point is not a good one.
      On the question of abandoning the general power, we shall come to the clauses dealing with that later. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the amendment that will exclude a large number of responsible, low-spending authorities from the operation of the general power. That is consistent with the principles that I have outlined.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lord's amendment, No. 4, in page 3, line 2, leave out
      "for all authorities falling within that class"
      and insert
      "either for all authorities falling within that class or for all of them which respectively have and have not been designated under this section in the previous financial year."
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
      Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments is a little more complex than those that we have been discussing so far. I hope that the House will forgive me if I explain their purpose in some detail.
      The main purpose of the amendments is to allow separate criteria to be applied to the selection of authorities for rate limitation if those authorities have already been selected for limitation in the prevous year. The need for the amendments arises from the way in which we have said we wish to make selections for rate limitation.
      We have always argued that the purpose of the scheme will be to identify those high-spending authorities that have not responded to the calls for restraint in spending. Therefore, we propose to look at authorities' expenditure in relation to their grant-related expenditure assessment as the best available basis for assessing expenditure which is excessive compared with similar authorities.
      We will look for some measure of how authorities are responding to the need for economies. In the first year at least, as I have indicated, we expect to have regard to performance against expenditure targets. I am not yet in a position to say precisely how we shall set out the criteria, but during the earlier stages of the Bill in this House I gave some illustrative examples of selection criteria. Those

      821
      hon. Members who served in Committee felt that it was a helpful explanation of how the selection process might work.
      One of those criteria would have selected authorities spending more than 20 per cent. over GRE and more than 2 per cent. over their targets. For the purposes of explaining the amendment, I shall refer to that example. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that that carries no implication as to what might be the actual test that I shall announce to the House in a few weeks.
      The problem that the amendment addresses is that in the second year of the selective limitation scheme authorities that were selected and limited in the first year would have had their expenditure limited by their rate or precept limit. In general, I would expect those authorities to be constrained to spend at or very close to their expenditure targets. So, if it was desired to use the same selection criteria in year two as in the first year, many of the authorities previously selected might automatically escape selection because it appeared they had met the criteria of having shown restraint in their spending. I am sure the House recognises that that would be contrary to common sense.
      Such authorities, having been selected in the first year, may well be spending excessively by any reasonable test—certainly spending high compared with other comparable authorities, and if using the GRE test. They would be capable of making substantial further economies. It is well known to the House that when an expenditure limit is set under the Bill it forms an absolute limit and must be attainable. As we argued in Committee, it must be reasonable and the reasonableness must be justiciable. That is the most that can be expected in one year. However, such authorities may be capable in time of making substantial further economies.
      As I say, the expenditure target is for only one year, and since performance in relation to target results directly from the rate limit and not from any change of heart it would not necessarily reflect any credit on the authority and it would say nothing about its attitude to spending in the future, so that there might be no sensible ground for refusing to select the authority in year two in those circumstances. That makes it necessary for the Government to have power—as we have already for different classes of authority—to use separate principles for authorities depending on whether or not they have previously been selected.
      4.30 pm
      I anticipate that the criticism of the amendment will be to the effect that, as a result of it, it might be possible to continue selecting authorities indefinitely, even if there were no longer any reason to do so, comparing their spending with that of other comparable local authorities. I assure the House that that would not be our approach. We shall want to free authorities from rate limitation as soon as it becomes sensible to do so.
      One way in which we might reach such a view would be if the authority concerned, perhaps as a result of rate capping over a period of two or three years, established a spending level which no longer placed it among the high spenders. In those circumstances, it would be highly desirable that the powers of this measure should no longer be applied to it.
      One would, of course, see whether there was any tendency to reverse that process. Clearly, one would need
      822
      to look at the general pattern of the spending of that authority. It might mean establishing criteria for selection which required previously selected authorities, for instance, to have reduced their rates to levels more typical of other authorities in their class, or to have made specified reductions in manpower which would be evidence of fairly long-term expenditure reductions.
      The effect of rate limits on authorities would be to compel them to spend at or about the expenditure levels set for them. We would not want to give authorities credit for that if they were doing it, as it were, under compulsion. If they were able to go further and realise the savings more quickly, obviously that would be valid evidence of a change of attitude.
      Taking the example I used earlier, if authorities generally were to be selected for exceeding their target by 2 per cent. or more and expenditure levels were, generally, to take selected authorities, below that 2 per cent. figure, it might be appropriate to set as the alternative criterion for those authorities that they should not have exceeded their target.
      It is impossible at this stage to be absolutely clear about how the power will be used. We do not know how events will develop in the first year. One point we have in mind is that it may be possible for authorities to use accounting devices—creative accounting, as the jargon has it—to make short-term apparent improvements in their expenditure performance. Obviously, we should want to be sure that any alternative criteria did not give scope for manipulations of that sort. Evidence of more than one year's spending might be required. I can be absolutely firm in saying—I give the House this clear assurance—that we do not wish to keep authorities in rate limitation for one year longer than necessary.
      The origin of amendments Nos. 5 and 6 is obviously similar to that of amendment No. 4. Nos. 5 and 6 recognise that if an authority has been selected for rate limitation, then for the purposes of further rate limitation action it is effectively in a different class from an authority which has not hitherto been selected. In this case we are concerned that authorities selected for rate limitation in more than one year shall enter the latter year having made some economies in the past. They might find it more difficult to make further economies in the future, certainly more so than authorities selected in, say, year two for rate limitation for the first time. That search for economies may become more difficult, perhaps not immediately but later.
      It would, of course, have been open to us to rely on the re-determination procedures—that is, where a council may apply for a derogation—but I understand from an interview that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) recently gave to the Municipal Journal that the Labour party view is that local authorities should not apply for derogations. That is their choice. In this case, it seems to us that it is right to give ourselves power to impose a less stringent limit on authorities which have already been capped because, as I said, they may not be able to make the size of economies as those authorities that are to be capped for the first time.
      We looked carefully at whether this added complication could be avoided, in which case this series of amendments would not have been necessary. However, we came to the conclusion that there was here a genuine area of difficulty, and it was felt that both for the purposes of selection—to make sure that they would still be selected,

      823
      notwithstanding that they had made savings—and so that the rate limit could be made less stringent than those being selected for the first time, because we should not be unfair to authorities selected for a second or subsequent time, it was necessary to have these powers.
      Dr. John Cunningham: This is a disturbing group of amendments. The Secretary of State is further widening his powers of control over democratically elected local authorities. Not content with the wide and free-ranging powers that he has already given himself in exercising his judgment on the criteria that he will apply, he is now extending his freedom even further.
      Contrary to what was said in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking powers to apply different criteria, even within the same class of authority, to suit his own purposes. That is disturbing because he is now giving himself the refined power and duty to make specific judgments almost about individual councils, even within the class of authority to which they belong.
      We have said from the outset that the Bill's powers are dangerously anti-democratic because they allow the Secretary of State in Whitehall to override the judgment of local electors and to make decisions in an arbitrary way. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman said in putting forward the amendment confirms us in that belief. When will the House be told what principles he will apply so that we may discuss these issues properly? So far the right hon. Gentleman has given himself absolute discretion and latitude, and we realise that that is likely to remain the case. I trust that announcements of this kind will be made when the House is sitting and not when Parliament is in recess. I think I see the right hon. Gentleman assenting to that request. If so, I hope that he will not leave it to the last day of the Session, because a number of serious questions arise.
      When we raised this matter in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who is not at present in his place—I make no point in saying that; I mention it simply for the record—said:
      "It is conceivable—though rather unlikely—that the principles could differ between classes of authority".—[Official Report, 9 February 1984, Standing Committee G; c. 270.]
      When we pressed the issue on a number of other occasions in Committee, that or similar responses were obtained from Ministers.
      The Secretary of State has had second thoughts and he wants the power to continue to designate an authority year after year, to tailor the criteria to suit his purposes and to change them year after year. When an elected coucil meets the first set of criteria that the Secretary of State applies, and even if it does what he requires it to do, he can pose new requirements and change the criteria to suit his purposes. He is seeking the power to require the authority to do something more. This is the antithesis of democracy. This is Big Brother in action. The right hon. Gentleman is requiring that year after year, regardless of what local electors have said or what they have voted for, he shall be able to determine what the council does.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if we sought to take powers which would make lawful whatever expenditure reduction a Secretary of State decided, however unreasonable. We
      824
      have not taken that view. We have decided that we must ask authorities, which by definition are spending excessively having regard to the Government's economic objectives, to make such savings in any year as are reasonable and obtainable. The expenditure of some authorities is so excessive that it will take them several years to reach a level of spending which will not conflict with the purposes of the Bill. In those circumstances, it is entirely reasonable to make provisions to enable an authority to handle the matter sensibly over a period of years.
      Dr. Cunningham: This is 1984 and this is doublespeak. It is astonishing. The right hon. Gentleman is safeguarding himself from challenges in the courts. He is introducing a safeguard to prevent local authorities from taking him to court on the basis that what he is asking them to do would undermine their statutory obligations to their electors——
      Mr. John Powley: That is nonsense.
      Dr. Cunningham: If the hon. Gentleman takes that view, having been a member of the Committee which debated the issue at great length, it is clear that he was not listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State is introducing amendments that will enable him to keep control of an authority for so long as he shall determine. He will be the judge and the jury. This is a device to enforce regular cuts year on year on individual authorities until he has decided—not the electors and not Parliament—that he is satisfied with what has been done to the level of services and employment in the individual local authority as well as with the reduction in expenditure that has been achieved.
      When the Bill left this place it provided that an authority could be designated for rate limitation only in accordance with certain principles. It stated that the aim of such principles would be to establish that an authority's spending was excessive having regard to general economic conditions. Different principles could be applied to different classes of authority. For example, the metropolitan county authorities could be judged to be overspending by criteria different from those applied to non-metropolitan county authorities. As I have said, the Secretary of State has wide-ranging power and latitude.
      4.45 pm
      The effect of Lords amendment No. 4 is to permit at least 16 different sets of principles to be used. There will be one set for previously designated metropolitan authorities and another set for non-designated metropolitan authorities. There will be two sets of principles for each of six classes of authority plus a set for each of four authorities that are not in a class, which are the GLC, ILEA, the City of London and the Isles of Scilly.
      There is a massive panoply of restrictive measures at the disposal of the Secretary of State. The amendment is far from being the innocuous measure that the right hon. Gentleman suggested because it will greatly increase his flexibility and his room for manoeuvre in designating authorities, taking control of their budgets and overriding the local electors' wishes. Furthermore, the parliamentary safeguards at the designation stage of the process are minimal. Parliament is not required to approve the principles that are used to designate authorities, and

      825
      nothing could be clearer than that. The Secretary of State is giving himself wide-ranging, punitive and authoritarian powers that are beyond the control of the House of Commons. That is the reality of what is taking place.
      Lords amendment No. 6 increases the number of principles that may be used to determine an expenditure limit for an authority in the same way as Lords amendment No. 4 increases the number of designation principles. The Secretary of State argues that he intends to use the provision benignly. There is nothing benign about any aspect of the Bill. The Bill is malevolent, the opposite of benign. It is draconian and authoritarian. It is centralist in conception and anti local electors' views and wishes. To describe any part of it as benign is deliberately to seek to disguise the Government's intent and purpose. I shall be asking the House to resist the amendments. They are yet one further step along a reactionary road.
      The Secretary of State smiles, but he knows in his heart of hearts that his Department, however distinguished his officials are, is not equipped to make the judgments that should be made in the towns, cities and boroughs of England and Wales. His officials have proved that over and over again in existing legislation, let alone in what is proposed in the amendments. The Government's approach is arbitrary. The ease with which entirely different lists can be constructed is frightening. That is borne out by the leaks over recent weeks on the information that the Secretary of State has already been considering. The leaks concerning Portsmouth city council emerged during the recent by-election.
      I very much regret that my friend, Bill Bush, was arrested on Westminster bridge. Why do the Government not pick on someone their own size? Why do they not pick on me? I have received plenty of leaks from the right hon. Gentleman's Department and elsewhere. They pick on defenceless people like Bill Bush and Sarah Tisdall and bring down all the draconian might of the establishment to intimidate these people. What better argument could we have for the need for a freedom of information Act than the abuse of power which has been demonstrated again today?
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The previous Labour Government did not introduce a freedom of information Bill.
      Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman had better keep quiet because it was his distinguished father who made a definitive speech about elective dictatorships and the threat that they pose. I should advise the hon. Gentleman to have nothing to do with the Bill.
      It is clear from the evidence presented in the past few days by the Secretary of State in answer to a parliamentary question that some authorities have increased expenditure but reduced rates while others have increased rates but reduced expenditure. Those effects are most often the result of the iniquities of the block grant target and penalty system rather than any objective measure of the efficiency or otherwise of the authorities involved, Labour or Conservative. That position applies right across the board to all those authorities, including those arbitrarily excluded from the impact of the legislation by the £10 million limit.
      Today the Secretary of State said, "If you as local authorities do what we tell you, you will be free at some point." He did not, however, say when. What price local
      826
      democracy? What will be the purpose of holding local council elections in the middle of a period of several years when an authority is controlled from Marsham tower? What will be the purpose of people voting in those circumstances? What is the worth of the assurance of the Secretary of State that he will not want to use those powers for one moment longer than necessary? That was an absolutely worthless comment that would have been better left unsaid.
      We have always argued that the Secretary of State was providing himself with the absolute freedom to pick upon and fit up any council in any part of the country which suited his political purposes. That is the nature of these powers. That is the origin of the Bill. The amendments propose to take that position one stage further along an authoritarian road. The amendments stink, and we shall oppose them.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I rise briefly to express my strong disagreement with the Lords amendment. I shall gladly go through the Lobby in support of the amendment of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
      Those of us who sat through the long watches of the night on the Standing Committee will recall that we had many discussions about the way in which the Secretary of State would select authorities for designation. Some of us pointed clearly to the danger that he would exercise his power to catch those authorities that he wished to catch. We pointed clearly to the danger of the actions on which he was embarking.
      The right hon. Gentleman subsequently provided us with a graphic confirmation of precisely what we warned of in the exchange of words and letters between himself and Opposition Members on the subject of Portsmouth. The right hon. Gentleman revealed in that exchange that his Department was considering a number of lists of potential authorities and that effectively the Department was juggling those authorities to see which would be caught under particular criteria. There was one saving grace in the arguments that the Secretary of State was advancing during our discussions in Standing Committee on that precise point—whatever principles were eventually determined within one class of authority, those principles would stand for all authorities within that class. That was a point that the right hon. Gentleman could not breach.
      The Secretary of State has moved that we should agree with an amendment—I suspect that it was inspired by himself—which was passed by the other place and seeks to take away that safeguard. Frankly, the Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. Either an authority within a particular class is overspending according to a set of principles clearly laid down and accepted by Parliament or it is not. The fact that in the previous year the authority was designated and had orders placed upon it by the Secretary of State should make no difference to the decision on whether it is an overspender in the present year. Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman's argument does not hold water.
      The Secretary of State has now revealed the fact that not only will he select in a politically motivated way classes of authority and criteria to fit particular classes but he will operate this legislation in a particularly motivated way within a particular class. Nothing could be clearer than the amendments drafted by the other place and which

      827
      the right hon. Gentleman is now supporting. The amendments must be resisted, and I shall take great pleasure in doing so.
      Mr. Cartwright: Like the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I thought that in all conscience this clause was bad enough when it left the House. Inevitably, the idea that authorities would be selected for rate capping on the basis of different sets of principles for different classes of authority—metropolitan areas would be judged differently from non-metropolitan areas and counties would be judged differently from districts—raised the suspicion, which I am sure the Secretary of State must understand, that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to juggle the net to ensnare those authorities that were within his sights from the word go. As the hon. Member for Copeland said, the juggling went slightly wrong in the case of Portsmouth. No doubt that is one argument for making the criteria a good deal tougher and more selective.
      The amendments substantially increase the number of different criteria that can be used. They make the mesh of the net a good deal finer, enabling the Secretary of State to be even more flexible in his approach to the problem. I and other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate find that an unappealing prospect.
      The other problem arising from the impact of the measures is one to which the Secretary of State has, in a sense, drawn our attention. It concerns the ability that the Bill provides the Secretary of State to lay down over a period a regime for a rate-capped authority. This means not just that an authority will be rate capped for one year but that it can look forward—if "look forward" is the correct phrase—to year after year of rate capping when the Secretary of State can move the finishing post each time. As the authority, panting down the home stretch, finally achieves the cuts demanded of it in year one, its hand goes out for the finishing tape only to discover that for year two the tape goes a bit further on, and the authority must start the whole race over again for year two. When the authority finally achieves that cut, weary and exhausted, with the few services it has remaining in year two, away goes the finishing post for year three. That is an appalling prospect to lay out for local authorities.
      I strongly agree with the comment made by the hon. Member for Copeland. In such a case, how can we honestly go on talking about local government? The word "government" implies that someone is in charge at the local level making judgments about the quality of services needed, the spending of resources and the level of taxation. In a rate-capped authority all those decisions will have been taken away for not just one year—that was bad enough—but for a period of years.
      The Secretary of State appalled me with his suggestion—in an almost throwaway remark—that one should be fairer to those authorities being capped for the second or third year than to those being capped for the first year. I thought that the purpose of rate capping was to ensure that an example was made of a limited number of authorities so that other authorities would see the error of their ways and not go down the same road. This afternoon, the Secretary of State appeared to suggest that, even when some authorities were in their second or third year of rate capping, others might be coming into their first year. That
      828
      is an unpleasant scenario against the background of the limited operation which at the beginning we were told was the approach.
      It is important to remember that Parliament will not be required to approve the principles used to designate authorities. It will simply be told about them as a matter of courtesy. Parliamentary approval will not be required until the very end of the whole rate-capping operation. Against the background of the increased powers given to the Secretary of State by the amendments, I find that a thoroughly unappealing prospect and I certainly cannot support it.
      5 pm
      Like so many other elements in the Bill and so much of the legislation of the past few years, the amendments constitute enabling legislation to give the Secretary of State for the Environment more and more freedom to do whatever he wishes in relation to what used to be freely elected local authorities. That is not what the House should be about, and I shall certainly oppose the amendments.
      Mr. Tony Banks: The amendments show what a mess the Government have got into with their rate-capping policy, which itself is an inadequate substitute for the Government's failure to honour their 1979 manifesto pledge to do something about rates. Once again, the Secretary of State is giving himself the kind of powers that previous Secretaries of State only dreamed of. He is producing sets of rules that we cannot know of at this stage. We shall be told in due course what the selection process will be. I am not even confident that the same Secretary of State will be telling us about it. In view of all the mess, I suspect that the Prime Minister will take an early opportunity to award the right hon. Gentleman the Conservative party equivalent of the second ball-bearing plant at Omsk, whatever that may be in the right hon. Lady's mind—perhaps the chairmanship of the Conservative party—so I doubt whether the same right hon. Gentleman will be coming to the Dispatch Box to tell us about the secret selection process.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, when the Bill left the House of Commons an authority could be designated for selective rate limitation only in accordance with "principles" aimed at establishing that the authority's spending was
      "excessive having regard to general economic conditions."
      Two points arise out of that. First, the Secretary of State talks about the Government's overall economic objectives, but I have no doubt that if he were ever Chancellor even greater chaos would be visited on our national finances, if his record in local government is anything to go by. In any case, the Government's general economic objectives do not bear close examination. We were told earlier that one reason for the Bill was the overspending by certain authorities, and that the case for abolition of some authorities was made out because their overspending was imperilling the Government's economic strategy. Many of us do not believe that the Government have an economic strategy, but I shall let that pass. I believe that the overspend involved for 1983–84 was about £771 million. Meanwhile, the all-party Select Committee on Defence estimates that the cost of Trident has risen by £700 million. Apparently, £700 million extra on Trident can be absorbed without imperilling the Government's economic strategy but a similar amount of extra spending on local services

      829
      somehow puts the whole economic strategy at risk. The economic argument does not bear examination. It is just another miserable excuse.
      Secondly, the definition of excessive spending is in no way objectively based. The definition of expenditure on which the Secretary of State's selection of criteria will depend can itself be varied by the Secretary of State. Moreover, the criteria for what the spending ought to be will also be chosen by the Secretary of State. In other words, the Secretary of State cannot lose. As the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said, the Secretary of State can simply keep on varying the criteria so that no authority can know with any certainty what its position will be a year later. As the Secretary of State is pressed by the Cabinet to reduce spending even further, he will simply alter the criteria so that no councillor or local authority treasurer will ever know what is going on.
      The process is not just fundamentally inequitable and arbitrary. Worse still, the appearance of objectivity is given to a process which in practice will depend on one holder of public office, the Secretary of State, who will ensure that no Labour local authority can win financially. That brings me back to my accusation about the selective vindictiveness which lies at the centre of the Government's strategy for local government, which is further exemplified by their use of hit lists. I noted that at the Conservative party conference Lord Bellwin said:
      "Concrete overshoes are on the GLC and next year into the Thames it goes."
      That typifies the gangster-like mentality of Lord Bellwin and it is thoroughly appropriate to the Government's hit list approach to local authorities. It all fits in with the Conservatives' Chicago-style mentality of firing from the hip and speaking first and thinking afterwards in relation to local government finance.
      When the Bill left the House of Commons it involved 10 different sets of principles. The amendment would allow 16 different sets to be used. Moreover, there is infinite scope for variation within them, so the Secretary of State will always be in the position that he wishes and cannot be challenged in the courts or anywhere else. Whenever things look a bit dodgy he will simply alter the targets and the criteria so that the local authorities fall foul of his latest economic policy.
      The arbitrary nature of the criteria is clear from many examples. I shall not go through them all, but one brings the point home especially clearly in London. Not only can the Secretary of State select Labour-controlled authorities for his hit list. He can exclude Tory authorities which for reasons of short-term political expediency he does not wish to be seen to be attacking. The City of London spends 247 per cent. above its GRE, but by using the second criterion of expenditure targets that authority will be allowed to escape.
      The second example is the sordid, shoddy little manoeuvre between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister about whether Portsmouth would be on the rate capping hit list. No one can now deny that that was connected with the Portsmouth by-election, but it did not do the Conservatives much good then and the Bill will not do them much good when they are eventually forced to take this to the ballot box. In London at the moment the Conservatives are terrified of the ballot box. If they think that this legislation will get them off the hook, they are
      830
      wrong. It is a recipe for chaos in local government finance and it alters the rules always in favour of the Secretary of State. I shall certainly vote against the amendment.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is rapidly earning himself the title of the Lenny Bruce of the Labour party, as he has a nice line in vituperative insult. But we have learnt by now not to take what he says too seriously. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will need to take some of the things that he has said more seriously in future.
      The criticisms of the amendment have gone very wide of the mark. Perhaps it is tight for me to remind the House in two or three short sentences that the purpose of the legislation is to put into effect the convention that has long since governed local authority spending, namely, that the total of local authority spending should remain broadly in line with the guidelines that are sanctioned by the House of Commons.
      Dr. Cunningham: Nonsense.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman says that it is nonsense, but that convention has been widely regarded and acted upon. For many years it has given local authorities little problem. They have been able to accommodate it and live within it.
      We are faced with the position that a tiny minority of high-spending and extravagant authorities have made it clear that they do not regard themselves as constrained by that convention. As the sums involved run into hundreds of millions of pounds, that has necessitated—my right hon. and hon. Friends have made this clear—the imposition of stringent targets as a counteraction. That has been done in relation even to authorities that have done their very best to stay within the Government's guidelines. The Government can no longer ignore that. In those circumstances, we have had to bring forward the legislation, with its selective power of rate limitation. The power will be confined to a few high-spending and extravagant authorities in order to protect the ratepayers in those authorities from the outrageous rate increases that they have faced. That is the purpose.
      Mr. Straw rose——
      Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the argument. No doubt he will have other opportunities to intervene.
      That is the background. The group of amendments recognises that the circumstances affecting authorities in the second year and perhaps even in subsequent years of rate capping will differ from those for authorities facing rate limitation for the first time.
      The hon. Member for Copeland and his hon. Friends have made great play of the fact that this will broaden the scope of selection and of my discretion as Secretary of ateState in the selection of authorities for rate limitations. But I must tell him that there is nothing in the amendment that absolves me from the jurisdiction of the courts in saying that I should exercise the powers reasonably. That is fundamental to the legislation. Whether or not the power contained in the group of amendments is used to define different criteria for selection of authorities that have been rate capped in the past, the power must be exercised reasonably. I shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and, no doubt, if I exercised those powers unreasonably the necessary legal action would be taken.
      Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend say to what extent the selection of different criteria in different years will be affected by public sector pay settlements?
      Mr. Jenkin: I cannot answer that question sensibly in that form. I can say, however, that the effect of, say, local authority pay settlements is bound to have an impact upon the spending of local authorities. It therefore behoves all those who are concerned with maintaining the level of services to make sure that resources are not swallowed up in excessive pay settlements.
      I shall move on. Not only must the Secretary of State's selection be reasonable and amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts, but the ultimate orders that impose rate limits on authorities will be subject to the vote of the House. They must come before the House of Commons. Ministers will be accountable here at the Dispatch Box for the decisions that they recommend that the House shall take. The hon. Member for Copeland said that that is an insubstantial protection, but to say that is to belittle the importance of the House of Commons in the operation of this legislative power.
      5.15 pm
      It was said that this will give me power to distinguish, as it was put, between my friends and those who are in opposition. I flatly refute that suggestion. The power will not entitle me to twist the criteria in any way so as to keep out Conservative authorities or to rate-cap Labour authorities. There is an inconsistency in the case that was made by the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who charged me with chicanery over the question of Portsmouth.
      Portsmouth is a Conservative-controlled authority and, as anyone who chooses to look at the records will ascertain, it has overspent on its GRE by about 38 per cent. I think that it is 5·5 per cent. over it target expenditure. If we took criteria that were less than those figures there is no power in the Bill—it would be an unreasonable use of a power if I sought to do this—for me to exclude Portsmouth from the list of authorities in those circumstances. The hon. Member for Copeland asked me this question in the last two or three days of the by-election campaign. The hon. Gentleman recognised that I was completely frank with the House on this matter. As soon as he asked me the appropriate question and stopped accusing me of doing of what I have no intention of doing, and would not have been permitted to do by the legislation, I made the position clear to him.
      Dr. Cunningham: I hesitate to open old wounds but, as the right hon. Gentleman has almost done it for me, let me ask him whether his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry went to Portsmouth, where he held a press conference and denied the validity of what I had said the day before? He sought to obscure the issue.
      I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment on the matter, and he wrote back saying that, among other things—his final sentence said this—what I had written to him was rubbish. When I asked the question on the third occasion, the right hon. Gentleman had the grace to tell the House the truth. We would have asked him anyway on the Floor of the House that very day, because there were questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment. Eventually we got the truth from the right hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that it took a week and three letters.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in that respect. His first letter charged me with a degree of chicanery that was an absolute travesty. I denied that firmly and clearly. The hon. Gentleman did not ask the right question. When he recognised the constraints that would inevitably be placed on the Secretary of State by the legislation, he asked a new question and got a straight answer. I have always tried to deal with the hon. Gentleman in that way.
      Dr. Cunningham rose——
      Mr. Jenkin: No, I think we must leave the matter there and move on.
      Dr. Cunningham: Come on. I shall continue to seek evidence in support of what I said and did. Which Minister authorised the Conservative candidate in the Portsmouth by-election, Mr. Patrick Rock, to say that he had consulted Ministers and that there was no truth in what I had said about Portsmouth city council being on a list for designation? Which Minister authorised that statement?
      Mr. Jenkin: I can say firmly that if that is a report of what Mr. Rock said, the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed or Mr. Rock was misreported. According to the information that I have, he was not so authorised. I leave it at that.
      I completely deny the main burden of the complaint that has been made against the amendments by the Labour party, that in some way they will allow Ministers to distinguish between friend and foe. They will not, but will merely give the Secretary of State the flexibility to distinguish between authorities who have been capped and those who are being capped for the first time. That is necessary partly to ensure that the principles can be applied fairly, and partly, as I made clear, to make sure that the limits take account of savings already made by a capped authority so as not to impose unreasonable further constraints upon their spending. As such, I commend the amendment to the House.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 188.

      Division No. 381]

      [5.19 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bright, Graham

      Alexander, Richard

      Brinton, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Amess, David

      Browne, John

      Ancram, Michael

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Ashby, David

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Budgen, Nick

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Butcher, John

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Butterfill, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Cash, William

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Chapman, Sydney

      Best, Keith

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Body, Richard

      Cockeram, Eric

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Conway, Derek

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Coombs, Simon

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

      Cope, John

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Cranborne, Viscount

      833

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knowles, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lang, Ian

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Latham, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dunn, Robert

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Durant, Tony

      Lester, Jim

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Lilley, Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Evennett, David

      Lord, Michael

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Luce, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Farr, Sir John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Favell, Anthony

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Fletcher, Alexander

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maclean, David John

      Forman, Nigel

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Madel, David

      Forth, Eric

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fox, Marcus

      Malone, Gerald

      Franks, Cecil

      Maples, John

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Marland, Paul

      Freeman, Roger

      Marlow, Antony

      Galley, Roy

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mates, Michael

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Mather, Carol

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gow, Ian

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mellor, David

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Merchant, Piers

      Gregory, Conal

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Ground, Patrick

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Grylls, Michael

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moate, Roger

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Moore, John

      Harris, David

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Harvey, Robert

      Neale, Gerrard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nelson, Anthony

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Normanton, Tom

      Hawksley, Warren

      Norris, Steven

      Hayes, J.

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Hayward, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Henderson, Barry

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hirst, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hooson, Tom

      Powley, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Price, Sir David

      Howard, Michael

      Proctor, K. Harvey

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

      Raffan, Keith

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Renton, Tim

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Irving, Charles

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Jackson, Robert

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rost, Peter

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Ryder, Richard

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      834

      Shersby, Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Silvester, Fred

      Viggers, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Walden, George

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Speller, Tony

      Watson, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Wheeler, John

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Whitfield, John

      Stokes, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Mr. John Major and Mr. Donald Thompson.

      Thurnham, Peter

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Fatchett, Derek

      Alton, David

      Faulds, Andrew

      Anderson, Donald

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Fisher, Mark

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Flannery, Martin

      Ashton, Joe

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Forrester, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Foster, Derek

      Barnett, Guy

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Barron, Kevin

      Freud, Clement

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      George, Bruce

      Beith, A. J.

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Bell, Stuart

      Golding, John

      Benn, Tony

      Gould, Bryan

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

      Gourlay, Harry

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Blair, Anthony

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Boyes, Roland

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

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

      Haynes, Frank

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

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Buchan, Norman

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell, Ian

      Howells, Geraint

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Clarke, Thomas

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clay, Robert

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      John, Brynmor

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Corbett, Robin

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lambie, David

      Craigen, J. M.

      Leighton, Ronald

      Crowther, Stan

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Litherland, Robert

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      McCartney, Hugh

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

      McCrea, Rev William

      Deakins, Eric

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Dewar, Donald

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dixon, Donald

      McKelvey, William

      Dobson, Frank

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Dormand, Jack

      McNamara, Kevin

      Douglas, Dick

      McTaggart, Robert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Madden, Max

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Marek, Dr John

      Eastham, Ken

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Martin, Michael

      Ewing, Harry

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      835

      Maxton, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Michie, William

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mikardo, Ian

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

      Nellist, David

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

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Soley, Clive

      O'Neill, Martin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Stott, Roger

      Park, George

      Strang, Gavin

      Parry, Robert

      Straw, Jack

      Patchett, Terry

      Taylor, Rt Hon John David

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Pendry, Tom

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Penhaligon, David

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Pike, Peter

      Tinn, James

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

      Torney, Tom

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Wainwright, R.

      Prescott, John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Radice, Giles

      Wareing, Robert

      Redmond, M.

      Weetch, Ken

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Welsh, Michael

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      White, James

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Winnick, David

      Robertson, George

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Rogers, Allan

      Rooker, J. W.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John McWilliam.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 3

      EXPENDITURE LEVELS
      Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 27, leave out
      "for all authorities falling within that class"
      and insert
      "either for all authorities falling within that class or for all of them which respectively have and have not been designated under that section in the previous financial year."
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 190.

      Division No. 382]

      [5.32 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Amess, David

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Ancram, Michael

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Ashby, David

      Bright, Graham

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Brinton, Tim

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Browne, John

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Batiste, Spencer

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Bellingham, Henry

      Budgen, Nick

      Bendall, Vivian

      Butcher, John

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Best, Keith

      Butterfill, John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Carttiss, Michael

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Cash, William

      Body, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      836

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Jackson, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Cockeram, Eric

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Colvin, Michael

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Conway, Derek

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Coombs, Simon

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Cope, John

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Key, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Knowles, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Lang, Ian

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Latham, Michael

      Dunn, Robert

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Durant, Tony

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Lester, Jim

      Eggar, Tim

      Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lilley, Peter

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lord, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Luce, Richard

      Farr, Sir John

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fletcher, Alexander

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Forman, Nigel

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maclean, David John

      Fox, Marcus

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Franks, Cecil

      Madel, David

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Major, John

      Freeman, Roger

      Malins, Humfrey

      Galley, Roy

      Malone, Gerald

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Maples, John

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Marland, Paul

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marlow, Antony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gow, Ian

      Mates, Michael

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mather, Carol

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Greenway, Harry

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gregory, Conal

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Ground, Patrick

      Mellor, David

      Grylls, Michael

      Merchant, Piers

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Moate, Roger

      Harris, David

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Harvey, Robert

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Moore, John

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Moyninan, Hon C.

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hayes, J.

      Normanton, Tom

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Hayward, Robert

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Heddle, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Henderson, Barry

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Hirst, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hooson, Tom

      Powley, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Price, Sir David

      Howard, Michael

      Proctor, K. Harvey

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

      Raffan, Keith

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Renton, Tim

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Irving, Charles

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      837

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rost, Peter

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ryder, Richard

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walden, George

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Shersby, Michael

      Watson, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Watts, John

      Sims, Roger

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wheeler, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Whitfield, John

      Speller, Tony

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stern, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Stokes, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Michael Neubert.

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Douglas, Dick

      Alton, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Anderson, Donald

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Eastham, Ken

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Ewing, Harry

      Ashton, Joe

      Fatchett, Derek

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Barnett, Guy

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Barron, Kevin

      Fisher, Mark

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Flannery, Martin

      Beith, A. J.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bell, Stuart

      Forrester, John

      Benn, Tony

      Foster, Derek

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

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Freud, Clement

      Blair, Anthony

      George, Bruce

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Boyes, Roland

      Golding, John

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Gould, Bryan

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

      Gourlay, Harry

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

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Buchan, Norman

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Campbell, Ian

      Haynes, Frank

      Canavan, Dennis

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Cartwright, John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Clarke, Thomas

      Home Robertson, John

      Clay, Robert

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howells, Geraint

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Corbett, Robin

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      John, Brynmor

      Craigen, J. M.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Crowther, Stan

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kennedy, Charles

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Lambie, David

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Leighton, Ronald

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

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Dewar, Donald

      Litherland, Robert

      Dixon, Donald

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dobson, Frank

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Dormand, Jack

      McCartney, Hugh

      838

      McCrea, Rev William

      Robertson, George

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Rogers, Allan

      McKelvey, William

      Rooker, J. W.

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Rowlands, Ted

      McTaggart, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Madden, Max

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marek, Dr John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Martin, Michael

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

      Maxton, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meadowcroft, Michael

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

      Michie, William

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

      Mikardo, Ian

      Soley, Clive

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Strang, Gavin

      Nellist, David

      Straw, Jack

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Taylor, Rt Hon John David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Park, George

      Tinn, James

      Parry, Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Patchett, Terry

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Wareing, Robert

      Pendry, Tom

      Weetch, Ken

      Penhaligon, David

      Welsh, Michael

      Pike, Peter

      White, James

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

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Prescott, John

      Winnick, David

      Radice, Giles

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Redmond, M.

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John McWilliam.

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 4, line 18, at end insert—
      "( ) The Secretary of State's decision under subsectio (5) and any requirements imposed by him under subsection (6) above shall be stated in a notice served by him on the authority concerned."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment (a), as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end add
      'and a copy of such notice shall be laid in the form of a report before the House of Commons within 28 days of such service on the authority as aforesaid.'.
      The Government's majority of only 54 on the previous vote was one of the smallest that has occurred in this Parliament. It shows that support for the Government is withering away, not just daily but hourly. The voting was 243 to 188—a majority of 55—at 5 o'clock, and now the majority is down to 54. No doubt with the skill of the speaking Whip, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the majority will be smaller after the next vote.
      Amendment (a) raises an important issue about the role of the House and the possibility of the House checking the arbitrary abuse of power by the Secretary of State.
      Under the Bill as drafted and sent to the other place by this House, it is open to an authority that has been designated for rate capping to seek a derogation from rate capping by the Secretary of State. I shall wait a second, because I know that the Minister needs to be present to

      839
      reply to the debate. I am sure that he would not wish the Front Bench to be taken over by the alliance. That has brought him back quickly.
      The derogation procedure, however, is oppressive on the authorities that seek it because the Secretary of State might not impose a lower expenditure limit than the one he orginally set. Where the Secretary of State imposes a higher limit, he is given wide and unfettered powers to control the financial and other management of the authority involved.
      I shall read clause 3(6) which is the relevant subsection:
      "Where under subsection (5) above the Secretary of State re-determines a level at a greater amount he may impose on the authority in question such requirements relating to its expenditure or financial management as he thinks appropriate; and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with any such requirements and to report to the Secretary of State whenever he so directs on the extent to which those requirements have been complied with."
      We debated this subject at great length. These powers provide the Secretary of State with perhaps the greatest potential for controlling individual local authorities ever taken by a Secretary of State in any legislation.
      If an authority is foolish enough to seek a derogation from the Secretary of State, then merely by increasing its expenditure limits by one or two pounds he would take control of that authority and could regulate not just the finance committee which determines the overall expenditure level, but every committee that makes decisions about the level of services. The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but that is what the clause means. It is what the Secretary of State intends, unless the Under-Secretary disabuses me. I went into print over this in the Municipal Journal because authorities could place themselves in even greater jeopardy of direct control over their services, expenditure or financial management. I suggested that authorities would be extremely unwise ever to seek derogation unless, as I said, the Secretary of State gives the clearest advance commitments about the way in which he intends to use the powers and says that he would not use them to seek to control an authority that was going to be rate capped.
      These powers give the Secretary of State the opportunity to make different decisions for different authorities. An authority such as Portsmouth could be caught inadvertently as a result of the measures that the Secretary of State was using to ensure that Sheffield was in the frame for rate capping, which is the whole purpose of the Bill. We know that the political considerations are that crude. We know that it is a stitch-up. We know that a fine intellectual arrangement to control overall Government expenditure was not the genesis of the Bill. If that were the case, authorities spending less than £10 million would be included in the scheme.
      The Bill is simply a crude, politically motivated and selectively vindictive attempt to control a few Labour authorities which have a mandate from their own people but happen to cause discomfort to the Government and particularly to the authoritarian tendencies of the Prime Minister. We know what lies behind the scheme. That is why we are deeply suspicious of the powers that the Secretary of State is taking under it. We also know that if Portsmouth or any other Tory authority was included in the list of rate-capped authorities so that another Labour authority which the Government wished to fix in the
      840
      frame, such as Sheffield, could also be included, the Secretary of State would invite Portsmouth to seek derogation and would no doubt, on the flimsiest of grounds and undertakings, exempt that authority because it was under Conservative control.
      That is the reality. Cerk-Anly a Conservative authority would not worry in the least about seeking derogation from the Secretary of State. It would be given a nod and a wink. It would be given to understand that if it made a few minor undertakings it would be exempted from the impact of the Rates Bill. By the same token, it would be an unwise Labour authority which sought derogation because of the much greater risks which would flow from derogation by a Secretary of State opposed to(that authority.
      In the other place, the Government, by Lords amendment No. 7, stipulated that any requirements imposed on an authority relating to its expenditure or financial management should be served in a notice by the Secretary of State on the authority concerned, so that there could be no dubiety about the nature of the requirements. Given the scheme of the Bill, that is the correct thing to do, but it is important that, as amendment (a) provides, the details of that notice should be laid before the House
      "within 28 days of such service on the authority".
      An amendment to that effect was moved in the House of Lords on 5 June by Baroness Nicol. In reply, the Minister of State, Lord Bellwin, said that he would consider the matter and would write to the baroness. On 11 June he did so. I hate rarely read such a disingenuous piece of nonsense as that letter, although I accept that Lord Bellwin goes in for that kind of thing.
      Lord Bellwin noted that Baroness Nicol had suggested that, under this procedure,
      "the Secretary of State could show undue favour to an authority, without Parliament being aware of what was being done."
      He continued:
      "I am afraid that I do not accept that line of argument. Secretaries of State do not act in that way."
      The present Government act in exactly that way. They have tried to discriminate in an outrageous way against the GLC by fixing special targets much more onerous than those fixed for any other authority. They have discriminated against the metropolitan counties. They have sought to help their friends—sometimes with success and sometimes without. Indeed, they have promised to help their friends. No Government have ever been more partisan than the present Government. No Government have been less willing to follow the true rule of law and to be fair to their friends and adversaries alike. They are fully intent on showing undue favour to their friends.
      It is therefore important, not necessarily that Parliament should have power to debate the derogations—that is not what we seek—but that Parliament should be told the nature of the derogations and have the opportunity to hold the Secretary of State to account if it deems that such action is necessary.
      If the Secretary of State says that we are fretting about nothing, I have to remind him of the experience in Scotland, where there have been similar developments. Initially, five authorities were designated in 1983 by the Secretary of State for Scotland for the equivalent of rate capping. Then, hey presto! As a result of representations, the authority that had exceeded the expenditure guidelines by the greatest amount—not the authority that was nearest to the guidelines—was suddenly removed from

      841
      the list of authorities that were to be controlled by the Secretary of State. There is a wry smile on the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's face. The authority concerned was Shetland, and it would have been deeply embarrassing for the Government if Shetland had dug its heels in over rate capping, because of the power that Shetland council exercises over oil development.
      The Government respond only to displays of power. They do not respond to reasoned arguments. The Government recognised the power in Shetland's hands and decided to concede. The authority that had exceeded the guideline by 46 per cent. was exempted altogether.
      The arguments used by the Secretary of State for Scotland when the issue was debated were totally spurious. He said that the Government had come across new information. The new information was that oil development was taking place in Shetland, that Shetland had a mobile population, that there was a large amount of housing there, and so on. That information could not possibly have been new to the Secretary of State or to the Scottish Office.
      It is clear that the aim of the Secretary of State for Scotland was simply to hit four Labour authorities, and that he was willing unscrupulously to exempt the Shetland authority—even though, according to the Secretary of State's own selective measurements, that authority was the worst overspender—because of the embarrassment that could have ensued. In so doing, he cleared the way so that the authorities remaining to be rate-capped were all Labour controlled.
      I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will not treat us to any of the rubbish about how fair the Government will be, and how they are above the party battle. The Bill is a partisan attempt to hit democratically elected Labour authorities. It is rooted in unfairness. The derogation principles are profoundly unfair and give the Secretary of State arbitrary power. The very least that we can expect is that the Government should have the courage to tell the House on what basis they will exempt authorities from the draconian powers that the Secretary of State is given under subsequent clauses of the Bill.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendment under discussion will give the House only a marginally greater influence on matters which are already slipping out of the control of people who have been democratically elected and into the hands of the Government. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will accept that at this stage we can do no more than try to restrain to some degree the Secretary of State's power to make decisions and redeterminations and regularly affect the spending power of local authorities.
      One of the terrifying aspects of the situation is that, whatever expenditure limits are determined, they are no more or less valid than any other set of limits that could be determined at any other time. I believe that the Secretary of State is at the moment working on later criteria. At the end of the day, Portsmouth or one or two other Tory authorities may or may not be caught by those criteria. The criteria will all be related to indices—indices of the number of the aged in the population, the length of coastline, the amount of home ownership or the amount of money that needs to be spent on the disabled. There is a wide range of criteria. All those things can be put in a package that is regarded as the most suitable for the time being, but ultimately it is a subjective package.
      842
      The Government are trying to determine what they believe are the right levels of expenditure. They will be given power to alter how those definitions are made so that if they are found unsatisfactory one year they can be different the next, and authorities that are rate capped one year will not be the next.
      6 pm
      Amendment (a) enables the House to have a copy of the notice that will be served on the local authority. An anomaly was spotted when the Bill went to another place. It is that, although an authority was to be told about the original determination, it was not to be informed about a redetermination. A procedure such as is laid out in amendment (a) is desirable if the House is forced by the Government's majority in terms of Members, though not in terms of popular support—their majority is distorted by the system. At least we should be able to see the cases that are difficult and are the subject of review.
      The Government having rightly made a concession in another place, the Minister should say that a notice will be issued so that the local authority concerned will know where it stands if, in the light of additional factors, the amount of its rates is altered. Because the law will give the Secretary of State complete power and subjectivity in regard to how the law is employed, it is important that the House should be able to have the arguments, facts and figures on each case that is the subject of the exceptional procedure. Second determinations will be rare but when they occur we should all benefit by knowing how the Government establish rate levels. We should then be able to argue in an attempt to improve the system which, for the time being, we shall have to put up with. If that provision is extended to our having reports on other matters, so much the better.
      The Government should not regard amendment (a) as providing anything other than an opportunity for the House to do its duty—to act as a watchdog on the Secretary of State and the Government. We can only perform that duty if we have information. Amendment (a) is one means of obtaining information.
      Sir George Young: Lords amendment No. 7 was moved in the other place by the noble Lady Baroness Gardner of Parkes. We accepted it because it fills something of gap in the provisions of the Bill as it left this House. Lords amendment No. 7 deals with the point in rate limitation at which the Secretary of State has carefully considered an application for the redetermination of a local authority's expenditure level. It requires him to notify the authority of his decision and, if its expenditure level were increased, of any requirements he might impose on it.
      I should make it clear that the Government always intended to do that but we were happy to accept the amendment to remove any uncertainty that there might have been by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to inform an authority formally of his decisions. By agreeing with their Lordships we shall ensure that, when an authority is to have a requirement placed upon it, it will receive a clear written notice of what is required. Moreover, the amendment establishes a clear end point for the procedure by which an authority may apply and have its expenditure level redetermined.
      The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) reasserted his allegation that the whole Bill is a stitch up. He said that the Secretary of State could act arbitrarily according to political whim. He completely overlooked

      843
      what my right hon. Friend said in reply to an earlier debate to the effect that the Secretary of State is obliged to act reasonably and that, if he does not, he can be taken to the courts. That is a real sanction that Opposition Members have consistently overlooked.
      The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) implied that the House was not democratically elected. If he looks at the report of the beginning of his speech, he will see that that is what he implied, doubtless in error. We dealt with this matter at some length in Committee and it will not surprise Opposition Members to learn that the arguments are basically the same. Amendment (a) would require the Secretary of State, after notifying the authority of his decision on an application for a redetermination, to lay a report before the House within 28 days. Conservative Members do not accept that such an amendment is necessary.
      Throughout the passage of the Bill we have made it clear that expenditure levels will be only an intermediate stage in the process of rate limitation. They are a stepping stone to the setting of rate limits. They have no statutory effect once the rate limit has been settled. They will then have no further purpose. That is why we have not provided for Parliament to become deeply involved in the setting and redetermining of expenditure levels.
      While any redetermination of an expenditure level by the Secretary of State might involve a departure from the original principles applied to all authorities—or at least all authorities in the same class—I cannot agree that this, of itself, means that a special degree of scrutiny is necessary.
      If it is suggested that the Secretary of State might depart from the principles in a partisan way, of course I repudiate any such suggestion. The Secretary of State will be accountable to this House and in the courts for his decisions, and he must conduct himself properly. Even if, in our wildest imagination, we could conceive of special treatment being given when it was not merited by the facts that were put before the Secretary of State, such an occurrence could not be hidden for long, with or without a report.
      The Secretary of State's decisions will be in the public domain, irrespective of whether they are reported in a formal document before Parliament. In the same way, if he attempted to impose unreasonable requirements on an authority in return for a redetermination at a higher level, that would soon become known.
      Mr. Straw: The Minister said that the documents will be in the public domain. I therefore assume that if an hon. Member tables a question asking that the notice be printed in the Official Report, the Secretary of State would be bound to answer in full. If that is the case, why does the Minister not accept amendment (a)?
      Sir George Young: Because I do not need to accept it. The information will be in the public domain. The hon. Gentleman will find that Lords Amendment No. 7 says that any decision
      "shall be stated in a notice served by him on the authority concerned."
      Councillors in the authority concerned would have the information, and if the hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State to publish a letter that he had sent to an authority under clause 3 no doubt the Secretary of State
      844
      would be obliged to reply and give details of his decision. I do not think that there is much between us on this point. As the hon. Gentleman says, amendment (a) does not secure debate on the report. Dealings with the local authority should be brought to the House's attention at the appropriate stage, which is when the rate level is fixed.
      In the meantime, there are executive actions which the Bill rightly leaves to the Secretary of State and the local authority concerned. The opportunity for debate and approval, or disagreement, in Parliament comes when disagreed rate limits are tabled in an order. Even if an authority had agreed a limit because it had been based on a favourable redetermination, hon. Members representing other authorities which felt that they had not been so favourably treated would surely bring the matter before the House. We have provided for an order which will have to be debated and approved at that stage. That is the guarantee that the issues will be aired properly.
      The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to Scotland, where the powers are different from those that we are taking in the Bill. There is, however, a broad parallel of the principles. Some authorities may have special circumstances, but these can be taken into account only at the second stage. There is nothing capricious about that. In the case of the Shetland Islands, there were a large number of unique circumstances arising from North Sea oil which carried with them special financial consequences. I do not doubt that such factors may well be known beforehand, but in order to operate fairly we must apply principles that we would expect to give the right expenditure level across all authorities.
      I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the said amendment, and in the light of what I have said—given the small difference between us—I hope that the Opposition will not press amendment (a).
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 237.

      Division No. 383]

      [6.10 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Clarke, Thomas

      Alton, David

      Clay, Robert

      Anderson, Donald

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cohen, Harry

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Conlan, Bernard

      Ashton, Joe

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Corbett, Robin

      Barnett, Guy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barron, Kevin

      Craigen, J. M.

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Crowther, Stan

      Beith, A. J.

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Benn, Tony

      Dalyell, Tam

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

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Blair, Anthony

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

      Boyes, Roland

      Deakins, Eric

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Dewar, Donald

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

      Dixon, Donald

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

      Dobson, Frank

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Dormand, Jack

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Douglas, Dick

      Buchan, Norman

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Campbell, Ian

      Eastham, Ken

      Canavan, Dennis

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ewing, Harry

      Cartwright, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Faulds, Andrew

      845

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Nellist, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Flannery, Martin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Forrester, John

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Foster, Derek

      Park, George

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Parry, Robert

      Freud, Clement

      Patchett, Terry

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Golding, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Gould, Bryan

      Penhaligon, David

      Gourlay, Harry

      Pike, Peter

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

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

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Prescott, John

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Radice, Giles

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Redmond, M.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Haynes, Frank

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Robertson, George

      Home Robertson, John

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Rogers, Allan

      Howells, Geraint

      Rooker, J. W.

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Sheerman, Barry

      John, Brynmor

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

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

      Lambie, David

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Lamond, James

      Skinner, Dennis

      Leighton, Ronald

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

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Soley, Clive

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Litherland, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Strang, Gavin

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Straw, Jack

      McCartney, Hugh

      Taylor, Rt Hon John David

      McCrea, Rev William

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      McKelvey, William

      Tinn, James

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Torney, Tom

      McNamara, Kevin

      Wainwright, R.

      McTaggart, Robert

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Madden, Max

      Wareing, Robert

      Marek, Dr John

      Weetch, Ken

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Welsh, Michael

      Martin, Michael

      White, James

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Maxton, John

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Winnick, David

      Meacher, Michael

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Michie, William

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John McWilliam.

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Best, Keith

      Alexander, Richard

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Amess, David

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Ancram, Michael

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Arnold, Tom

      Body, Richard

      Ashby, David

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bottomley, Peter

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

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

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Boyson, Dr Rhode

      Batiste, Spencer

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bright, Graham

      Bendall, Vivian

      Brinton, Tim

      846

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Browne, John

      Holt, Richard

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Hooson, Tom

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hordern, Peter

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Howard, Michael

      Budgen, Nick

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

      Butcher, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Butterfill, John

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Cash, William

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Irving, Charles

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Jackson, Robert

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Cockeram, Eric

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Colvin, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Conway, Derek

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Coombs, Simon

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Cope, John

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Key, Robert

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Knowles, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Latham, Michael

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dunn, Robert

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Durant, Tony

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Lester, Jim

      Eggar, Tim

      Lilley, Peter

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Evennett, David

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Lord, Michael

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Luce, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Farr, Sir John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Forman, Nigel

      Maclean, David John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Fox, Marcus

      Major, John

      Franks, Cecil

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Malone, Gerald

      Freeman, Roger

      Maples, John

      Gale, Roger

      Marlow, Antony

      Galley, Roy

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mates, Michael

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Mather, Carol

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Gow, Ian

      Merchant, Piers

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Greenway, Harry

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Gregory, Conal

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Ground, Patrick

      Moate, Roger

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Moore, John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mudd, David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Nelson, Anthony

      Harris, David

      Normanton, Tom

      Harvey, Robert

      Onslow, Cranley

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hayes, J.

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hayward, Robert

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Heddle, John

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Henderson, Barry

      Pawsey, James

      Hickmet, Richard

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Powley, John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Price, Sir David

      Hirst, Michael

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Raffan, Keith

      847

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Renton, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Trippier, David

      Ryder, Richard

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Viggers, Peter

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walden, George

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Watson, John

      Shersby, Michael

      Watts, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Sims, Roger

      Whitfield, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wood, Timothy

      Speller, Tony

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Stern, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Ian Lang.

      Stokes, John

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 4, line 18, at end insert—
      "( ) In making a decision under subsection (5) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the extent (if any) to which the authority's proposed expenditure is to consist of contributions to charities registered, or excepted from registration, under section 4 of the Charities Act 1960."
      Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have to inform the House that Lords amendment No. 8 involves privilege.
      Sir George Young: This amendment was introduced by the Government in the other place in response to concern that local authorities which were rate capped might make disproportionate savings at the expense of voluntary bodies rather than their own organisations. The amendment has been welcomed by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
      I wish to make it clear that the Government do not accept that local authorities will in fact behave in the way which is feared. Generally they accept the real contribution which voluntary organisations can make through their cost-effective and flexible provision of essential local services. Sadly, some local authorities have gone to considerable trouble to spread alarm in an attempt to bolster opposition to the Bill.
      We have had to recognise that the concern expressed by voluntary organisations is genuinely felt, and we have therefore looked for an amendment to the Bill which could reassure them by giving some recognition to their particular problem. In doing so, however, we have been anxious to avoid imposing on local authorities the priorities of the Government. Contrary to the claims which have been made throughout the passage of this Bill, it does not provide powers for the Government to intervene in the setting of local priorities. It allows only for the setting of an upper limit on the rate income of the authority. We regard it as an important principle that the local priorities
      848
      of the authority between services should remain a matter for local choice. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the extent of funding for charities in considering an application for a redetermination of an expenditure level. If an authority does not apply for a redetermination, the implication is that the authority feels that it can manage within the expenditure level that was set. Where it feels that extra expenditure is required over and above that proposed by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to the funding of charities and for the purposes of doing that it will be necessary for him to make inquiries about it.
      I anticipate the complaint that the amendment does not ensure the continued funding of charities by rate-capped local authorities. In my view, no amendment could achieve that—certainly not without breaching the principle, to which I have referred, that authorities must decide on their priorities for themselves. The amendment goes a long way to help those who are concerned. It establishes on the face of the Bill a clear statutory position for charitable organisations. It ensures that the Secretary of State must turn his mind to the implication of an expenditure level for the funding of charities, and it opens the possibility that a charity might write to the Secretary of State directly in support of an application by its local authority and the Secretary of State will have to have regard to that, too. There is no compulsion, of course, on an authority to apply for an redetermination, but I am sure that a local charity faced with a reduction in its funding will be in a much stronger position, as a result of this amendment, to press the authority to make an application for a redetermination and that, too, must be a positive benefit to them.
      I hope that the amendment will be widely welcomed by the House as it has been on all sides in the other place and—as I have said—by the NCVO.
      Mr. Allan Roberts: I am sorry to disappoint the Under-Secretary of State, but, while we do not oppose this amendment, we do not welcome it as a way forward to safeguard the interests of charitable organisations in rate-capped authorities. The Minister failed to mention, when he spoke of this amendment being introduced in the other place, that it was the consequence of an amendment tabled by Lady Faithful, which, if it had been passed, would have properly protected charities. We believe that if it had been pushed to a Division, that amendment would probably have been carried in the other place. Lord Bellwin, in the light of this amendment and the possibility of its being carried, undertook to come up with something, and this is the best that the Government can have come up with. It does not safeguard the position of charitable organisations or voluntary bodies of charitable status that have to exist within rate-capped authorities.
      There are two major things wrong with this amendment. First, it operates only subsequent on an authority applying for redetermination of its expenditure limit. This means that, if an authority is rate capped and given an expenditure limit, the authority has to make an application for the redetermination on special grounds, and put in some special pleading. Then, through this amendment, the Secretary of State will consider the position of charities within that local authority area.
      However, as right hon. and hon. Members have already said in previous debates, few local authorities are likely to make an application to the Government for this

      849
      redetermination, and are not likely to make a case for special pleading. If they do so, the Government can take upon themselves even greater power to interfere with a local authority, and the local authority concerned has to accept the Government's findings. The local authority can be told, sector by sector and service by service, exactly what should happen, and this can include policy direction from central Government.
      For example, if Merseyside county council were rate capped and then applied for a redetermination along the lines set out in the Bill, that would involve a policy decision by the Secretary of State that would cause a large fare increase in that area. That would be unacceptable not only to the county council but to the people of Merseyside. In other words, this amendment is asking local authorities to sacrifice themselves and their policies for the sake of the charities and voluntary organisations with charitable status within their area. That is not likely to happen. Even the most altruistic local authority is not likely to be tempted, even if it has a regard to charities.
      The second thing that is wrong with the amendment is that it requires the Secretary of State only to "have regard to" the expenditure on charities. It does not require him to do anything particularly concrete or practical. It does not lay any real duties or responsibilities on the Secretary of State to protect charities or voluntary organisations with charitable status within the area of a rate-capped authority. The amendment is merely a sop. It is typical of the way in which this Government approach charitable organisations. They did the same in their housing legislation when they rode roughshod over charities and their status.
      6.30 pm
      The Government are inclined to support charities when it suits them. They use them to attack the Health Service by the back door because of their doctrinaire distaste of the Health Service. When the crunch comes and supporting charities contravene their doctrinaire view of local authority expenditure, they are not prepared to do anything about it. The Government treat charities and other organisations with charitable status in the way that Henry VIII treated most of his wives. While making love to them, he was preparing and erecting their scaffold. That is exactly what the Government are doing. They support charities with their words while introducing rate-capping legislation which will destroy many voluntary organisations and their programmes.
      This is not a minor issue. Many voluntary organisations and charities act on behalf of the community. They defend services and ameliorate some of the cuts forced upon local authorities. We shall not divide the House on the issue because the amendment is at least a step forward and the Secretary of State has undertaken to consider, in limited circumstances, the effects of his actions upon charities. Certainly the anxieties of charities will not be put at rest. We do not oppose the amendment, but it does not protect charities and voluntary organisations.
      Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I do not oppose the amendment, but I shall not be as mean about it as the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). The amendment is an example of how defective the Bill is. The Government will face a number of problems in connection with the amendment. Exceptions always produce a host of anomalies. The distinction between authorities that use charities as an agency and those that use them directly will be blurred. I think in particular of mental health services.
      850
      A number of authorities legitimately prefer to use agencies to provide accommodation. Under this provision such authorities might benefit more and perhaps avoid some of the harshest penalties of rate capping.
      Exceptions from registration include housing associations. Local authorities which do a fair amount of rehabilitation work through associations might be in a better position than those which act directly. I do not accuse the Government of endeavouring to introduce privatisation or of any other ulterior motives. I believe the development of the voluntary sector to be good for the community, but anomalies are involved.
      In the United Kingdom charitable status has never been conferred only by registration under an Act. Charitable status is given to those who can show that their objectives are charitable. They may apply for charitable status through registration, and registration under the Charitable Act demonstrates that they have that status, but people may obtain charitable status without being registered. Some people or organisations may not wish to register. The Government are changing the basis of charitable status by the back door. I do not know whether they realise that that is what they are doing. A charity may find itself outside the provisions of the Bill and be pressed into registering. I refer to the bodies that are limited by guarantee and do a certain amount of non-charitable work but for grant aid purposes do work which is charitable. For that they can claim tax relief. Such a body is not registered. The Government are producing a host of extra problems for themselves which they will rue.
      The danger is that the provision will skew the whole local expenditure issue and may promote a move towards putting on to the voluntary sector expenditure with which it cannot cope. Many charities try to do work beyond their capacity. There is a danger in allowing a loophole.
      The amendment represents a minor gain. It is not a conversion on the road to Damascus, but any Minister who hesitates on the way there is to be commended. For that reason we shall not divide the House.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 8

      INFORMATION
      Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 7, line 34, at end insert—
      "( ) For the purpose of enabling him to prescribe a maximum for a precept under this Part of this Act the Secretary of State may require each rating authority to which the precept can be issued to furnish him with an estimate of the amount, calculated in the manner prescribed under the General Rate Act 1967, which would be produced in the year in question by a rate of a new penny in the pound levied in its area or any part of it; and if any such estimate is not furnished within such time as the Secretary of State may require he may himself make the estimate for that purpose."
      Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment concerned with the calculation of present limits of designated precepting authorities.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 10

      AUTHORITIES SUBJECT TO GENERAL CONTROL
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, line 14, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (1A) and (2)"
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
      "(1A) If in any financial year it appears to the Secretary of State from the best information available to him that an authority—

      (a) has in each of the three preceding financial years complied with subsection (1B) below and is likely to comply with that subsection in that financial year; or

      (b) has in each of the three preceding financial years complied with subsection (1C) below and is likely to comply with that subsection in that financial year,
      he shall be a notice in writing served on that authority exempt it from the operation of subsection (1) above in relation to the next financial year.

      (1B) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and its total expenditure in that year does not exceed its grant-related expenditure for that year.
      (1C) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and complies in that year with guidance issued to it for the purposes of section 59(6)(cc) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980."
      and the following amendments thereto:

      (a) leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert

      'has in each of the two preceding financial years complied with either subsection (1B) or subsection (1C) below and is likely to comply with either of those subsections in that financial year.'.

      (b) in subsection (a) leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.

      (c) in subsection (b) leave out 'three' and insert 'two'. Lords amendment No. 12.

      Mr. Jenkin: This group of amendments results from undertakings that I gave on Report in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and supported by a number of my hon. Friends. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the exclusion from the general rate limitation scheme of authorities that have an established record of responsible self-restraint in their spending.
      It has been said that it is paradoxical to propose exclusions from the operation of the general limitation scheme when the scheme is intended to apply to all authorities. I do not think that there is anything paradoxical about the proposition when one bears in mind the Bill's purposes. The Bill has two purposes—to protect ratepayers and to safeguard the Government's expenditure plans. I have said on many occasions that we envisage general rate limitation being brought into effect only where there is evidence of a significantly large number of local authorities starting to increase their spending and their rates in an unacceptable way.
      Authorities that have an established record of low, responsible spending will not, almost by definition, impose excessive burdens on their ratepayers. They will not contribute to any general overspending which might lead to the introduction of a general rate limitation. When this matter was considered in the House before, the feeling was that it would be wrong—indeed pointless—to seek to impose rate limits on authorities that could demonstrate that they had, by their own efforts, maintained responsible spending levels.
      852
      This group of amendments, therefore, provides for authorities to be excluded from the operation of the general limitation scheme—if ever it were introduced—by reference to one or other of two alternative tests. They will be excluded either if they have spent at or below their expenditure targets in each of the previous three years, and are budgeting on that basis in the year in which the question of exemption falls to be determined; or if they have spent at or below GRE over the same period and in the year in question.
      It is impossible to say how many authorities might, in the event, benefit from this concession. Presently we have only the evidence of past performance, and there is no way in which we can foretell what the position might be if and when we came to introduce the general limitation arrangements. However, on the evidence about expenditure in the years from 1981–82 to 1983–84, and from the provisional figures from 1984–85 budgets, it seems that a total of 220 authorities in England and 21 in Wales might have benefited from this exclusion had we to decide the matter today.
      Therefore, the amendment represents a substantial modification to the proposals as they were originally put before the House. I know that a number of my hon. Friends felt that the Bill would be infinitely more acceptable if this exclusion was included, and no doubt they will welcome this group of amendments from another place.
      Mr. Straw: I wish to speak to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 11.
      As the Secretary of State said, Lords amendment No. 11 fulfils undertakings given to his hon. Friends on Report. We shall not vote against the amendment because it makes some progress, as far as it goes. However, the more that the general scheme is restricted, the thinner is the argument for the Bill, which is that it is necessary on macro-economic grounds to hold down total public expenditure. With the exclusion contained in part I, there is no way that the Bill can now be a vehicle to bring down the totality of local government expenditure by the £1,500 million that it has overshot the PESC White Paper——
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is making a charge based on something that we have never said. I specifically said many times in Committee that it was not our intention to use the Bill to claw back that expenditure.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for repeating that, but he has advanced two arguments in support of the Bill. One was that the local ratepayers needed to be protected—even if the local ratepayer has expressed, through the ballot box, a clear wish not to be protected by the Secretary of State. The second argument, which the right hon. Gentleman advanced with considerable force, was that the Bill simply put into practice what he saw as a long-standing convention—that local authorities should comply with the public expenditure plans of central Government. The Bill, as drafted, is not a vehicle to put into practice the Government's plans.
      The more conditions put into the Bill—and we welcome anything that restricts the Secretary of State's arbitrary powers—the more transparent becomes its purpose, which is simply to have a go at a number of authorities that happen to be Labour controlled. Lord Bellwin let the cat out of the bag when he said that
      "a number of Labour councils are being taken over today by Marxist extremists."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 1984; Vol. 451, c. 844.]

      853
      What utter nonsense. Labour authorities have been recently elected to preserve the jobs and services in their areas. On the whole, they have a more recent mandate than the Government. All that the Government can do in response is not to recognise the scale of the social and economic problems with which those Labour authorities are grappling. Instead, they resort to the crudest, vilest abuse of those authorities, their ratepayers and the voters who elected the authorities.
      Our amendments seek to extend the restriction on the introduction of a general limitation of rates and precepts. They make the criterion of a three-year rather than a four-year compliance with either GRE or target, or a three-year run of target compliance and/or a three-year GRE compliance. Therefore, if an authority has in one year reached GRE and in another year reached target, but not necessarily both, it will be exempted from the scope of a general power of limitation imposed by part II.
      I recollect that an amendment was tabled by Conservative Members on Report and withdrawn on the basis that the Secretary of State would introduce a similar amendment in another place. I believe that the amendment referred to a three-year run of compliance and not to a four-year run. The Secretary of State is nodding. Will he now explain why he has found it necessary to push for four years? In local authority terms, three years is a long time for compliance—especially with measures so difficult to comply with, as many authorities, both Conservative and Labour, have discovered.
      I do not understand how the Secretary of State could accuse an authority of overspending in his terms when, in any year, that authority has either made GRE or its target. The fact that GRE and the target may not be the same is not the fault of the authority; it is a consequence of two sets of Government measures. GRE is plainly a measure of need, and if an authority is spending less than its GRE I cannot see how anybody, even the Government, could contend that that was overspending.
      The target is the expenditure level that the Secretary of State thinks is appropriate, even where it is above or below GRE. If the target is above GRE, that is a statement by the Government that they accept that and will not penalise the authority by holding back on grant. The fact that there is a difference in the two measures arises from the different methodology. Why should an authority be penalised because of the capricious nature and accidental result of that methodology?
      Some of our amendments may be destructive of the main purpose of the Bill, and we accept that. However, they are fully consistent with the spirit of the amendment that the Secretary of State accepted, in principle, on Report. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accepting our amendments.
      Mr. Meadowcroft: My noble Friend Lord Evans of Claughton commented that when this amendment was moved in the other place there were sighs of relief from the Government Benches. I suppose that one should congratulate the Government draftsmen on their immense resourcefulness in having been able to produce a form of words which bought off quite a section of the opposition to part II of the Bill.
      The whole thing could, nevertheless, still be extremely capricious. The problem is that the GREs and targets are themselves determined by Government. The danger is that, having fixed the goal posts and having found
      854
      authorities that could score, it is always possible to shift the goal posts again. Bearing in mind the wording of the amendment, the targets and the GREs in question, it is strange that Portsmouth was not exempted from the restrictions involved.
      The variables involved in local government and the different problems faced by authorities—be they the problems of demography, urban renewal or transportation—are, by multiplying them together, infinite. There is no way in which any imposed targets or levels of expenditure can be mathematically sound or politically enforceable in logic. Nevertheless, anything which ameliorates the Bill is to be welcomed, and for that reason we shall not oppose the amendment.
      I agree with what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said about the number of years involved. If part II of the Bill is to be imposed at some future date—which may not be that far off, if the Secretary of State has his way—it is conceivable that the three-year period will be the only period which will suffice to give local authorities a target to aim at as of now. If the right hon. Gentleman extended it to four, he would be going back in time to such an extent that it would have been monstrously unfair for local authorities not to have been aware that they might have these restrictions imposed on them.
      It seems logical, therefore, to accept the shorter period—which, I gather, the right hon. Gentleman originally had in mind—and not seek to impose the longer period, which could act retrospectively to such a degree as to be unfair even to those authorities which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to exempt. For those reasons, we shall support the amendment to the Lords amendment.
      Mr. Chris Smith: I welcome the Lords amendment and more vigorously welcome the amendments to it moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) because anything that removes any local authority or group of local authorities from the provisions of the Bill and from its punitive aspects is to be welcomed. The sad fact that the local authorities that cover my constituency are not covered by these exclusion provisions is regrettable. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that other luckier, local authorities are covered.
      There is a profound illogicality to the Government's case. The whole raison d'etre of the Bill is a selective scheme that the Government intend to use against what they call high-spending local authorities, and behind that, backing it up, is a general scheme that they originally intended to apply to all local authorities throughout the country.
      The reasons that the Government have consistently advanced for having that general scheme in the first place are twofold. The first is the strange argument about the possibility of 80 or 100, or perhaps even more, local authorities being supposedly captured by wild-eyed extremists dedicated to passionate programmes of public spending. The Government thought that they needed the general scheme to capture those local authorities.
      That argument totally ignored the point, consistently made by my hon. Friends, that if that was really what the Government were worried about, they should have considered using the selective scheme on those authorities as well as on the 16 or 20 which they perhaps have in mind at the moment for the selective scheme.
      The second point that the Government consistently made was that they were worried about the overall level

      855
      of local government spending across the country and that, because of that, and because of the potential need to get that overall spending level down, they were reserving unto themselves the possibility of using the general powers.
      However, the Government are now removing the concept of the general scheme in its entirety. They are simply putting into the Bill a back-up selective scheme to use as a base beyond the initial selective scheme, which they will consider bringing into operation if they do not get a sufficient reduction in what they call public expenditure by the use of the original scheme.
      Therefore, the whole concept of part II of the Bill has been destroyed by the Government. That must be accepted because, by bringing forward this amendment in the Lords, the Government defeated the arguments that they used in the first place for having the general scheme in the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will have the honesty to admit that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also explain why, if that is the case, they are not intending simply to have the selective scheme, pure and simple, in the Bill, and—being absolutely honest about their intentions—saying that they will use the selective scheme more widely than they initially promised they would. That is, in effect, what will happen.
      I have often said that the selective scheme is anathema to me, and that remains the case. But in welcoming what the Lords have done, and in saying in support of our amendments to the amendment that they should have gone further and excluded more local authorities, I hope that the Government will have the honesty to admit that they have abandoned altogether the idea of a general scheme applying across local authorities, and that they will be open and honest to the House about the extremely selective nature of the operation on which they are now embarked.
      Sir Peter Emery: I apologise for not having heard the totality of the debate on the amendment. I have been at work in a Select Committee.
      The House may recall that on 28 March last a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled an amendment on Report which we believed enhanced part of the general principles of Conservative philosophy for the administration of local government. Our view was that while it might be excellent to accept assurances from Ministers about the law, because Ministers came and went, certain absolute assurances were better written into the legislation.
      We were assured that part II of the Bill would not be applied to local authorities of any political nature which had, on the whole, co-operated with the Government and were following their guidelines. We felt that that assurance should be enshrined in the legislation. Although the amendment was not reached, I am pleased to say that it was possible to arrange a debate in which my right hon. Friend was able to give certain assurances that tied in with the concept that local authorities that co-operated with Government policy and controlled their expenditure would not be rate capped.
      7 pm
      It was with great interest that I read the amendments tabled in another place. I thank my right hon. Friend for carrying through his assurances by setting them out in the Bill. I am told that thanks to the Department of the Environment are not quite as common these days as they might be and I underline the fact that my right hon. Friend
      856
      has complied with his undertaking and has gone further by examining more closely the amendment that was tabled by myself and others on Report. That amendment confined itself to dealing with the problem of local authorities that complied with the targets because we saw difficulties in dealing with those that had complied with GRE. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being able to accept the argument that authorities that comply with GRE as well as those that comply with targets should not be rate capped. That is the essence of the amendment.
      The amendment that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I tabled on Report suggested that the record of compliance should be over two years. My right hon. Friend has seen fit to make it three years rather than two. Will he explain why he feels that that is necessary? I am certain that there must be a specific reason. With that sole query, I do no more than say that I think that the amendments tabled in another place will greatly improve the Bill.
      Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to tell the House how many local authorities will be automatically excluded from rate capping as a result of the amendments. I estimated, before the amendments from another place had been tabled, that over 50 per cent. of all local authorities in England and Wales would be excluded and that the percentage was likely to rise within a year to about 85 per cent. How many authorities does my right hon. Friend think will now be excluded? It is important that local authorities should know because it is their objections that have created so much opposition to the Bill. It is extremely important that they should know that they will not be affected by the Bill.
      Finally, it gives me great pleasure to know that the Government have been able to meet the assurances that my right hon. Friend gave to the House at an earlier stage.
      Mr. Patrick Jenkin: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to intervene.
      I much appreciate the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I said while he was engaged in Select Committee business that the amendment owed itself to the efforts that he and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends made on Report when they sought to write into the Bill a provision which is contained in the White Paper to the effect that, if the general scheme ever had to be introduced, levels would be set in such a way that authorities could generally be expected to contain their expenditure within them. We explained that that meant that the level of the general scheme would be such that authorities which were spending reasonably would not find it difficult to comply with the scheme. My hon. Friend felt that that explanation should not rest on a ministerial statement and should be embodied in the Bill and set out clearly so that the authorities would know where they stood. The amendments before us are the answer to my hon. Friend's argument.
      The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that if the amendments were agreed to it would change the nature of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. Paragraph 4.5 of the White Paper makes it clear that we did not envisage in the general scheme putting any severe constraint upon the spending of responsible local authorities. We envisaged that levels would be set with which they would not find

      857
      it difficult to comply. The scheme recognises what we envisaged and removes reasonable spending authorities from its framework.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton asked how many local authorities would be taken out of the scheme. This has to be determined on the past three years of spending and this year's budgets and the result might be quite different from the circumstances which would apply if the general scheme had to be introduced. On the basis of 1981–82 and 1983–84 spending and the 1984–85 budgets, it seems that 220 English authorities and 21 Welsh authorities will be excluded. That will be more than half of all English and Welsh authorities. That is a measure of the value of the amendment.
      I should have liked very much to accept the amendment which was introduced by my hon. Friend and his right hon. and hon. Friends on Report. He proposed a linkage to authorities' final accounts, but as they would not be known for a couple of years the amendment was not practicable. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the value of the amendment which is before us. We have gone further in one important respect than his amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) argued that we should take account of spending below GRE as well as spending below target, and that is what we have done.
      The Opposition wish to extend the benefit of the exemption in two ways. First, they wish to allow authorities to swap between meeting their target and their GRE from year to year rather than establishing a consistent record of spending, as set against one of those measures, for the full period. Secondly, they propose that the relevant period should be reduced from three years to two years plus the current year.
      I cannot accept either proposition. Our objective is to exclude from the general scheme authorities which have a consistent record of responsible spending. It does not seem satisfactory to propose that an authority which has taken advantage of the differences between GRE and target and has chosen the most advantageous spending figures in each year should thereby be excluded.
      The Government are offering a considerable concession, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has recognised, when it is set against the original proposition that all authorities should be within rate limitation. That is what was proposed in the Conservative party's manifesto. It is right that we should set a high standard for those who wish to be excluded. The amendments represent a considerable concession to local government and ratepayers are entitled to be assured that they will not be denied the protection of rate limitation unless the Government are sure that that protection is not necessary.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton reminded us, he proposed that spending should be considered over two years. He considered that that would be sufficient. We
      858
      have carefully considered the length of the period to apply. We have come to the conclusion that three years is the minimum acceptable period, for a number of reasons. First, we want to feel sure that an exclusion from general rate limitation will not remove protection from ratepayers in an area where they are entitled to expect protection. That means that we must set a test of consistency in low spending. Against that background, we must be realistic in recognising—we saw this last year and this year—that in the short term it is possible for an authority to manipulate its accounts and to present its expenditure as being lower than it really is. An authority cannot do so over a prolonged period, because eventually events catch up with it, but it can do so over a short period. We must take account of that fact. Secondly, significant changes in an authority's spending behaviour may occur, for instance, if there is a change in its political control. We must recognise those facts in considering the appropriate period.
      I do not believe that the criteria proposed in the amendments moved in the other place are excessively restrictive. As I have said, more than half of all authorities presently meet those criteria. Now that those criteria are established—this point was made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft)—all authorities will know what the criteria are. I should not expect general rate limitation to be introduced in the next two or three years. We must first give the selective scheme time to work properly. We shall not have any element of retrospection in that period. From the moment the amendment was tabled in another place all authorities knew precisely what they needed to do to be excluded should the general scheme ever have to be introduced.
      I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment. I hope that I have satisfactorily answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. I hope that the House will accept the amendments in the form in which they have been returned to us from another place.
      Mr. Straw: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond.
      We have listened carefully to the Secretary of State. His argument that it is wrong to leave authorities to choose between achieving a target or GRE is unacceptable. Target and GRE are measures of the Government's spending. It can hardly lie in the Government's mouth to criticise and condemn an authority for overspending when that authority has met either its target or GRE. It is not the fault of the authorities concerned that the methodology of GRE and target varies from year to year. The possibility, therefore, of an authority coming within a target or GRE will vary.
      The right hon. Gentleman's explanation is unacceptable and we shall, therefore, press amendment (b) to a Division.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 8, line 18, at end
      insert—
      "(1A) If in any financial year it appears to the Secretary of State from the best information available to him that an authority—

      (a) has in each of the three preceding financial years complied with subsection (1B) below and is likely to comply with that subsection in that financial year; or

      (b) has in each of the three preceding financial years complied with subsection (1C) below and is likely to comply with that subsection in that financial year,
      he shall by a notice in writing served on that authority exempt it from the operation of subsection (1) above in relation to the next financial year.

      (1B) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and its total expenditure in that year does not exceed its grant-related expenditure for that year.
      (1C) An authority complies with this subsection in a financial year if it has not been designated in relation to that year under section 2 above and complies in that year with guidance issued to it for the purposes of section 59(6)(cc) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that amendment No. 11 involves privilege.
      Amendment (b) proposed to the Lords amendment, line 6, leave out 'three' and insert 'two'.—[Mr. Straw.]
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 204.

      Division No. 384]

      [7.13 pm

      AYES

      Abse, Leo

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Alton, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Ashdown, Paddy

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

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Deakins, Eric

      Ashton, Joe

      Dewar, Donald

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Dixon, Donald

      Barron, Kevin

      Dobson, Frank

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Dormand, Jack

      Beggs, Roy

      Douglas, Dick

      Beith, A. J.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bell, Stuart

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Benn, Tony

      Eastham, Ken

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

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ewing, Harry

      Blair, Anthony

      Fatchett, Derek

      Boyes, Roland

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

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

      Flannery, Martin

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

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Forrester, John

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Buchan, Norman

      Foster, Derek

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Campbell, Ian

      George, Bruce

      Canavan, Dennis

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Golding, John

      Cartwright, John

      Gould, Bryan

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Clarke, Thomas

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Clay, Robert

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Hancock, Mr. Michael

      Cohen, Harry

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Conlan, Bernard

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Corbett, Robin

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Craigen, J. M.

      Howells, Geraint

      Crowther, Stan

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      860

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Pendry, Tom

      John, Brynmor

      Penhaligon, David

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pike, Peter

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Radice, Giles

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Redmond, M.

      Lambie, David

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Lamond, James

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Leighton, Ronald

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Robertson, George

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Litherland, Robert

      Rogers, Allan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCusker, Harold

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      McKelvey, William

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      McNamara, Kevin

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

      McTaggart, Robert

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      McWilliam, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Madden, Max

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

      Maginnis, Ken

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

      Marek, Dr John

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Martin, Michael

      Stott, Roger

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Strang, Gavin

      Maxton, John

      Straw, Jack

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Meacher, Michael

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Michie, William

      Tinn, James

      Mikardo, Ian

      Torney, Tom

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Wainwright, R.

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Wareing, Robert

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Weetch, Ken

      Nellist, David

      Welsh, Michael

      Nicholson, J.

      White, James

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wigley, Dafydd

      O'Brien, William

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      O'Neill, Martin

      Winnick, David

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Park, George

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Parry, Robert

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. John Home Robertson.

      Patchett, Terry

      Pavitt, Laurie

      861

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Alexander, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Amess, David

      Farr, Sir John

      Ancram, Michael

      Favell, Anthony

      Arnold, Tom

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Ashby, David

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Forman, Nigel

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Marcus

      Bellingham, Henry

      Franks, Cecil

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Freeman, Roger

      Best, Keith

      Galley, Roy

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Body, Richard

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bottomley, Peter

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Greenway, Harry

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

      Gregory, Conal

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Ground, Patrick

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Grylls, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Brinton, Tim

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Browne, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Harris, David

      Butterfill, John

      Harvey, Robert

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Cash, William

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hawksley, Warren

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hayward, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Henderson, Barry

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hirst, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Conway, Derek

      Holt, Richard

      Coombs, Simon

      Hooson, Tom

      Cope, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Cranborne, Viscount

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

      Crouch, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Dover, Den

      Hunter, Andrew

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Dunn, Robert

      Irving, Charles

      Durant, Tony

      Jackson, Robert

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Eggar, Tim

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Evennett, David

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      862

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Pawsey, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Key, Robert

      Powley, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Price, Sir David

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Proctor, K Harvey

      Knowles, Michael

      Raffan, Keith

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Renton, Tim

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Lester, Jim

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Lilley, Peter

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Rost, Peter

      Luce, Richard

      Ryder, Richard

      McCrindle, Robert

      St John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Maclean, David John

      Shersby, Michael

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Silvester, Fred

      Major, John

      Sims, Roger

      Malins, Humfrey

      Skeet, T H H

      Malone, Gerald

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Maples, John

      Speller, Tony

      Marland, Paul

      Steen, Anthony

      Marlow, Antony

      Stern, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stokes, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Trippier, David

      Moate, Roger

      van Straubenzee, Sir W

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Viggers, Peter

      Moore, John

      Walden, George

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Watson, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Normanton, Tom

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wood, Timothy

      Oppenheim, Philip

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tellers for the Noes

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Mr David Hunt and Mr Archie Hamilton

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.[Special entry.]
      Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.[Special entry.]

    New Clause

      PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO RATEPAYERS
      Lords amendment: No. 13, after clause 13 insert the following new clause—
      ".—(1) Rules under section 113 of the General Rate Act 1967 may require a rating authority to serve with any demand note for a rate a notice containing information—

      (a) as to the past or proposed expenditure of—

      (i) the rating authority; or

      (ii) any authority by which a precept has been issued to the rating authority,
      and as to the financing of that expenditure; and

      (b) as to any increase or reduction in the rates made by the rating authority or in the precepts issued to it.

      (2) Rules under that section may require an authority having power to issue precepts to serve notices on ratepayers in its area containing information—

      (a) as to its past or proposed expenditure and as to the financing of that expenditure; and

      (b) as to any increase or reduction in the precepts issued by the authority.

      (3) Rules made by virtue of this section may make different provision for different cases; and any notice required to be served by rules made by virtue of this section shall be in such form (if any) as the rules may prescribe.
      (4) An authority having power to issue precepts to a rating authority shall supply that authority with such information as is reasonably necessary for enabling it to comply with any requirements imposed by rules made by virtue of subsection (1) above; and a rating authority shall supply an authority having power to issue precepts to it with such information as is reasonably necessary for enabling the precepting authority to serve any notices required by rules made by virtue of subsection (2) above."
      Mr. Straw: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 9, after 'to' insert 'or levy imposed upon'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the proposed amendment:

      (b) in line 11, after 'to', insert 'or levies imposed'.

      (c) in line 1,3, after 'precepts', insert—or impose levies'.

      (d) in line 17, after 'issued' insert 'or levies imposed'.

      (e) in line 23, after second 'to', insert 'or impose levies upon'.

      (f) in line 28, after second 'to', insert 'or impose levies upon'.

      (g) in line 29, after 'precepting', insert 'or levying'. Lords amendment No. 33.

      Mr. Straw: Lords amendment No. 13 would insert a new clause requiring authorities to give supplementary information about their expenditure record and proposals. Although this is a further burden on already hard-pressed authorities, we do not especially disagree with it as we believe in far greater openness of Government than do the Minister and his party.
      As the provisions stand, however, there would be no requirement on London Regional Transport to provide equivalent information about its levy, although it will be raising the equivalent of a rate on the ratepayers of London. We believe that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it is right that local authorities should provide such detailed information to their ratepayers, by the same token LRT should provide similar information because its finances will be met by a levy and for this purpose it will be in the same position as a local authority.
      The Minister will no doubt point out that through the Secretary of State for Transport LRT will be accountable
      864
      to this House, but that is no substitute for the provision of information to local ratepayers as it is they who will be paying the levy.
      Sir George Young: I am glad that the Opposition agree with the purpose of the Lords amendment. It extends the powers of the Secretary of State under section 113 of the General Rate Act 1967 to make rules governing the content of the rate demand notice to cover information related to expenditure, financing and changes in rate or precept levels.
      We believe that these powers are necessary to ensure that all ratepayers have access to the kind of background information that the best authorities already provide. We shall discuss the new rules with the local authority associations and other interested parties and we expect to use the extended powers next year to bring new rules into effect for 1986–87 rate demands. The new rules will incorporate the changes already proposed in the rates White Paper to ensure that ratepayers are aware of the proportion of their individual rate bills attributable to the levy made by each major authority in their area.
      I hope that the House will agree that the amendment, with the consequential amendment to the long title, is a sensible and desirable extension of my right hon. Friend's powers to make rules in relation to rate demands and will enable us to improve the accountability of local authorities to their ratepayers.
      The hon. Gentleman argued that accountability to the House was no substitute for accountability to ratepayers. I have to disagree with him. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is required to account for any levy that he makes for the purpose of financing LRT. The London Regional Transport Bill provides that by making him accountable to Parliament.
      Clause 13 requires the Secretary of State to lay an order before the House each year specifying the amount in the

      865
      pound to be levied, the factors that he has taken into account in fixing levies and the means by which the amount has been calculated. Clause 13 also provides that the annual order should be subject to affirmative resolution. There is likely, therefore, to be a debate on all aspects of the ratepayers' levy, including the policies that underlie it. That means that my right hon. Friend will have to account to Parliament fully and specifically for the levy each year. That is why the LRT levy is not covered by clause 14.
      Our new rule will require the total bill to be split into its component parts, which will ensure that individual ratepayers are aware of the amount required in respect of the LRT levy. I hope that the House will agree that it will not be right to extend the provisions of clause 14 to enable my right hon. Friend to make rules about the provision for ratepayers of further information about levies, especially as he would never use that power, for the reasons that I have outlined. I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
      Question put and negatived.
      Lords Amendment No. 13 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Schedule 1
      MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
      Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 12, line 30, at end insert—
      MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

        Parts of hereditaments temporarily unoccupied
        3A.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 25 of the principal Act for the words from "until" to "subsection" there shall be substituted the words "until whichever of the events specified in subsection (1A) of this section first occurs".
        (2) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
        "(1A) The events mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are—

        (a) the reoccupation of any of the unoccupied part;

        (b) the ending of the rate period in which the request was made;

        (c) a further apportionment of the value of the hereditament taking effect under that subsection.

        (1B) Where an apportionment of the value of a hereditament under subsection (1) of this section has taken effect in a rate period and, in that or a subsequent rate period, it appears to the rating authority that the part of the hereditament which was unoccupied at the date of the apportionment has continued to be unoccupied but will remain so for a short time only, the rating authority may give further effect to the apportionment by making a determination under this subsection in relation to a specified rate period.
        (1C) From the commencement of the rate period to which a determination under subsection (1B) of this section relates until whichever of the events specified in subsection (1D) of this section first occurs the value apportioned to the occupied part shall be treated for rating purposes as if it were the value ascribed to the hereditament in the valuation list.
        (1D) The events mentioned in subsection (1C) of this section are—

        (a) the reoccupation of any of the unoccupied part;

        (b) the ending of the rate period to which the determination relates;

        (c) a further apportionment of the value of the hereditament taking effect under subsection (1) of this section."

        (3) In subsection (2) of that section for the word "subsection" there shall be substituted the word "subsections".
        (4) This paragraph shall have effect for any rate period beginning on or after 1st April 1984; and any apportionment which has taken effect under subsection (1) of section 25 of the
        866
        principal Act before this paragraph comes into force shall cease to have effect on 31st March 1985, unless it has previously ceased to have effect under that subsection or it is the subject of a determination made by virtue of this paragraph in relation to a rate period beginning after that date."
        Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        The amendment, together with amendment No. 22, to which we shall come later, complete a package of measures to help business ratepayers. Amendment No. 15 is to section 25 of the General Rate Act 1967, which enables rating authorities to provide, at their discretion, rate relief on parts of premises that are temporarily oat of use. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the section is constructed, a rating authority is not able to end the relief unless and until the unused part is brought back into use. Furthermore, if the whole premises subsequently become unoccupied, the authority is unable to levy empty property rates on the part that was previously unused. That is clearly unsatisfactory from the rating authority's point of view and the result has been that authorities rarely provide section 25 relief.
        The amendment would make the provision more workable and flexible by setting a time limit on the relief. Any relief that is given, including relief that has already been given, will automatically end at the end of the rating year. However, the rating local authority will be able to renew the relief without further ado if it considers it appropriate. That should encourage local authorities to make more use of the relief and will help businesses that are temporarily unable to make full use of their premises.
        I hope that the House will agree that this is a sensible amendment that will ensure that an existing provision is used far more effectively.
        Mr. Straw: We think that this is a sensible tidying-up of the law, and is an appropriate way to proceed.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to.—[Special Entry]
        Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 13, line 20, after "hotel" insert ", shop, museum".
        Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        It extends the type of premises that fall outside the scope of the provisions in schedule 1 for formula rating the three transport boards to include shops and museums. It will enable such premises to be rated separately, as, indeed, many are at present. It will bring them into line with dwellings, hotels and places of public refreshment occupied by the transport board, which are already excluded from formula rating by schedule 1.
        This is a technical amendment, which has been endorsed by the transport boards and the relevant local authority associations. I hope that the House will support its inclusion in the Bill.
        Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
        Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21 agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
        Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 17, line 14, at end insert—

        Non-domestic hereditaments not in active use
        7A.—(1) After section 46 of the principal Act there shall be inserted—

        Relief for non-domestic hereditaments not in active use
        46A.—(1) For the purposes of this Act a hereditament to which this section applies shall be treated

        867
        as unoccupied if, apart from this section, it would fall to be treated as occupied by reason only of there being kept in or on the hereditament plant, machinery or equipment—

        (a) which was used in or on the hereditament when it was last in use; or

        (b) which is intended for use in or on the hereditament.

        (2) This section applies to a hereditament which is not a dwelling-house, a private garage or private storage premises; and in this subsection—

        (a) "private garage" means a building having a floor area not exceeding 25 square metres which is used wholly or mainly for the accommodation of a motor vehicle; and

        (b) "private storage premises" means a hereditament which is used wholly in connection with a dwelling-house or dwelling-houses and wholly or mainly for the storage of articles of domestic use (including bicycles and similar vehicles) belonging to persons residing there.

        (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section a hereditament that is not in use shall nevertheless be treated as a dwelling-house, a private garage or private storage premises if it appears that, when next in use, it will be a hereditament of that description."
        (2) This paragraph shall have effect for any rate period beginning on or after 1st April 1985."
        Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        The amendment will provide for local authorities to treat as unoccupied hereditaments that are unused except for the storage of plant and machinery and equipment previously used or intended to be used in or on the hereditament. At present the presence of plant, machinery and equipment in a property would constitute occupation, if only for the purpose of storage. The occupier would, therefore, be liable to full rates.
        The purpose of the amendment is to prevent owners from having to strip out unused plant and machinery in order to obtain empty property relief. It will especially help businesses that have closed down temporarily, but which expect to resume use of their premises at some future date. It will also assist those owners who would prefer to try to let their premises with the plant and machinery in place.
        Premises that are treated as unoccupied as a result of the amendment will be exempt from rates for the first three months after they become unused. Thereafter, they will be liable to rates levied by the letting authority. Thus, industrial properties will receive 100 per cent. relief under the recent regulations, which have suspended local authorities' powers to levy rates on empty industrial property. Other types of non-domestic hereditament will receive a minimum of 50 per cent. relief.
        May I take this opportunity to relay to the House my right hon. Friend's decision to extend from 1 April 1985 the Rating (Exemption of Unoccupied Industrial Hereditaments) Regulations 1984 to ensure that warehouses as well as industrial buildings are not liable for empty property rates. Support was expressed for that claim by both sides in another place. I am sure that it will be welcomed by the House.
        The amendment complements Lords amendment No. 15, which the House has just agreed to. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a worthwhile reform.
        Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
        Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 17, line 14, at end insert—

        Domestic rate relief
        7B.—(1) In section 48(5) of the principal Act for the word "movable" there shall be substituted the words "two or more moveable" and in paragraph 3 of Schedule 13 to that Act before the word "moveable" there shall be inserted the words "two or more".
        (2) This paragraph shall be deemed always to have had effect."
        Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        It is a new provision that clarifies the existing legislation relating to the provision of domestic rate relief for caravans and houseboats, which is contained in schedule 13 to the General Rate Act 1967. A recent court case has cast some doubt on whether a single moveable dwelling is eligible for this relief under schedule 13.
        It has always been intended that such dwellings should be eligible for domestic rate relief. The amendment will ensure that single caravans and houseboats continue to get the relief. I hope that the House will agree that it is desirable to clarify the law in this respect.
        Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
        Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 17, line 16, at beginning insert—
        "(1) In section 50(1) of the principal Act for the words from "(not being a tenant" to "through the owner" there shall be substituted the words "is liable to pay any rates in respect of a hereditament"; and for the words "any rates", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "the rates"."
        Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 25.
        The amendment is a technical one that ensures that all ratepayers are entitled to pay their rates in monthly instalments. As previously granted, schedule 1 would have extended that right only to occupiers who pay rates. However, there are also owners who pay rates, such as the owners of unoccupied property, or landlords who have undertaken to pay rates on behalf of their tenants. It is only right that such ratepayers should be able to pay by instalment. I hope that the House will agree that that is desirable.
        Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
        Lords amendment No. 25 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
        Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 21, line 5, leave out from "list" to end of line 11 and insert—
        "(c) minutes of the proceedings of any local valuation court with respect to the valuation list currently in force in a rating area or, subject to subsection (3) of this section, the immediately preceding valuation list; and
        (d) minutes of the proceedings of any rating authority during the preceding ten years or, where the valuation list currently in force in the rating area of an authority was transmitted to it under section 68(2) of this Act before the commencement of that period, during the period since the list was transmitted to the authority."
        Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 27.
        Sir George Young: This is another technical amendment which ensures that the provisions which restrict right of access to certain old—and inessential rating records—do not restrict access to records to which ratepayers and valuation officers might reasonably

        869
        need to have access, nor restrict in any way the persons who are entitled to such access. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 27 agreed to.
        Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 22, line 46, at end insert—

        Adjustment of grant for disparities in rate revenue
        .—(1) For section 59(11)(c) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 there shall be subsituted—
        "(c) as if paragraph (e)—

        (i) were omitted except in relation to any exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1) above for a purpose mentioned in subsection (6)(b) or (c) above; and

        (ii) in relation to any such exercise of that power, referred to two classes, namely, councils of outer London boroughs."

        (2) This paragraph has effect in relation to any financial year beginning on or after 1st April 1983."
        Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        This is a technical amendment to the legislation which governs the block grant system. It removes a doubt about the powers under which the London resource discount arrangments are currently implemented. This is the scheme that allows London authorities to retain part of the benefit of their very high rateable resources, and helps reduce the burden of rates in London. The scheme has been in existence for many years under successive grant systems and Governments.
        I hope that the House will agree to this technical amendment.
        Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
        Lords amendment: No. 29 in page 22, line 46, at end insert—

        Substituted rates and precepts
        —(1) After subsection (8) of section 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 there shall be inserted—
        "(9) Where the original rate or precept has been quashed because it is insufficient to meet the expenditure required to be taken into account under section 2 or 11 of the said Act of 1967, subsection (2) above shall not prevent a substituted rate or precept being made or issued which is sufficient to meet that expenditure.
        (10) Where, whether by virtue of this section or otherwise, a precept is issued to a rating authority after it has made a rate for the financial year to which the precept relates, subsection (2) above shall not prevent a substituted rate being made by the authority for giving effect to the precept; and a rating authority which makes a substantial rate by virtue of this subsection shall be entitled to recover from the precepting authority in question any increase in its administrative or rate collection expenses which is attributable to that rate."
        (2) This paragraph shall have effect in relation to any financial year beginning on or after 1st April 1984."
        Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        This amendment stems from a commitment that we gave in Committee to consider carefully the implications of an amendment tabled by Opposition Members that sought to clarify the position of a rating authority if a precepting authority had issued a precept that did not comply with the requirements of clause 6 that in the case of designated authorities the rate or precept must be set within the maximum prescribed by the Secretary of State.
        It was pointed out that a rating authority cannot take into account an invalid precept when it makes its rate, but a rating authority could be placed in a difficult position if, after having made its rate, it received a valid precept from
        870
        a precepting authority. In those circumstances, it could find that the rate that it had made was insufficient to provide for the later precept.
        The effect of section 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 is that a rating or a precepting authority cannot make a rate or a precept in substitution for an original rate or precept for any amount higher than the amount of the original rate or precept. Subsection (10) of the amendment therefore provides that where a precept is issued to a rating authority after it has made a rate for the financial year to which the precept relates, it shall be able to make a substituted rate for giving effect to the precept. A rating authority that has to make a substituted rate in that way will be entitled to recover from the precepting authority in question any increase in its administrative or rate collection expenses that is attributable to that rate.
        We have also considered the position of any rating or precepting authority that makes a rate or precept which is invalid because it fails to comply with the requirement of sections 2 and 11 respectively of the General Rate Act 1967. Those provisions place a duty upon rating and precepting authorities to make such rates or precepts as are sufficient to provide for their total estimated expenditure that is not to be met by means other than the rate or precept. The part of this amendment that inserts a new subsection (9) in section 3 of the 1982 Act is necessary to ensure that, were a rate or precept ever to be quashed by the courts as insufficient, the rating or precepting authority would have power subsequently to make a substituted rate or precept at a higher level which was sufficient to meet their estimated expenditure.
        The amendment has effect in relation to any financial year beginning on or after 1 April 1984.
        I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
        Mr. Straw: Lords amendment No. 29 will be the final occasion on which the Opposition Front Bench will have an opportunity to speak as we shall forgo the opportunity to speak on amendment No. 30 and amendments Nos. 31 and 32, which are grouped with it. There is not a great deal to say on amendment No. 31, which is as follows:
        "Page 25, line 28, after 'this' insert 'Part of this'."
        That is something that I have been thinking about all day.
        We are not supposed to mention the officials in the Box, but they look demob happy. They may be happy that, at long last, it looks as if—sadly—the Bill will complete all its stages in the House. I warn them, however, as the people who partly have to bear the brunt of the Government's policy, that their troubles have only just begun. Labour authorities will not take lying down attempts by the Government to override the decisions of their electors about the level of services that should be provided. The ladies and gentlemen in the Box know that we of the Opposition bear them no personal ill will—far from it——
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's vision should stop this side of the Chair.
        Mr. Straw: Indeed. Even if the Bill receives Royal Assent in the next few weeks, far from it being the end of the Government's problems, it will herald the beginning of their problems.
        We recognise the necessity for the amendment in current circumstances. My colleagues who were members of the Committees on earlier Bills that prohibited the raising of supplementary rates, where those supplementary

        871
        rates were above the previous level, will look with a wry smile on the fact that the Government have had to introduce legislation to provide for a substituted rate to be lawful, although that substituted rate is higher than the previous rate that was quashed, but we shall let that go. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
        Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Schedule 2
      RATING OF MOORINGS
      Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 23, line 2, at end insert—
      RATING OF MOORINGS

        EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN MOORINGS
        —(1) No mooring to which this paragraph applies shall be liable to be rated or to be included in any valuation list or in any rate.
        (2) This paragraph applies to any mooring—

        (a) used or intended to be used by a boat or ship; and

        (b) equipped only with a buoy attached to an anchor, weight or other device—

        (i) which rests on or in the bed of the sea or any river or other waters when in use; and

        (ii) which is designed to be raised from that bed from time to time.

        (3) This paragraph shall have effect for any rate period beginning on or after 1st April 1985.

        RATING OF MULTIPLE MOORINGS"
        Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
        Sir George Young: We have received a very large number of representations, mainly from yacht clubs and
        872
        owners, about the effects of schedule 2. Amongst them, there is a widespread—and, I have to say, mistaken—belief that the schedule places a new tax on yachting. Let me say quite clearly that the schedule as originally drafted in no way affects the basic rateability of moorings, which has existed for a very long time. In practice, however, many moorings have escaped rating because of the difficulty of identifying occupiers, while others have had to pay rates. That is clearly unfair. Part II of schedule 2 therefore ensures that that liability can be better enforced by providing valuation officers with discretion to assess a group of moorings in separate occupation as a single hereditament in the occupation of the owner.
        I understand the concern of the yachting community that this may lead to an additional financial burden for some of them. Much of that concern is focused on whether it is proper to rate one particular type of mooring, commonly known as a swinging mooring, which consists of a buoy attached to an anchor or weight that lies on the seabed and is designed to be raised from time to time—for example, in the winter, or for maintenance. There is some doubt about the rateablity of such moorings, many of which may not be sufficiently permamently fixed to the seabed to satisfy the basic criteria for rateability.
        The amendment fulfils a commitment that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), gave in Committee to remove any such doubt by making it clear that that type of mooring is not liable to be assessed for rates, and I hope that the House will agree that this is a sensible and pragmatic solution. The remainder of schedule 2 is not altered and will apply to all moorings that are not exempted from rates by this amendment.
        Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]
        Lords amendments No. 31 and 32 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
        Lords amendment No. 33 agreed to.

    Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
    As amended, considered.
    7.49 pm
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Hon. Members may have noticed that there are some misprints on the Amendment Paper. I shall draw the attention of the House to them as we reach them.

    Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
      New Clause 3

        POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO EXTEND PROVISIONS OF ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 ETC. TO PROPOSED ROADS IN SCOTLAND
        'After section 132 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
        132A.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, there may be prescribed relevant references which are to be construed as including references to proposed roads.
        (2) No regulation under subsection (1) above shall have, or purport to have, the effect of rendering criminal conduct (or ommisions) which, but for the regulations, would not be criminal.
        (3) The foregoing provisions of this section are without prejudice to the exercise of any other power under this Act.
        (4) In subsections (1) and (2) above—
        "proposed road" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984; and
        "relevant reference" means a reference to a road in a provision of, or made by, under or by virtue of, this Act.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 39.
        Mr. Stewart: The Road Traffic Regulation Bill, which is a consolidation measure, is currently under consideration. The purpose of the new clause is to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to specify that appropriate provisions in that Bill will apply to proposed roads as well as to completed roads. He will exercise his power by means of regulations, which will be subject to approval by resolution of each House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 4

        RESTRICTED ROADS: AMENDMENT OF ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984
        'Schedule [Restricted roads] to this Act (which amends provisions regarding restricted roads under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 21 to 25, 7 and 40.
        Mr. Stewart: These amendments to road traffic legislation are being introduced to remedy the serious problem which faces road authorities and the police on
        874
        speed limit control. Hon. Members will know that the Bill does not deal with road traffic matters, but there is no other readily available means of dealing with this position.
        The problem stems from the current system of determining what restricted roads are. They are roads which automatically attract a 30 mph speed limit. The basic criterion is that they have a system of street lighting with lamps not more than 200 yards apart. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 a second determining factor for a restricted road was that it was unclassified or, if it was a trunk or classified road, had a system of street lighting prior to 1 July 1957.
        With the passage of time and changes, such as Local government reorganisation, it became increasingly difficult to establish which trunk and classified roads had lights installed on them prior to that date. As a result prosecutions for speeding offences became difficult on some roads, which were subject to a 30 mph limit but could not be proved to have one.
        An attempt to remedy that position was made in the Transport Act 1982, which amended the restricted road provisions in the 1967 legislation. Unfortunately, those involved in speed limit control found great difficulty in understanding the terms of the amending legislation. The only effect seems to have been to apply a 30 mph speed limit to any road on which lights are installed, whether or not such a limit is appropriate to it. Consequently, to apply the appropriate speed limit, roads authorities must become involved in the costly and time-consuming business of making individual speed limit control orders. Moreover, the amendments to the 1982 legislation depended on whether or not certain signs were in place on a certain date, but reference to such a date caused the problem which the amendments sought to resolve.
        I hope that the House will agree that the existing position is near to complete confusion. It is evident that a revised system of determining speed limit control is necessary. It is important to ensure that the changes made will not require the re-education of drivers, and will involve the minimum of expenditure. I am happy to tell the House that such a system has been agreed in joint discussions between the Scottish Office, local authorities, the police and the Crown Office. The system provides that restricted roads will be of a class or type prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations, and which have a system of lighting such as the one that I mentioned earlier. All other roads will be subject to the prevailing national speed limits unless orders are made by roads authorities to impose different limits. A restricted road can also have its speed limit changed by such an order.
        The revised system is clear, simple, and involves no references to historic dates. We have made provision for special transitional orders to be made. As they will maintain the status quo and will not affect adversely the interests of anyone, they will be free from procedural requirements.
        Everyone will welcome the prospect of a coherent and workable system of speed limit control, which these amendments provide. They have been agreed by all the relevant parties, and I commend them to the House.
        Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your clarification. The Minister said that the amendments were about road traffic regulations and not roads provision. They are two different matters. The report of our Committee proceedings last

        875
        week shows that when on one or two occasions I raised issues relating to road traffic offences the Minister said that they were not relevant to the debate.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be better if I propose the Question to the House. Then the Minister can answer the hon. Member's question, which relates to the content of the Bill rather than to the order of our proceedings in the House.
        Mr. Maxton: It is a point of order, and I wish to pursue it. I tabled some new clauses and amendments in Committee and on Report which were ruled out of order by the Chair because they were about road traffic regulations. Yet the Minister introduced a new clause which is about road traffic regulations. It is unfair for the Government to be allowed to table new clauses which do not relate to the Bill when Back-Bench Members cannot. If such matters are to be allowed, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, reconsider the items which I tabled and which were not selected? If Government amendments about road traffic matters can be selected, I do not see why other such amendments cannot also be selected.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member cannot reopen the question of the selection or non-selection of amendments in Committee. The usual care was given to the validity of amendments, whether they were tabled by Ministers or other hon. Members. The Minister's amendments are in order.
        Mr. Jim Craigen: I have sympathy with the difficulty that faced my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) last week when we discussed matters relating to pedestrian crossings. It was made clear that the Bill was primarily concerned with consolidation and not with road traffic matters. I have noted what the Minister said, and it is clear that where there is a will there is a way.
        8 pm
        The Minister is dealing with a tricky issue. As I understand it, there have been joint meetings between officials of the Scottish Office and officials of the COSLA working party which dealt with speed limits. I take it from what he said that COSLA is reasonably happy that the proposals that have been drafted and are before the House will meet the difficulties which currently face police and road authorities in establishing the status of a road and the appropriate speed limit.
        In addition to what the Minister has said about the provision of street lighting, I must say that the quality of street lighting is often a problem. I hope that due regard is paid to that in the provisions that the House has been asked to examine.
        How widely used will the changes be? Does the Minister envisage that local authorities will be involved in additional expenditure for the signposting of speed limits? I recall trying to persuade Strathclyde region roads department to have a 40 mph speed limit on a stretch of dual carriageway where people were a little worried about the volume and speed of traffic when they were crossing the road. On the telephone, the road engineer said to me, "We take the view that traffic finds its own speed." I replied, "If that is the case, what is the point of having any traffic restriction signs at all?"
        876
        The Minister will be aware that ideas and interpretations of regulations can sometimes vary according to the road engineer or authority with which one is dealing. I hope that the Minister can assure us on three points: COSLA's opinion, the quality of street lighting and the costs that local authorities are likely to incur as a result of these proposed changes.
        8 pm
        Mr. Maxton: I always find myself torn on the subject of speed limits. One can always see the point of imposing speed limits throughout built-up areas where there are likely to be pedestrians on the pavements to ensure the safety of the young and the elderly and I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) mentioned the handicapped last week when I raised a similar point in another debate.
        We must consider the subject of speed limits carefully, and the Minister may be right in what he is doing. However, I am worried about laws which are unenforceable. That is the problem with speed limits. They are ignored by 95 per cent. of the drivers for 98 per cent. of the time. As a result, the law is broken consistently. [Laughter.] I do not know what the cackle is behind me. The law is ignored, and that brings it into contempt.
        Mr. John Home Robertson: As my hon. Friend referred to me, I should explain that certain Members on the Conservative Benches are saying that my hon. Friend is wrong and that 100 per cent. of the time would have been more appropriate.
        Mr. Maxton: I am sure that Conservative Members do not believe that, although some Conservative Members may ignore speed limits 100 per cent. of the time.
        There is a problem with the imposition of speed limits. People do not obey them. When people disobey them, they get caught only on the odd occasion. Most motorists drive their cars and say, "If I get caught, that is too bad. It will be only once in a thousand times that I am caught for this offence."
        Mr. David Marshall: How many times has my hon. Friend been caught?
        Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend asks how many times I have been caught. With the privilege of the House, I believe that I do not have to tell my hon. Friend that. I can assure him that I have been caught for speeding in the past and may well be caught for speeding in the future. That bears out the point that I am making—that most motorists break the law. They do not obey the speed limits. I am glad to see two distinguished Scottish lawyers in the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). They would agree that having laws which are broken by a great many respectable people for a great deal of the time cannot be conducive to good law and order. It brings law into contempt. It makes the policeman an enemy to many people when they are driving a car.
        Rather than speed limits, the more important point to consider is how we can better protect pedestrians within built-up areas. I return to the point I made earlier—I shall not stray too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that you would rule me out of order—that the major problem for pedestrians is crossing busy roads. The speed of the traffic is important, but it is only part of the

        877
        problem. The other part of the problem is their ability to cross roads when there is a heavy traffic flow. That brings us to the proper provision of pedestrian phases at traffic light-controlled crossings and pedestrian-controlled traffic lights where necessary, and pedestrian crossings, to ensure that people can cross the road safely.
        The present criteria that the Secretary of State uses when allowing local road authorities to establish crossings do not take proper account of the age and physical health of all the people who use the crossings. The main interest lies in the number of cars on the road rather than the people who use the crossings. I hope that the Minister will take some notice of that.
        Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major problems with pedestrian crossings that has not been highlighted is that elderly and infirm people do not have time to cross the road before the lights change against them?
        Mr. Maxton: As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is one clause which provides that where there is a major danger to pedestrians and that local authorities feel that that is the case they may build a bridge or an underpass to solve the problem. I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes. There are elderly people who find it difficult to cross traffic light-controlled and other pedestrian crossings. There are many busy streets in our towns where there are no such crossings and no way for the people to cross. Motorists should take more account of traffic lights and pedestrian crossings.
        If road traffic regulations are to be introduced into the Bill, the Government should table new clauses to lay down new criteria for the introduction of traffic light-controlled crossings to ensure greater safety for our children, our elderly and our handicapped.
        Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for his constructive response to the introduction of the new clause. I can confirm that we have had full discussions with COSLA and with the police. British standards are available and the road authorities follow them. The hon. Member has also asked me about administrative time and extra costs. A certain amount of extra administrative time will have to be spent initially by roads authorities in identifying roads whose speed limits would otherwise automatically be changed on the introduction of the new system.
        I have mentioned the transitional arrangement. The changeover will involve less time and effort than would otherwise be expended by local authorities, the police and others in trying to fathom and operate the existing complex provisions.
        Mr. Craigen: Is the Minister telling us that this exercise is based on a cost-benefit analysis and that we shall save in lawyer's fees the money spent by road engineers?
        Mr. Stewart: No. There will be a small once-for-all administrative cost. However, no new signs will be needed.
        Mr. Donald Dewar: I am afraid that I have not looked with great care at the Road Traffic Regulation Bill. I see that the definition of a road which will be able to carry a speed limit has been metricated, and the distance is now 185 metres rather than
        878
        200 yards. I do not know whether that is an improvement. However, I also see that in any proceedings for contravention of clause 81 of the Bill a certificate signed by an officer of the Secretary of State that a road is of a specified classification or type shall be sufficient evidence of the facts certified. Presumably that means that it will no longer be necessary for someone to come to court and say that there are lights on the roads and that they are less than 185 metres apart.
        Can such a certificate be challenged? Self-evidently, it will prove itself if not challenged, but if I want to lead evidence that the Secretary of State or his representative have skelly eyes and cannot count, and that the lamp posts are not the right distance apart, the new subsection (1)(a) holds out little prospect of challenging the certificate. I can challenge the assertion that the document has been signed by the person who is supposed to have signed it, but I cannot lead evidence to challenge the findings in the document.
        I see the tremendous convenience of the document proving itself, but I foresee some danger if no one can prove to the Secretary of State that, perhaps because of an administrative mishap, the information in the certificate is wrong.
        Mr. Stewart: I should like to take up the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Max ton). We are not talking about road traffic regulations as such. The House will have had much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's major point, which was that speed limits should be realistic. If they are realistic, they will be observed by most drivers. Unrealistic limits have been shown by experience to be ignored by drivers, because most drivers will select a speed which they consider to be safe in the circumstances of the road. Hon. Members are all probably aware of the stretches of road on which cars often travel much faster than the speed limit.
        The criteria must be realistic. It is therefore necessary to have a speed survey aimed at finding a speed below which 85 per cent. of traffic moves in free flow conditions. The 85 percentile speed is taken as the guideline for setting the limit.
        The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked a question about certification. I am advised that the question relates only to classification. It does not relate to the presence of lights.
        Mr. Dewar: It may be that there is no problem here, but I want to be clear about the position in my own mind. I have a dim memory of people successfully defending themselves against charges of parking offences on the ground that the lights on the roads were not sufficiently close together to make it clear that there could be a speed limit on the road. Does the classification cover that point? Is that a point that could be challenged, or has it been shed in some way during the processes of change? Perhaps the Minister will write to me on the matter.
        Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will write to him, setting out the position fully.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 1

        PARKING OF CARAVANS ON LAY-BYS
        'A person who parks a caravan for more than eight hours at any one time on a lay-by adjoining a trunk road commits an offence.'.
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Parking of caravans on picnic sites—
        'A person who parks a caravan for more than eight hours at any one time on a picnic site provided under section 55 of this Act commits an offence.'
        Amendment No. 5, in schedule 8, page 177, line 27, at end insert—
        'Section (Parking of caravans on lay-bys): Parking for more than eight hours on a lay-by'.
        Amendment No. 6, in page 177, line 27, at end insert—
        'Section (Parking of caravans on picnic sites): The Parking for more than eight hours on a picnic site.'.
        Mr. Walker: The background to the new clause is that experience has shown that, when splendid laybys are provided, they are not always occupied by the people who were expected to occupy them.
        Clause 55 provides for the provision of picnic sites on our major trunk roads. That is something of which I heartily approve.
        Mr. Craigen: During proceedings on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, the hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that he was the caravaner's friend. What would be the position under the new clause of a caravaner from, say, Blairgowrie, travelling to Edinburgh, whose caravan developed a fault? If he was stuck in a layby for a day or two, what would his position be?
        Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain my thinking more fully, I shall deal with that point. I have been a caravaner all my adult life.
        Mr. Maxton: And a pilot, a glider, a bus driver, a trade unionist, a council house tenant——
        8.15 pm
        Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about those who spend their recreation time flying and gliding, he would realise that one of the important things that is not available to them is a residence. They therefore tend to pull the residence around with them, and that is where the caravan comes in. One becomes a caravaner because of one's other interests. There is a caravan parked beside my house today, as there has been for my whole adult life.
        The amendment is neither frivolous nor humorous. We are spending much money on our trunk roads to make it possible for individuals who have a legitimate interest in the countryside to see our beautiful countryside. The facilities are intended to be used by genuine tourists who use the trunk roads as a means of getting from point A to point B. Among those tourists there will be caravaners who from time to time will find themselves in exactly the same position as someone who breaks down on a motorway or anywhere else. One commits an offence if one leaves the broken-down vehicle in a position in which it could cause problems to others. The normal procedure
        880
        is to call out assistance. The Caravan Club and other bodies make provision so that assistance can be summoned. Those who find themselves in that situation are able to call assistance. It is unlikely that they will be stranded for days on end.
        New clause 1 deals with people who wilfully park on laybys for more than eight hours. Some people park for days and frequently for months. That is not intended by clause 55, by which we provide picnic sites. Overstaying is an abuse of a provision that is intended for the legitimate traveller. Contrary to the views expressed by some Opposition Members, I work closely with the National Gypsy Council and with travelling people in my constituency, who oppose overstayers. They believe that provision of proper sites is the means by which to deal with the matter. The A9 is the main road to the north and now has substantial sums of public money spent on it and I hope that clause 55 will ensure that there will be picnic sites on it, but not if they are abused, as is the case with other laybys.
        It is not enough for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that local authorities can make byelaws to ensure that such people are prosecuted because under the arrangement of non-harassment the police visit a layby, make a charge and submit details to procurators fiscal, who submit the case to the Crown Office for approval. By then, the people concerned might have been on the site for three weeks. I should like statutory penalties to be written into the Bill. That would be a simple and effective means by which to ensure that the new picnic sites are not abused. The laybys should present an image of an interested and caring society which wants tourists and caravaners to visit the area.
        Anyone who has used the A9 at this time of the year will be aware that there is a caravan every few hundred yards. We must ensure that trunk roads have adequate facilities for genuine caravaners. Genuine tourists are deterred from using laybys because of their appalling state, as a result of being misused by people who are not the travellers of the romantic past. They are a new type of person, whom I call dropouts who want to avoid the consequences of having an address, such as paying tax. Such people have been photographed and reported in the local press as saying that they do not care, that they will park anyway, and that they do not care what we do.
        We face a serious problem, which detracts from the Scottish countryside and results in people who have travelled a route resolving never to go back. We should think seriously about the problem. We are discussing trunk roads, not secondary roads on which many laybys are abused. I merely wish to ensure that the new picnic sites are not abused.
        Sir Hector Monro: There is much sense in what my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said, bearing in mind the fact that a layby is defined as a place for a temporary stop. The important point here is that we are dealing with trunk roads. We do not want permanent parking on the verges of our trunk roads. We want laybys to be used for temporary stops—for a meal or an overnight stop.
        I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister does not leave the matter entirely to local authority byelaws but provides a much more rapidly dealt with offence so that caravaners can be moved on quickly after they have stayed their allotted time. It would be useful to have on record the legal status of signs that are occasionally found in laybys which

        881
        say, "No overnight parking". Are byelaws enforceable or are such signs merely an expression of hope on the part of the highways authority? My hon. Friend has raised a serious point. Of course, if someone breaks down with a puncture or worse, the police will take that into account.
        Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) talked about caravaners and drop-outs and explained his worries. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I tell him that several Opposition Members viewed new clause 1, and, to some extent, still do, as part of his campaign in regard to travelling people in the Perth and Kinross area. Anyone who reads the reports of Scottish Question Time for the past few years will find that the hon. Gentleman has constantly urged the hapless Solicitor-General for Scotland to spend a great deal of his valuable time interviewing the procurator fiscal in Perth about his failure to mount sufficient prosecutions against travelling people.
        There has been a rather unpleasant atmosphere about some of the exchanges on this matter. I remember talk about illegal parking, about collusion between national and local government officials and the discredited advisory committee. The hon. Gentleman said that he tried to keep good relations with organisations that deal with travelling people but, in a recent exchange, he was not above referring to the national advisory committee on travelling people as discredited. There have also been hints about health and hygiene, vermin problems and the rest.
        Although the hon. Gentleman introduced new clause 1 in a most general sense, his anxieties and, I believe, unjustified feelings about travelling people have much to do with these new clauses and amendments. I recognise that there can be a problem, although it is limited. The hon. Gentleman will know that only about 500 families in Scotland were on the road in 1982. I admit that 103 of them were in the Perth and Kinross area, which might be higher than expected. However, the problem is limited and should be treated with sympathy. This seems to be an attempt to ensure that travelling people shall be dealt with expeditiously and moved on quickly so that in no way will they offend the susceptibilities of the hon. Member for Tayside, North and his friends.
        8.30 pm
        It became clear during the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the new clauses are designed to get around the Government's long standing policy of non-harassment. The Labour Opposition—I suspect that the other Opposition parties may sympathise—believe that policy to be correct. It has our support. If the intention of the new clauses is to circumvent it, they should be resisted by the Government.
        I referred to the number of travelling families on the roads in Scotland and to the latest estimate available to me. I am sure that the Minister has been well briefed and, like me, will have seen what was behind the new clauses. Will he say something about the current situation on sites? That may sound as though I am widening the debate, but I do not think that I am because the whole policy of non-harassment is at the centre of the debate on these new clauses.
        That policy applies not to any general offence that may be committed by someone travelling the roads but is specifically limited to the problem of unlawful encampment, and involves the submission of papers to the Crown Office. It seems to be something akin to overkill,
        882
        but if we are to take literally the answers that we have received, those papers are personally scrutinised by the Lord Advocate who decides whether any prosecution is necessary. From what we have been told we know that the Lord Advocate takes into account the circumstances in which the alleged offence took place, but also considers a number of other matters such as the number of sites available in the locality in which the caravans came to rest.
        On 15 February this year in column 259 of the Official Report, the Solicitor-General for Scotland made it clear that the Government were doing everything in their power to encourage the provision of sites. There have, of course, been 100 per cent. grants since June 1980. How much has been spent, how many sites are there and what has been the usage rate? I ask those questions because they are relevant to the operation of the non-harassment policy, which indirectly is being attacked by the back door. Have there been any prosecutions?
        Mr. Bill Walker: Not so.
        Mr. Dewar: The hon. Member for Tayside, North says with some indignation that that is not the position. If non-harassment is a matter of lawful encampment, the situation must be considered at the highest level in the Crown Office before a prosecution can be mounted. That is an interesting argument that we may debate later if the new clauses find favour with the House, but it is not clear whether, if the new clauses were added to the Bill, they would be included in the non-harassment policy as well. In other words, this would then be regarded as unlawful encampment and would therefore be subject to what the hon. Member for Tayside, North no doubt sees as the kid glove approach which the non-harassment policy represents.
        Mr. Walker: The new clause explicitly refers to trunk roads. In my constituency, where there have been problems on laybys, the trunk roads have not been affected. However, that could change because of the provision of new picnic sites on trunk roads. There are plenty of laybys on the non-trunk routes and, consequently, the non-harassment policy, if continued, would provide adequate parking. In addition, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are sites in Perthshire.
        Mr. Dewar: I am well aware that there are sites in Perthshire. I know that there have been some delays in implementation and, to be fair, the hon. Gentleman has at various times made a fuss about that. For example, the site at Tulloch has caused some problems.
        Under the policy of non-harassment there would be no prosecution for unlawful encampment without the specific authority of the Lord Advocate. If the new clause were to reach the statute book—I hope that it will not for reasons that I shall give—presumably any prosecution to be mounted by the procurator fiscal would be included in the non-harassment agreement, or would it be modified automatically given that these provisions are analogous with that policy and would be seen as unlawful encampment charges?
        As I understand the intervention of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, it is that I am putting far too sinister an interpretation on the new clauses and that in no way are they meant to restrict travelling people resting their caravans in laybys. Indeed, there are many laybys on small side roads in the hon. Gentleman's constituency where, by implication, travelling people would be welcome to go and

        883
        camp. For cosmetic reasons and to help the tourist trade the new clauses are designed to stop caravans resting in laybys on trunk roads.
        The hon. Gentleman may take this amiss, but there is a good deal of sophistry in that approach. It is thoroughly unconvincing. Frankly, his dislike of the non-harassment policy and the habits and way of life of travelling folk are at the base of the new clauses.
        I entirely accept that there can be problems and that it would be ludicrous if there were no protection against someone setting up home in a layby near to another person's dwelling thereby creating major problems. But at a technical level these proposals would produce far more difficulties than they would solve, apart from their doubtful pedigree and the basis on which they have been put forward.
        I do not know what a caravan would be in this context. A definition would have to be written in, and that would be difficult as the Bill has now concluded its passage. As the hon. Member for Tayside, North will know, it has already been through the other place. Perhaps he is thinking of the definition in section 29 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which does not include a tent. I do not know whether that distinction was meant to be made in the new clauses. But if one looks at the Mobile Homes Act, the various caravan sites Acts and the 1960 Act, one will see that there are problems over the definition of a caravan. At a minor technical level, the new clauses are inadequate, given that there has been no attempt to define what we are talking about or what would be the subject of criminal prosecution.
        I am sure that the hon. Member for Tayside, North would agree that the creation of a criminal offence is serious. If one intends to do so, one should go to the trouble of defining the offence. That has not clearly and sensibly been done.
        I suspect that adequate powers already exist to move people on from laybys if in some way they have become a public nuisance. If a policemen were to say, "Under the motorway regulations and the trunk road regulations we are asking you to move on", and the drop-out, travelling person or the man from Margate who has broken his back axle told him to sod off, there is something called the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. That has recently been given a certain prominence. I am sure that the Minister would be the first to assure his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North that such an incident would amount to a breach of the peace and that the person concerned could be summarily lifted and removed to the local police station.
        Will the Minister confirm that the police have no difficulty moving people on in the way that I have described? If they refused to move on—this is perhaps the real point in view of the arguments that have been used—they are then arrested for a breach of the peace or obstructuring a police officer in the course of his duty under the 1967 Act. There would then not be a prosecution for unlawful encampment, and such people would not have the protection of the non-harassment policy. The situation is adequately covered, and if the police allow these people to defy them it is because the police do not think that the situation is as horrendous, serious and difficult as the hon. Member for Tayside, North instinctively does every time he comes across someone
        884
        who can be described as a travelling person, a drop-out or someone who does not fit into his set of socially acceptable norms.
        It is clear that this new clause is badly drafted. It is inadequate in definition and absolutely unnecessary because the existing powers are adequate. This is a difficult problem. There are frictions, and it would be silly to claim that they do not arise. To their credit, the Government have tried with the grants that they have given to the non-harassment policy to deal with this sensitively and sympathetically, which is what this problem demands. To adopt these new clauses would be to disrupt that approach and to import on to the statute book a series of proposals that would be seen as vengeful and hostile. They would put back by a long time the cause of the proper integration of travelling folk into society if they so wish. Therefore, I hope that the new clauses will be resisted by the Minister. If he does not, the Labour party will resist them.
        Mr. Michael Forsyth: I support the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) either has not ventured out of the boundaries of his constituency or has not done his homework on this matter. For those of us who represent constituencies where tourism has an important place in the economy, these new clauses offer some hope.
        One of the first letters from a constituent that I received after coming to this place was on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) sent me a reply that I had occasion to discuss with him afterwards. In that reply, he pointed out that the police could not be expected to enforce the existing law, which is difficult to enforce. People were parking their caravans in laybys that were intended for other purposes, and this constituted a problem that caravan site owners, not unnaturally, are distressed about.
        We impose on caravan site owners considerable costs and obligations in terms of planning, screening their sites, ensuring that there are adequate sanitation and sewerage arrangements and adequate provision of water supplies. They ask, quite rightly, why people on holiday in caravans should be able to park themselves in the nearest layby and do whatever they do in the heather, while all the costs imposed on the caravan site owners and all the obligations intended to protect the environment go for naught. My hon. Friend's new clauses are important in that respect.
        Labour Members wax eloquent on the policy of non-harassment and how important it is. I ask them to look at the response of the local authority in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North. That authority has been enlightened and has provided decent sites. I wish that my Stirling district council was as enlightened. The members of the Labour party on the council seem to play a game of, "How can I avoid this travelling people's site being in my ward?" with the net result that we have no travelling people's site. That means that, despite the fact that they can have a 100 per cent. grant to provide such a site, nobody is prepared to have it in his ward. Travelling people parking in laybys represent a major problem and one that is not the fault——
        Mr. Maxton: What, on trunk routes?
        Mr. Forsyth: In my constituency there is a trunk route that causes problems. The local authority is particularly embarrassed because it is not prepared to provide a permanent site because of the prejudices in the Labour groups on the council.
        I am sure that the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is not to deal with the policy of non-harassment, which needs to be dealt with separately. I hope that my hon. Friends will have the courage to face up to the problems being created by that policy. My hon. Friend's intention was to deal with the existing problem. In my constituency, the problem of travelling people parking in laybys does not arise in the highland areas or the areas of outstanding beauty. However, I have faced terrible resentment from people who have to meet obligations and costs that are then ignored by those who find it cheaper to park in a layby.
        No doubt the police could find reasons to move people on, but this is not a priority, because the overwhelming impression given to the police, especially if they ever read or listen to the hon. Member for Garscadden, is that this is not an important problem. It is an important problem, particularly in parts of Scotland where tourism is a large currency earner.
        8.45 pm
        Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) never fails to amaze the House. We have just heard the great disciple of private enterprise, the man who endlessly tells us that he is opposed to state intervention in anything, saying that it should become a criminal offence to leave a caravan in a layby for eight hours under any circumstances. I know that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that there should be exceptions, but his new clauses mean that anyone who ever leaves a caravan on a layby on a trunk road in Scotland for eight hours or more should be subject to proceedings at the hands of the police. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Stirling should support such a suggestion.
        I suppose that we should no longer be surprised by some of the things said by Conservative Members. We are familiar with the level of intolerance shown by the hon. Member for Tayside, North, and we have been treated to the now immortal words of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), who said last week that any miner who ever showed his face on the picket line was a common criminal.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): That has nothing to do with it.
        Mr. Home Robertson: It has a lot to do with it. It has been said that miners who turn up on a picket line are ipso facto common criminals, and, if this new clause were to pass into statute, anyone who left a caravan on a layby for eight hours would become a common criminal and would be subject to such procedures.
        I understand the problems about which the hon. Member for Tayside, North is talking. In my previous constituency of Berwick and East Lothian, I was particularly aware of the problem in Berwickshire. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is here now and he knows the difficulties that have arisen in a particular caravan site in his constituency.
        886
        Frankly, it would have been a lot better if the people concerned had been encouraged to use laybys on their way through rather than becoming frequent residents in a tourist caravan site.
        However, the more one restricts these people, the more difficulties will be created for them and everybody else. I am appalled by the negative, legalistic and arrogant attitude expressed by Conservative Members. I hope that the Minister, and any other rational person—just for once I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is semi-rational—will reject these new clauses out of hand, because that is what should happen.
        Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I support the new clauses. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) gave his usual tirade about travelling people. New clause 1 refers not to travelling people, but to everyone who owns a caravan.
        New clause 2 refers specifically to caravans parked on picnic sites. Local authorities like mine which benefit from tourism provide caravan sites adjacent to picnic sites. The tendency is for people with children who are touring in a caravan to move to a picnic site and, if they are permitted, to remain on that site overnight and then continue the journey.
        Mr. Norman Buchan: Is the hon. Member suggesting that people should commit an offence when he uses the words "if they are permitted"? I do not follow his argument.
        Mr. McQuarrie: The police do not cover all movements, nor do members of a local authority.
        Mr. Maxton: What about an MP?
        Mr. McQuarrie: An hon. Member who wishes to do that can be released from his duties to allow him to do so.
        Mr. Maxton: If the hon. Member is saying that the police can already remove people, why does he support the new clauses? Surely they are unnecessary.
        Mr. McQuarrie: I have not suggested that the police have the authority to remove people. I am saying that a byelaw might exist under which people could be moved. I am trying to drive home the fact that caravans should not be parked on a site on which children play. If that is allowed, not only is a caravan on a picnic site, but a car is parked there. The car will be driven to town to pick up the papers and the messages whereas the caravan will probably not be moved for more than eight hours. The movement of the car causes the danger to children.
        Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member used to work in the construction industry. Let me remind him of what might happen. Let us suppose that a new toilet block is to be installed on a picnic site. A contrast will be given to a construction firm which might park a caravan for the workers. Under the new clauses, that building contractor would be committing an offence.
        Mr. McQuarrie: That is the biggest nonsense that I have heard for a long time. The picnic site would not be a picnic site until the construction work had been completed.
        My argument is that picnic sites should be preserved and that local authorities should, if necessary, pass byelaws to make certain types of parking on picnic sites

        887
        an offence. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that caravans and the cars towing them will not be permitted to park on picnic sites for over eight hours.
        Mr. Buchan: My wrath has been allayed by the speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) who can always be relied upon to bring a little light fun into our proceedings. We are not talking about an isolated set of circumstances. This is not the first time that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has made suggestions about parking and travelling people. We know what he is after. It is no use the hon. Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and Banff and Buchan suggesting that the new clauses deal with anything other than the travelling people. A vendetta has been conducted by the hon. Member for Tayside, North for almost a decade—it certainly feels like a decade. The vendetta is always, but always, against the travelling people.
        The hon. Member is not trying to provide for holidaymakers or even for caravans—they provoke a tone of contempt when he talks about them. The hon. Gentleman is in a funny situation. Tents are permissible—
        "It's farewell to the tent and the old caravan
        To the tinker, the gipsy, the travelling man
        It's farewell to the forty foot trailer".
        I have no doubt that the trailer, the tent or the vendor would be permissible at Greenham common.
        The new clause is nonsense. If we do not bank on the Minister rejecting the new clauses, all hope is gone. The hon. Member for Stirling seems to be the apostle of freedom; he is the man who wants to remove as many shackles as he can. It is no use him calling in aid the National Gypsy Council. I should like to know with whom on that council he has discussed the matter. It is no use pretending that the new clauses do not attack the travelling people, the gipsy and the didicoi. If the hon. Gentleman pretends that, he does not tell the truth.
        Many of the settled gipsies, tinkers and didicoi are also worried about what is happening. They are the best people to deal with the problems. The hon. Member for Tayside, North tables new clauses designed to be published in the local press and to stir up feeling. We have known the hon. Gentleman for many years and we know what he is up to. Instead of doing that, he should enlist the aid of the people who know the travelling people. Sheila MacGregor is an obvious example.
        Mr. Bill Walker: Does the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) accept that the Stewart family of Blairgowrie is one of the most respected travelling families around and that members of that family regularly consult about such matters?
        Mr. Buchan: I know the Stewart family extremely well. It is an honourable family and I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give some credit to what the travelling people have done for Scotland's culture. Most of the songs that I have gathered and published come from the travelling people, including the Stewarts of Blairgowrie. The hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to what they have to say and enlist their support—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has misled them if he said that the new clause would deal with the problem. We are dealing not only with the use of laybys, but with the question of relationships. There is an advisory committee,
        888
        people such as the Stewarts, and Sheila MacGregor—a member of the Stewart family—but there are also others who have objections to the National Gypsy Council.
        The hon. Gentleman is the Member of Parliament for the area. He arouses anger and resentment about the travelling people, which is directed also at those settled in the area. Therefore, they naturally look for protection. The hon. Gentleman should have had enough sense to give them the right advice. He should now do the decent thing and withdraw the new clause.
        A Member of Parliament should listen to advice and then exercise his judgment. Has the hon. Gentleman taken advice or has he exercised his judgment? Has he merely listened to a few people——
        9 pm
        Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is badly misinformed about what is happening in the Blairgowrie area. He should know that I had a meeting last Sunday with representatives of the National Gypsy Council. I had a meeting two weeks ago with John Stewart on his private site. Indeed, I am a regular visitor, finding out what is happening. I do not take advice from only one source. I use my own judgment, based on various information—including that from Double Dykes, which is no longer in my constituency.
        Mr. Buchan: I was right—the hon. Gentleman is operating under his own judgment. That is the final indictment of this new clause. His judgment on this, as on many other matters, is severely flawed. He knows that the new clause is nonsense and part of a vendetta. I wish that he would drop it. He should fight for proper expenditure by his Tory council to provide sites. He should strive for the right sort of relationship with people such as the Stewarts. He should tell them that he is a Member of Parliament and that he wants to assist them, not harass them. If he did, he would be met with open arms. I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.
        Mr. Allan Stewart: I was slightly alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) say that if I accepted the new clause all hope was gone for Britain. However, it is an important matter and we have had an interesting debate.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked a specific question about the "No parking overnight" signs. They are merely advisory signs with no statutory backing. No offence is committed if they are ignored.
        The new clause would discriminate against a specific class of road user, the trailer-caravan driver, while leaving drivers of cars, lorries and mobile campers unaffected. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) would accept that such road users could be just as great a problem as caravanners. The caravanner who stays for seven and a half hours would also be untouched by the new clause. It is difficult to understand how he would be less likely to cause a nuisance than if he stayed an hour longer.
        My hon. Friend mentioned caravan drivers who needed to stay in a trunk road layby or picnic site because of a genuine emergency such as illness or vehicle breakdown. He pointed to the emergency services available. Nevertheless, such people would be penalised under my hon. Friend's proposals.

        889
        Parking is a traffic matter that can be regulated under existing road traffic legislation, which enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make orders for such purposes. However, any such orders would have fairly serious enforcement problems. For example, how does one prove that a caravan has been there for over eight hours?
        My right hon. Friend is aware that some overnight parking of caravans occurs in trunk road laybys. I accept, therefore, that there is something of a problem, a problem about which my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) wrote to my right hon. Friend. However, the problem is usually limited to the height of the holiday season. In general, it is not excessive, and there is legislation available to deal with the situation if caravans are parked dangerously, if they are an obstruction or if they are causing litter.
        There are, in addition, a number of technical problems with the new clause, some of which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out, but I will not delay the House by discussing those.
        The new clause is not about the non-harassment policy—the policy of toleration—and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) emphasised that. It would be wrong of me to debate that policy at length. The policy is that travelling people should not simply be moved on from one illegal site to another or be prosecuted for just being there. If there is room on an official site nearby, they will be asked to move to it. If there is not, and if their presence in a layby is obstructing its use to other road users or is causing other serious problems, the police and local authorities will attempt to find an alternative site in the area, to which the travellers will be asked to move and there they will be asked to remain.
        As hon. Members have pointed out, the provision of sites is extremely important, and the hon. Member for Garscadden fairly paid tribute to the Government's policy in relation to the 100 per cent. financing of sites. As hon. Members have said, the identification of sites and getting sites accepted is not always easy. However, we are working closely with the local authorities to identify new sites that would be appropriate and sensible. The hon. Member for Garscadden will be interested to learn that there are now 12 sites in Scotland.
        The question of picnic sites was raised, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. Schedule 8 to the Bill amends section 54 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 to empower general or district planning authorities to make byelaws in respect of any trunk road picnic sites managed by them. The 1967 Act will also empower countryside rangers employed by the managing authority to patrol picnic sites. I am, therefore, satisfied that adequate powers will be available to control parking on trunk road picnic areas.
        I have listened carefully to everything that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the new clause. I hope that, in the light of my explanation of the present legal position under other legislation, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North will feel it appropriate to withdraw the new clause.
        Mr. Bill Walker: I have listened with care to what has been said in the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), in the absence of what I judge to be any realistic policies from the Labour Front Bench,
        890
        decided to indulge in some personal abuse of myself. I am sure that when he reads the Official Report tomorrow—and if, as I believe, he has ambitions one (lay to be Secretary of State for Scotland—he will regret what he said tonight. I commend the hon. Gentleman to read carefully what he said this evening. As the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) demonstrated clearly, advice may be forthcoming, but it is necessary carefully to consider its origins and whether changing circumstances and times should change attitudes.
        Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion on what I shall regret and what I shall not. However, does he accept my basic argument, which was at one with the Minister's, that if a caravan is blocking or obstructing a layby or motorway, if it is possible under present powers for the police to move it off and i f the owner refuses to move it, the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, as recently authoritatively interpreted by the Law Officers, gives ample powers to the police? Therefore, the new clause is not necessary whatever symbolic merits or demerits it may have.
        Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is on good ground there, and I acknowledge that. I accept that the definition in the new clause is not clear enough. I overlooked that and in this instance I was not advised as well as I wish I had been. I make no criticism of anyone else because it is my new clause. If the drafting is not satisfactory, the fault is mine. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that the power of the 1967 Act has presented difficulties in dealing with problems to which the new clause is directed.
        It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has not seen the volume of correspondence which I have received on this issue and accordingly does not realise how many people have been trying genuinely to find solutions to an extremely thorny problem. In the main, those who complain are taxpayers and ratepayers. They consider that the law is not being applied evenly and fairly. As a lawyer, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if the public believe that the law is not fair and just, it is time to become extremely concerned.
        My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be aware that the Perth and Kinross district council and the Tayside region have expressed grave doubts about the way in which their byelaws are being exercised under existing provisions. I have volumes of correspondence on this issue and I have sent copies to the Scottish Office. The correspondence shows that their byelaws and police laws are not being exercised in a way that demonstrates that the law is fair. Bearing in mind the correspondence that I have received, I have deep reservations about my hon. Friend's comments on the adequacy of present provisions.
        Mr. Michael Hirst: I may have the wrong end of the stick, but is it not right that the existing laws allow the police to take action when there is obstruction? In most instances no obstruction is caused and the police are unable or are reluctant to act because they have to show that there is obstruction and difficulty.
        Mr. Walker: If a caravan is parked on a layby, there is some doubt about whether it is causing an obstruction. That is a doubtful area and one that has produced problems. However, the hon. Member for Garscadden was on strong ground when he said that the new clause, as presented and drafted, has weaknesses. I acknowledge that

        891
        and I am sorry that that is so. The new clause is an attempt to make clear to the law-abiding, taxpaying and ratepaying public that we are concerned with finding solutions to these problems and is not an attempt to cause harassment. To my knowledge, the hon. Member for Paisley, South has never acknowledged that I was instrumental in a prominent way in obtaining a change of policy on the part of the Perth and Kinross district council to ensure that there are travelling sites in Perthshire.
        9.15 pm
        There is only one way to solve the harassment problem—provide sufficient sites for all the travelling families. I fully support that policy. I am delighted that the Government are putting forward sufficient funds for that purpose. It is distressing that local authorities are not providing for this need, but I am not surprised at that. No one ever wants such a site next to his house. I wonder whether the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is prepared to give up some of his land for a site. If he did so, that would be a generous and positive attempt to deal with the problem. If the hon. Gentleman were to say, in reply to my point that it is difficult to find sites, that he has 500 acres and would be delighted if a small part were to be used as a site for travelling families, that would be a positive contribution, compared with some of the contributions that have been made.
        The hon. Gentleman was recently in Blairgowrie. If he had talked to members of the travelling families in Blairgowrie, they would have told him that I regularly visit the private site there. I have great regard for John Stewart who runs that site, because he is attempting to find an answer to a difficult problem. He recognises the difficulties caused by anti-social people on his site. I wish that the hon. Member for Paisley, South were less romantic and more realistic about the difficulties in finding a site.
        We in Perthshire are trying to find genuine answers to the problem, and we have gone a long way towards achieving that end. My questions in the past have been designed to get the local authority to change its policy. I have been successful in having that policy changed. I hope that I am as successful as a result of this debate in alerting other local authorities to their responsibility when travelling families are forced, in the absence of sites, to use laybys. There is no excuse in a civilised society for that action. Sites should be provided for those people.
        Mr. Dewar: I am anxious that sites should be provided. I made that clear in my speech. I recognise the difficulties. Anyone who has dealt with this problem, even on the periphery, as I have, knows about the difficulties. I am sorry if we have misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman's motives. He must recognise that some of the exchanges in the past put the amendments in a context whereby they lent themselves to the construction we placed on them.
        Mr. Walker: I accept that point. Because the measures are not drafted adequately to deal with the problem, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Question put and negatived.

      Clause 16

        APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE ROAD TO BECOME PUBLIC ROAD
        Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 16, line 28, after 'shall' insert
        ', subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 9.
        Mr. Stewart: Under the clause, a local roads authority will have to put on the list of public roads, on request, a private road that has been made up to a satisfactory standard or constructed in accordance with a construction consent and the adoption must take place within 12 months. The amendments simply make it clear that if the road has not remained up to standard at the end of the 12 months the authority need not take it on.
        Mr. Maxton: I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify a case that a constituent took up with me last weekend. Houses are to be built along what is at present a privately owned back lane giving access only to garages. Half of that lane is owned by the owners of the existing houses and the other half is owned by the people who propose to build two houses in a very large garden, to which the back lane would be the main access. If that lane has to be made up to the relevant standard to be taken on by the roads authority, what obligation is there on the owners of the existing houses, who intend to oppose the building plans but may be overruled, to bring their half of the road up to the relevant standard and how can those building the new houses ensure that they do so? Most of our discussions about private roads have assumed that one owner, whether it be a building contractor or someone else, will be responsible for bringing the road up to standard. What is the position when the private road is owned by two or more parties who may be in dispute as to how it should be maintained and brought up to standard?
        Mr. Stewart: Where there is a majority, the road can be required to be brought up to standard. The situation described by the hon. Gentleman, however, sounds rather complicated. I will study it in detail and ensure that he receives a written reply in due course.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 9, in page 17, line 9, at end insert—
        '(3A) Without prejudice to any addition made under subsection (1) or (2) above, the said subsection (1) or as the case may be (2) does not impose a duty as respects a road which within the period there allowed for such addition deteriorates to a standard below that mentioned in the said subsection (1).'.

      Clause 36

        CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD HUMPS BY ROADS AUTHORITY
        Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 26, line 43, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.
        This amendment follows the debate in Committee last week when concern was expressed about the implication in the clause as it stands that road humps are permitted in two sets of circumstances—one in which the speed limit is 30 mph or less and one in which no such limit applies. I am sure that it is not the Government's intention to imply that humps might be permitted on a road with a speed limit

        893
        of 40, 60 or 70 mph. Indeed, concern has been expressed that even 30 mph is too high a limit and that damage could be done if vehicles hit the humps at that speed. The use of the word "or" rather than "and" suggests that humps may be placed on a road with a higher speed limit. The amendment seeks to resolve that difficulty. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
        Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not delay the House long as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has put the case very clearly. I simply wish to point out that if the speed limit is not reduced there will be a danger not just to the vehicles but to the people in them. As I am sure all hon. Members know from experience, it is easy to forget that the humps are there, especially in the evening, so if the speed limit is too high there may be great danger to the occupants of the vehicle. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give serious consideration to the amendment.
        Mr. Allan Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) for an opportunity to explain the position. As the hon. Gentleman said, clause 36 allows a roads authority to
        "construct road humps in a road maintainable by them if … the road is subject to a …a speed limit … of 30 miles per hour … or … the road humps are authoritised."
        In that case the roads are authorised specially by the Secretary of State.
        If and when my hon. Friend decides to activate the Bill's provisions on road humps—they were the subject of a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) in Committee—he will ensure that regulations are made under clause 38 to prescribe construction and maintenance requirements for the humps. Such regulations will take full account of safety factors, to which my hon. Friend has referred. They will represent the control that hon. Members wish to see exercised over road humps.
        The special authorisation by the Secretary of State for which the Bill provides relates to exceptional circumstances—for example, where the regulations are not to be complied with for any reason or, in theory, where the road is not subject to a 30 mph speed limit. The point of the subsection is to deal with the exceptional circumstances that might arise and where it would be sensible to allow for the construction of road humps.
        Mr. Craigen: I am grateful to the Minister. I take it that he is giving a wink and a nod so that, when the House considers the regulations, he will bear in mind points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) as well as the contribution by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). The hon. Gentleman knows that I believe that there should not be a proliferation of road humps all over the country.
        Mr. Stewart: I am happy to give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). We should clearly expect there to be few road humps. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will accept that his amendment is unnecessary.
        Mr. Maxton: The Minister's answer is unsatisfactory. I cannot imagine circumstances in which road humps will be put on to de-limited roads, but if that is done we would
        894
        be creating a dangerous circumstance. I am unhappy about the outcome of our discussions, but at this time of the evening there are insufficient hon. Members in the House for it to be practical to force the amendment to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 51

        PLANTING OF TREES, SHRUBS AND GRASS OR OTHER PLANTS BY PERSON OTHER THAN ROADS AUTHORITY
        Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 34, line 43, at end insert—
        '(1A) The roads authority may authorise advertising and information signs within the highway boundary, subject to such conditions as the authority may specify in the authorisation.'.
        Amendment No. 2 deals with signs within the highway boundary. I had hoped to mention cattle grids, as my hon. Friend was very sympathetic about my views on cattle grids last week and has something constructive to say about them this week. Perhaps he will be able to work that into his remarks.
        I am not quite clear whether it is a law or a Scottish Development Department regulation that one cannot have advertising signs within the highway boundary, in the area between the road surface and the boundary fence. In the old days—and frequently nowadays—the verge between the road surface and the boundary is perhaps only 3 or 4 ft. wide. I accept that it would be dangerous to erect advertising signs on that piece of grass. However, now that we have extensive dual carriageways and motorways, the highway boundary extends 40 or 50 yds from the road surface. It seems a pity that that area of ground should be sterilised, unable to be devoted to anything other than growing trees or grass, which costs so much to cut. Surely, it would be advantageous to those who are using
        the roads——
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Donald Stewart: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error to think that it is illegal to erect advertising signs on roads. As far I recall, unless the law has been changed, signs can be erected, but planning authority is required in each case. If that is allowed, there is no difficulty.
        Sir Hector Monro: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. If someone applies to the planning authority and the highway authority to put an advertising sign within the highway boundary on a trunk road, he is met by the celebrated quotation from the Scottish Development Department, "It is not in the interests of road safety." Irrespective of what the situation is, as a matter of principle there is no advertising within the highway boundary.
        I am making a suggestion, which I am sure the Minister will treat favourably, that extensive highway boundaries 40 or 50 yds from the road surface, with great sweeping curves on dual carriageways, can be used occasionally for helpful advertising. We are not dealing with road signs—that is a different kettle of fish, and they are allowed. It is better that the hotel and service signs, which could be of great value to motorists on both motorways and trunk roads, are placed within the highway boundary when it is safe to do so and when it is to obvious advantage.

        895
        At present, because of the strict interpretation of the law—although there are one or two exceptions—the applicant who has a hotel or a restuarant, or other valuable services to offer to motorists, has to find a farmer who will accept advertising in his field outside the highway boundary—that is, just across the fence. We are putting a burden on people with hotels who are giving useful services when they have to find a farmer who will allow them to do that. He may be a tenant farmer, with a landlord. However, if one could put the sign just across the fence, inside the highway boundary, that would be far simpler and more effective.
        I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister to take a more flexible attitude to the whole issue and to allow the planning authority and the highway authority to authorise signs within the highway boundary where there is no danger to road traffic and where the signs would be helpful to motorists looking for hotels and other services.
        I am encouraged, because in the clause the Minister is urging individuals to plant trees within the highway boundary. I think that a motorist would prefer to run into a hotel sign than an oak tree. My hon. Friend cannot be saying that it is more dangerous to have hotel signs than oak trees. Therefore, the principle is demolished. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that everything that I have said is in the context of road safety. Where it is safe to put a hotel sign or other advertising signs of value to motorists within the highway boundary, one should be allowed to do so. Of course, advice would be given by the planning authority and the highway authority. My amendment would remove what appears to be a detail that invariably comes from Edinburgh. All that I am asking for is flexibility. I cannot see why on earth my hon. Friend should not accept what I am trying to do.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I support the amendment. The matter was brought home to me during the past four weeks by a case in my constituency. The Minister for Transport visited Alford to open a new transport museum, which was funded partly by Grampian regional council, which is also the roads authority. Part of the point of putting the museum in Alford was that it was not on the main tourist route and it was anxious to develop attractions to bring people to the town. Recently they have also developed a small gauge railway and opened a country park. Although Alford is not on the main route and although the main funding agency is the regional council, which is also the roads authority, it is unable to put up a sign on the road from Aberdeen to point out these attractions.
        Mr. Maxton: I must contradict that view. If the hon. Gentleman travelled to Glasgow, particularly to visit the Burrell collection, he would find that on all the routes entering Glasgow there are large signs, which were erected by the roads authority, directing people to it. The Burrell collection is not owned by the roads authority but comes under the control of Glasgow district council.
        Mr. Bruce: I am interested to hear that, and I shall be interested to hear how the Minister reconciles those facts. The managers of the transport museum told me that they were not allowed to put up signs to encourage traffic into the area, which will not wash its face and recover its ratepayers' money unless it attracts about 20,000 visitors a year.
        896
        I believe that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has that matter and the general principle of advertising in mind. It is difficult for an area to put itself on the tourist map and to attract people away from traditional routes, if it is not allowed to advertise its attractions. It would be beneficial to advertise them and it should be encouraged.
        I hope that one day there will be a bypass round Inverurie. I regret that the Minister recently advised me that it would be a year later than when he last wrote to me. The traders in the towns around which bypasses have been built—this is true of all towns with bypasses—are understandably anxious that they may lose trade when the bypass opens. Bypasses are basically in the best interests of everybody. If people who are touring turn off a bypass into a town, they will get the double benefit of a town, free from great trucks pounding through its high street and with a quiet and pleasant shopping atmosphere.
        Mr. Craigen: When the Kessock bridge opened, the people of Beauly insisted on signposting their bypass. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not confusing advertising with information. It is important that there are information signs, but I would be wary about the sort of advertising hoardings that may be inflicted on some rural areas.
        Mr. Bruce: That is a fair point. I hope that the hon. Member for Dumfries will clarify his position on that point when he replies. I do not believe that Coca-Cola signs should be erected along the highway. From the speech that the hon. Member for Dumfries made, I do not think that that was in his mind.
        Mr. Craigen: It may be in someone else's mind.
        Mr. Bruce: That may be a problem with the drafting of the clause, but the principle is that information and advertising are not entirely separable. If I am talking about the attractions of a town and naming hotels—saying that it has a three-star hotel which has good food—that is valid information because it is relevant to that community and will attract people into the town to use the services. It is a specific information advertisement for a service in that locality. I should not support general hoarding advertising which advertises a product that one can obtain anywhere. I make that distinction.
        Those communities that are trying to attract additional tourist business and are not on the main routes are disadvantaged by their inability to give proper advance warning of what they offer at the point at which people could divert to take advantage of them.
        Mr. McQuarrie: I am surprised that the hon. Member is raising the point about towns not being able to give proper direction signs. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) gave the example of the Burrell collection in Glasgow. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) there is Haddo house which was taken over by Grampian regional council. There are signs on all the main routes throughout the constituency directing people to Haddo house. That is also true of Pitmedden, which is a National Trust property, and other National Trust properties. They are in his constituency, and the signs have been erected by Grampian regional council.
        Mr. Bruce: I accept that point, but those signs are not on the roadside verges, from which they are specifically precluded. They are on private ground or have been

        897
        negotiated in some other way. The point is not that they are not there but that they are selective. Some people can have them and some cannot. There should be a consistent policy.
        I was quoting an example, which I believe is rather ironic, of the development that has been funded by the regional council, which is the roads authority, which is not even adequately advertised within the town. It is difficult to find the museum and Alford is not a big place.
        I believe that the argument behind the amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries has considerable merit. One would assume that the local roads authority has some understanding of road safety and could be expected to take responsible and reasonable decisions. It should be the right body to determine whether these signs should be erected. In that spirit, I should like to hear the Minister's response. I hope that he will be in favour of the principle behind the amendment.
        Mr. Bill Walker: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) because I recollect the debate that we finished not so long ago, when I mentioned the enormous volume of mail I had received about laybys. I have news for the House: I have an equal volume of mail on the subject of signposts, because, when one represents a large rural constituency, where and how one can find things is important. I shall draw the attention of the House to an example which explains clearly the distinction between advertising and information. There is a fine line to be drawn between them, but I hesitate to draw the line.
        There was a problem with people coming to Perthshire who wanted to find Glenshee and the chairlift. If one was driving from the south with a map on one's lap looking for Glenshee, the probability is that one would pick the wrong Glenshee because there are two in Perthshire. If the map is folded, it is possible that the first Glenshee that one sees is to the north-west of Perth, whereas of course the Glenshee with the chairlift is to the north-east of Perth.
        Fortunately, I was able to persuade my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the difficulties when he was the Minister responsible by getting him to look at a map. That was after nearly two years' debate on the problem of tourists finding this chairlift. Tourists use the chairlifts in summer so that they can walk on the top of the mountain. It was eventually agreed that the chairlift be properly signposted. That could be regarded as advertising because the chairlift is privately run.
        9.45 pm
        There is what I might describe as a hard-nosed attitude which describes everything in terms of road safety. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that there is no logical reason why, if the planting of trees is permitted, the use of signs for information and advertising is not permitted. If we want to encourage the tourist industry, which is one of the massive revenue earners for Scotland, we must adopt the realistic approach that we once adopted in regard to large industrial complexes. John Brown Engineering, for example, which can be seen miles away, was never refused permission to advertise where it was.
        I am not suggesting that we have hoardings all over the place; nor is my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. We must introduce some sanity into the use of wide road verges for advertising so that tourist facilities can be
        898
        developed and attract more people. The last thing that we want is people driving up the A9 and not stopping at the delightful facilities of Scone palace and other places which are just off the A9. We want to be certain that people know that such places exist. They will be able to do so only if we use the wide verges.
        Mr. Maxton: There has been some confusion over this matter, as I understand that there are a variety of signs on roads which relate to specific attractions. I have already mentioned the magnificent Burrell collection in Glasgow, which I gather is now the largest tourist attraction in Scotland. Ministers, who tend to come from Edinburgh, will find a large sign on the M8 right into the centre of Glasgow, directing them to that collection.
        The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) rightly pointed out that there are a variety of signs on the sides of roads for many National Trust properties. I know that Hopetown house is well signposted. There is more general advertising for a town's historic attractions. On the A74 just before Ecclefechan there is a large sign advertising the birthplace of Thomas Carlyle. Perhaps not many people know who Thomas Carlyle was and want to visit Ecclefechan for that purpose, but there is still a sign. Blantyre has a sign which makes it clear that it is the birthplace of David Livingstone.
        Mr. Home Robertson: There is no sign for the birthplace of Keir Hardie.
        Mr. Maxton: It is one of my great complaints that no notice is taken of Keir Hardie's birthplace, although I gather that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is trying to resolve that problem. My point is that signs are already used to direct tourists to attractions. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a point that shows bad management on the part of roads authorities rather than their not being allowed to erect signposts. The Strathallan air museum is a privately owned concern which is close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and in which he should be interested.
        Mr. Bill Walker: It is not in my constituency.
        Mr. Maxton: The museum is one of the tourist attractions of the hon. Gentleman's constituency and it is advertised on the main road north. It is a tourist attraction in the general area of Perth and north Tayside. There are signs to it throughout the villages that lead to it. Those signs are on the roadside. That is an example of the fact that it is already permissible to erect signs.
        Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman had driven along the A9 recently he would know that since the bypass round Auchterarder came into use one can no longer see the sign to which he refers unless one can see through buildings.
        Mr. Maxton: I have travelled down that road recently, but I cannot be sure what the present situation is. Certainly there were signs on the old A9 and there are certainly signs thereafter on the road leading to the Strathallan air museum, giving the direction.
        I do not see what the argument is about. It is already permissible to put up signs. Why should we permit a measure designed in the main to permit private enterprise advertising on the side of the road, which can only damage the view and the tourist industry?
        My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is showing me his watch, perhaps

        899
        implying that I am taking too long. I am a member of the Finance Bill Committee, and the length of this debate will not make much difference to me.
        The amendment would detract from the tourist attraction of an area. It would lead to the erection of hoardings and signs which many of us would find very unattractive.
        Mr. Charles Kennedy: I welcome the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro). It may be significant that the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and myself have in common either the existence of bypass communities, or the new A9.
        First, I shall refer to the bypass communities and to the opening of the Kessock bridge. Beauly is one example, but others will follow as the road is developed into Sutherland and Caithness. There is a great deal of local frustration because people may not put up informative or advertising signs. Such signs could lead tourists off the main road—tourists who would be looking for the facilities and environment which places such as Beauly have to offer. Because there are at present insufficient advertising and informative signposts showing what is available, the tourists drive on north and the local area loses revenue.
        I have another reason for supporting the amendment. If one considers the stretches of the A9 beyond Inverness and through Easter Ross, one can see examples of what has been described. There is a considerable expanse of land adjoining the highway boundary. Time and again, local people make strong objections because they wish to advertise a restaurant, hotel or other amenity or facility there and they are legally prohibited from doing so. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that the result of the amendment would be that large hoardings would be put up. People in the Highlands want to make the Highlands as attractive as possible in order to induce tourists to visit them. They are not likely to cut off their nose to spite their face by erecting signs along the whole length of the A9. The hon. Gentleman represents a Glasgow constituency. He is in no position to say that the Highland regional authorities——
        Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spends his holidays in Arran.
        Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is certainly a sight, and I am sure that we could raise money in the Highlands by encouraging people to view him.
        There is no desire to erect large hoardings, but there is a definite and genuine desire for a positive form of advertising which is contained and sensible. That would make more sense than the present approach, and I hope that the Minister will be positive and constructive. I certainly give the amendment my whole-hearted support.
        Mr. Home Robertson: Having told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that he was going on too long, I must now defend him against some ludicrous remarks, especially from alliance Members who, characteristically, support the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). If hon. Members want more information to be available for tourists in their constituencies or elsewhere,
        900
        by all means let the House encourage roads authorities to provide such information. Indeed, roads authorities already have that power. Dozens of examples have already been given, and I shall not prolong the debate by citing examples in my own constituency, where the roads authority erected signs directing people to facilities, attractions and so on. It is all properly planned, it looks tidy and it imparts information.
        If such provision is inadequate in a given area, the hon. Member concerned should make representations to the appropriate roads authority, the Scottish Development Department or whoever. The amendment states:
        "The roads authority may authorise advertising and information signs within the highway boundary, subject to … conditions".
        It specifically mentions the roads authority, and it appears that the planning authority will have no say at all, yet in my part of the world the two authorities are different.
        The hon. Member for Dumfries said that it would be better for someone to drive into a Coca-Cola sign than into an oak tree. That says a lot about the hon. Gentleman's sense of aesthetics, but whether he likes it or not, the amendment uses the word "advertising". Therefore, it would become possible—in some areas it might well be encouraged—for people to festoon the road sides with advertising hoardings for this, that or the other.
        Sir Hector Monro: Before the hon. Gentleman goes quite bonkers with his ridiculous remarks, does he not realise that the amendment "may" authorise an advertising sign? The local authority will not authorise the sort of thing which he has in mind. The hon. Gentleman must be sensible about this constructive amendment, not totally foolish and irresponsible.
        Mr. Home Robertson: The wording of the amendment is abundantly clear:
        "The roads authority may authorise advertising … signs"
        and so on. Presumably that is what the hon. Gentleman means to happen. I do not think that the Minister wants to see the tourist or other routes in Scotland desecrated in that way any more than I do. Therefore, I merely wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and, I hope, the Minister in rejecting this ludicrous amendment.
        Mr. Ancram: I thought for an awful moment that I was finding strange bedfellows on the Opposition side of the House. I listened with great care and attention to what the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) had to say to see whether there was anything that I would have to endorse. As I, like many other hon. Members, failed to understand much of what he said, that danger did not arise.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) began by referring to hedgehog ramps in cattle grids. Although this matter is not before the House at the moment, it will be included in a circular sent to the authorities, and I hope that his efforts have not been wasted.
        Our debate on the amendment is not a new one. I recollect many of these points being made during the passage of the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Act. Some of my hon. Friends made points then as forcibly as they have this evening, if not more so. This does not detract from an important subject. My hon. Friend——
        It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and the Animal Health and Welfare Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lang.]

    Royal Assent
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

    1. Somerset House Act 1984

    2. Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

    3. Registered Homes Act 1984

    4. Dentists Act 1984

    5. Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1984

    6. Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984

    7. Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

    8. County Courts Act 1984

    9. Housing and Building Control Act 1984

    10. Food Act 1984

    11. Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984

    12. London Regional Transport Act 1984

    13. Rates Act 1984

    14. Barclays Bank Act [984.

    Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Mr. Ancram: This is an important subject and one of real concern to many hon. Members.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said that the Scottish Office seemed to have a veto, and that it talked always about road safety. However, in the person of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Scottish Office is the roads authority and would be the roads authority to whom this amendment would apply. Therefore, it is for my right hon. Friend to decide, as the roads authority, what the policy should be on motorways and trunk roads. Obviously safety is an important factor.
    I take my hon. Friend's point that trees on the side of the road are solid objects if one happens to run into them. However, signposts can be dangerous objects to run into as well. One of the important considerations in putting up signposts is to ensure that the material from which they are made does not splinter. If a car were in collision with a wooden sign, that could be a lethal object, so we must consider safety when erecting them.
    It is worth the House reflecting on the fact that both sign owners—if they were privately erected signs—and the roads authority could be held liable for damages in the event of a sign being hit. However, it is not just the danger of impact or collision that is important but the danger that can arise from distraction. After all, unlike trees and bushes, signs are there to be looked at and read. They can be a potential source of accidents precisely because they can distract the attention of a driver from the road in front of him if he reads what is written on them. When hon. Members move amendments that could lead to a considerable number of signs in certain circumstances they should consider this factor.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries may envisage in his constituency a few signs for hotels and services and he may believe that they can do no harm, but if we agreed to relax our policy on signs, we should soon face pressure to allow advertising by the roadside for all types of purposes throughout the country. How will a roads authority discriminate and decide who shall be allowed to erect a sign and who shall not when trying to prevent the dangers of distraction?
    Surely we do not want our roads to look like some of the roads along which I have driven in the United States, where streams of signs advertise hotels and services, all of which have equal claims on advertising rights. The effect of that on the environment and safety would be considerable.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument carefully. Surely the logic of his argument is that we should not allow vehicles to carry advertisements on their sides when they travel on motorways, on the ground that people might try to read them and they might constitute a danger. We already have that distraction. Perhaps the way round the problem is to employ old-fashioned hand carts, for example, to advertise and cause even more of a distraction. The Minister's argument does not stand up.
    Mr. Ancram: Any mobile sign involving planning permission must be off the curtilage of the highway. I know of an example near my hon. Friend's constituency.
    904
    It is no answer to the argument that distractions are dangerous to say that distractions already exist and that therefore we should allow more distractions. I am expressing the argument as fairly as I can because the matter is important, but we must see it in perspective.
    Sir Peter Mills: I hesitate to intervene in a Scottish debate, but I should like to use an illustration from my constituency. Some cows wore jackets advertising a certain cheese. The jackets had to be taken off because they distracted the motorists.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) for that helpful example. I hope to hear more from him during Scottish debates in future.
    Mr. Bill Walker: An interesting comparison can be drawn with what happens when a low-flying aircraft flies nearby without advance warning. Surely that is a great distraction to a driver.
    Mr. Ancram: When I was driving on the A9 once an aircraft flying lower than my car passed me and I nearly drove off the road. I accept that that is a distraction, but it is no argument for allowing other distractions.
    I acknowledge the need in Scotland to promote tourism and to inform road users about the services and attractions available near roads. For that reason, in conjunction with the Scottish tourist board, the Scottish Development Agency has introduced new types of authorised traffic signs, for bypass communities for example. The hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) have raised the problems of bypass communities. They know that last autumn we conducted an experiment with the "strongbow" sign. The results were good and we are providing the signs as fast as resources allow. I believe that they have been welcomed wherever they have been erected. They provide the sort of information for which the tourist is looking—basic information that they can leave the road and re-join it later without having to backtrack and that there are services available in the bypass community.
    In conjunction with the tourist board, we are always looking for ways to promote tourism through providing the right sort of information on signs. I believe that what we have done so far will be widely welcomed by road users and those who provide the road services.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries mentioned hotels. He knows that I have been interested in that matter for some time. My Department is discussing with the Scottish tourist board the possibility of including more information on the official traffic signs for hotels, possibly including hotel names and classifications that meet certain criteria of size and quality. However, such developments must, of need, await the introduction of the tourist board's proposed system of classification of Scottish hotels. Until then, we cannot have any reasonable way of assessing which categories can be advertised. I understand that that exercise is likely to take a couple of years.
    I hope that I have shown that I am concerned about the problems faced by those trying to provide tourist services. I am trying to meet them in a way that is consistent with the principles that I set out earlier, which are basically those of safety. My hon. Friend knows that we are not wholly inflexible about advertising signs. For example, the sign for the Auchencastle hotel near the A74 has,

    905
    within the last few months, been allowed to remain on trunk road land because it is a long way back from the road and does not constitute a hazard to road safety. We are prepared to consider similar cases on their merits.
    While I doubt whether I can give my hon. Friend total satisfaction—I await the day that I can achieve that—I hope that I have said sufficient for him to appreciate that we are seriously considering the problem and that we are not inflexible. We are trying to find a way to supply the sort of information that he seeks, which is also consistent with the principles that I have outlined. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
    Sir Hector Monro: We have had a valuable debate and I welcome the support from all sides of the House, and especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). It is a serious matter and I deprecate the flippant approach of some Opposition Members.
    I am pleased to have the assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister about cattle grids. That will be warmly welcomed by those concerned for small animals. The hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) went beyond the bounds of comprehension. To think that I would want advertising hoarding all along main roads is ridiculous——
    Mr. Maxton rose——
    Sir Hector Monro: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is going to say something even more stupid.
    Mr. Maxton: I merely wish to point out that it was not I who raised the question of American-type hoarding along the sides of roads—it was the Minister who said that that would be a danger if the amendment was accepted.
    Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman went more than far enough in his own remarks. I am a past chairman of the planning committee and I have served on the National Trust and the Nature Conservancy Council. Therefore, it must be obvious that I would not support any form of general advertising hoarding, and I never said that I would.
    10.15 pm
    Opposition Members do not understand how planning authorities work. They are responsible for giving authority—even when a matter must also be approved by the Scottish Development Agency—on issues affecting trunk roads, and they would not approve signs that were out of taste or out of place, and I am not advocating that they should. The amendment uses the word "may" rather than "shall", and I need not remind Labour Members who are expert in discussing the difference between "may" and "shall" and "have" and "have not" of what "may" means in the context of the amendment.
    Opposition Members also fail to appreciate that the amendment is drafted in relation to highway boundaries. It is clear that the signs which, they say, would distract people, could be only a foot the other side of the fence. Apparently signs would be all right there, whereas inside the highway boundary they would be all wrong. The issue
    906
    of distraction does not arise because the planning authority must have given approval for a sign to be in a field, and there could be the same number of signs along any 50-mile stretch of road. The same would apply under my amendment. In any event, the signs could be harder to read by being further away, outside the highway boundary.
    Nobody has explained how Burrell gets away with it. I am delighted with the success of the Burrell exhibition. I am all for flexibility. I only comment that it happened when requests for other signs were being turned down.
    Mr. Ancram: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having explained the point of the Burrell sign. I understand that so many people were going to the Burrell gallery and were finding it impossible to find the place that, for reasons of traffic regulation, Strathclyde region decided that a sign was necessary.
    Sir Hector Monro: I know of a few hotels which could put up a good case for saying that they, too, would do extremely well if they could have some more advertising. I appreciate what the Minister says, which proves that there is flexibility of approach. I should be glad to know whether Glasgow district council approached the Minister for approval to erect signs.
    I gather that there is no law to prevent advertising signs from being placed on trunk roads within the highway boundary and that the decision is for the Secretary of State. That gives enormous encouragement, because it means that my right hon. Friend can be flexible and could change his mind tomorrow. It is good to know that there is riot a statutory requirement needing legislation to change it.
    The Minister made my point—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members would shut up, I might be able to make myself heard. The Minister pointed out that advertising signs collapse much more easily than solid oak trees. If the Minister welcomes the planting of trees within the highway boundary, then easily collapsible highway signs need not worry him from the point of view of road safety. I am totally in favour of trees. Indeed, when 1 ran my planning committee, I helped to get trees planted alongside the A74. I have not heard of vehicles running into them; they are well up on the bank, where the advertising signs would be.
    It is said that we have not had the usual Committee stage, when this whole issue could have been thrashed out in detail. It is now too late to draft an amendment which would fulfil the wishes of hon. Members and meet all objections, bearing in mind the narrow issue of the principle of the amendment, although that issue has been widened enormously by Opposition Members.
    I was pleased to hear the flexible approach which the Minister adopted. It is clear that he has taken on board the arguments that have been adduced and that it is not the Secretary of State's right by law to prevent such advertising. That means that, in future, my right hon. Friend could take a different approach and could help the hotels and other tourist attractions to fulfil in Scot land what they are there to do.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
      Clause 65

        REGULATION OF DRIVERS OF HORSEDRAWN CARTS ETC.
        Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 44, line 22, leave out '16' and insert '—(a) 14'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 11.
        Mr. Ancram: I hope that the two amendments will at least find favour with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). They represent the response that I promised last week to his plea for a relaxation on the total prohibition on the driving on roads of horsedrawn and suchlike vehicles by children under the age of 16. It is now proposed that children between 14 and 16 should be able to drive such vehicles provided that they are supervised by someone of at least 18. This is as far as we can go for road safety reasons. I remind the House that prior to the introduction of the Bill the age limit was 14 and that we are returning to that age as the bottom line. It must be remembered that the provision applies to vehicles that are being driven on a road and not on land on which there is no public right of passage and, therefore, no hazard to any road users. I hope that the amendments will commend themselves to the House.
        Sir Hector Monro: I thank the Minister for listening sympathetically to my remarks last week and for fulfilling his promise to table amendments. The Government's amendments have gone most of the way towards meeting my wishes.
        Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the Minister, too, for I supported my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on this issue last week. The Government's amendments will be appreciated in my constituency where the driving of horsedrawn and suchlike vehicles has become a growth activity.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 11, in page 44, line 23, at end insert—
        "; or
        (b) 16 years of age (not being such child as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above) to drive that vehicle on a road other than under the immediate supervision of a person of 18 years of age or more".—[Mr. Ancram.]

      Clause 79

        POWERS OF ROADS AUTHORITIES AND BRIDGE OWNERS TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS
        Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 53, line 4, leave out '13(7)' and insert '14(1)'.
        This is a minor consequential amendment arising from our discussion of clauses 13 and 14 in Committee.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 93

        PROTECTION OF ROAD USERS FROM DANGERS NEAR A ROAD
        Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 64, line 8, after 'road', insert'—(a)'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 14.
        Mr. Ancram: Clause 93 is part of the armoury of powers which roads authorities may invoke to counter dangers to road users. An intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) on Second Reading brought to light the fact that the clause is less effective for this purpose than it might be because it does not apply to buildings, a term which, as defined in the Bill, is widely embracing. The amendments will remedy the omission by enabling roads authorities to take action to protect road users from any type of danger from land, including buildings, near a road. Any more permanent remedial works that are required can be taken under the appropriate statutes such as building legislation relating to Scotland.
        Mr. McQuarrie: Amendment No. 14 provides:
        "(b) and is a building constitutes a danger to road users and there is no other such provision as aforesaid, they shall under this subsection take such steps by way of enclosure or screening,".
        I do not find favour grammatically with
        "and is a building constitutes a danger to road users".
        With respect to the draftsman of the amendment, it should
        either read "and as a building constitutes a danger to road users" or "and is a building which constitutes a danger to road users". I hope that my hon. Friend will provide a clear interpretation of the correct definition and confirm that the drafting is correct or accept that either "as" or "which" should be inserted.
        Mr. Ancram: Clause 93 states:
        "anything which is … near to a road but is not itself a building constitutes a danger to road users".
        The amendments set out alternative provisions—amendment No. 13 inserts paragraph (a) and amendment no. 14 inserts paragraph (b). It is perhaps difficult to understand this point when looking at the Bill as drafted, but if the amendments are accepted paragraphs (a) and (b) will become much clearer in the context of the text. The parts leading to and coming from paragraphs (a) and (b) will make more sense, because the lead-in and lead-out will apply to the circumstances dealt with in paragraphs (a) and (b). I hope that with that assurance my hon. Friend will find that the clause is properly drafted.
        Mr. Dewar: I cannot resist the temptation to offer my warmest congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State on the fact that he clarified that point.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 14 in page 64, line 12, leave out 'as' and insert—
        ";
        (b) and is a building constitutes a danger to road users and there is no other such provision as aforesaid, they shall under this subsection take such steps by way of enclosure or screening,
        as".—[Mr. Ancram.]

      Clause 95

        DEPOSIT OF MUD FROM VEHICLES ON ROADS
        Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 66, line 3, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
        Last week, the Committee debated the subject of farmers depositing mud on the roads, the speed at which 13, in—they should remove the mud and the dangers created for road users in the countryside. I and my hon. Friend the

        909
        Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) put forward cogent arguments showing why farmers should be asked to remove mud as quickly as possible or, as I said, immediately.
        I was beaten on that point, and I accept that. If mud, dung or anything else has been deposited on a road by farmers, especially wealthy farmers, the local authority should be reimbursed the cost it has incurred in clearing the road. It should not be a matter of thinking that the local authority can clear the road if it wishes. We know that in most cases if the legislation says "may" the local authority will not bother to clear the road. A statutory obligation should be imposed on local authorities to charge anyone who deposits mud from a vehicle for the cost of clearing the road. Conservative Members always claim to be the defenders of ratepayers, but I am sure that none of them will support me in defending ratepayers against the farmers. That is a different matter. Measures should be taken to ensure that ratepayers do not have to carry the cost caused by those who commit the offence of depositing mud on the roads.
        Mr. McQuarrie: I support the amendment. I have conducted a difficult campaign against my local authority and some of my constituents to remove mud from roads. Mud is regularly dropped so that roads are narrowed to the width of a cart lane. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State should give serious consideration to the amendment. It is important that mud is removed from roads. A hazard is caused when mud forms after rain. When travelling in my constituency after rain, my vehicle has skidded over the road, and I am sure that the same thing has happened to my constituents. My hon. Friend should consider replacing the word "may" with "shall".
        Mr. James Nicholson: In my experience, building contractors are just as guilty of depositing muck on the roads. Perhaps they could set an example to the farmers in this respect. I support the amendment.
        Mr. McQuarrie: With respect, I did not mention farmers. I only mentioned the depositing of mud on the roads. I entirely agree that building contractors often do the same. I was simply interested in getting the mud off the road and making the obligation enforceable as the amendment provides.
        10.30 pm
        Sir Hector Monro: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist the amendment. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) lost the argument last week and it would be a great pity if he were allowed to win it now. I shall not go into the details again, but one must be practical when dealing with agricultural operations. When one is hauling silage or potatoes or turnips out of the fields and into the farmsteading 20 or 30 times a day one cannot stop each time to clean all the mud off the road. The important thing is to get it cleared before nightfall in case it freezes or becomes slippery due to rain and oncoming traffic cannot see it. I believe that the clause as drafted is about right and brings home to all concerned their responsibilities in this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will leave it at that.
        Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) for his support for the clause as drafted.
        910
        I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for 13anff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has been confused by his pair and, having listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) over a long period, I cannot say that I am surprised. The amendment refers not to the necessity of removing mud or other material from the road but to the collection by the roads authority or the district council of expenses reasonably incurred in removing it. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cathcart on other occasions, I am surprised that he wishes to impose an additional duty on local authorities, especially one that is incapable of fulfilment. The hon. Gentleman frowns, but on reflection he will realise that the amendment makes it mandatory for district councils and roads authorities to recover those expenses. That obligation cannot be fulfilled if the person responsible for depositing the material on the road cannot be traced.
        It is worth recalling that the clause refers to the deposit of any kind of material from any vehicle, not just to deposits from farm vehicles when the culprit might be easier to trace. The amendment would thus force local authorities to go out searching for people who might have dropped things on roads without any assurance of ever finding them. I do not believe that even the hon. Gentleman would wish to impose such a duty on the authorities.
        Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not an offence under the Road Traffic Acts to deposit mud or other material on the roads?
        Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman had heard the Committee debate, he would realise that under clause 95 a person in charge of a vehicle who deposits material on the road and fails to remove it as soon as reasonably practicable commits an offence. If the local authority has to remove the material from the road, the clause at present provides that it "may" recover its expenses. The amendment seeks to make that mandatory. My point is that it is dangerous to legislate in such a way that it may be impossible for the authority to carry out a mandatory duty.
        Mr. Hughes: The Minister said that my hon. Friend's amendment would compel the authority to try to discover who had deposited the material, but the police must have a responsibility to do just that if the material deposited on the road constitutes a danger.
        Mr. Ancram: For any offence it is for the police to find the offender, where that is practicable. We are talking about practical applications in this case. The hon. Gentleman seeks to require local authorities to recover the expenses at all costs, however long it takes. If he thinks about it, that is impractical. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment on that basis.
        I am confident that roads authorities or local authorities will not miss the opportunity to recover their costs where they can do so appropriately. It may sound strange for me to say this to the hon. Member for Cathcart, but it is better to leave these matters to the discretion of the authorities rather than for us to foist duties upon them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment on that basis.
        Mr. Maxton: I shall first reply briefly to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who suggested that I am persecuting hard-done-by farmers. That that most heavily-subsidised group of entrepreneurs should get extra protection is beyond belief.

        911
        The Minister has got it completely wrong. Clause 95(2) states:
        "Expenses reasonably incurred by the roads authority or by the district council and necessitated by a contravention of this section may be recovered by them from the person in default."
        The important words are "in default". That means that the person has been found, taken to court and found guilty of the offence. However, I assume that a person cannot be in default in this country unless he has been found guilty of an offence in a court of law, unless the Minister is implying that someone can be found guilty in his absence, without knowing about it, and when the police do not even know who that person is. That is a remarkable supposition, but the clause says that the person concerned must be "in default".
        As I read that—perhaps the Minister wishes to clarify it—the person has been found guilty in a court of law as a result of an offence that he committed and for which he has been found guilty. The local authority has incurred expenses and, in that case, the authority should get from him the costs of its work.
        I am not referring, nor does the clause refer, to those cases where a person or an organisation has dropped mud or another substance on the road, because the clause does not cover them. It covers only those who are known of and who have been found guilty in a court of law. The Minister's argument does not stand up to reason. Before I take a decision on whether or not to withdraw my amendment, I hope that the Minister will reply to this point.
        Mr. Ancram: I must have set a bad example in describing the previous technical amendment to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), as that gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) ideas about legal construction. He should have taken previous advice from his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) before speaking.
        I am making a straightforward and simple point. Clause 95(1) refers to a person who fails to remove the material that has been dropped as soon as reasonably practicable committing an offence. Clearly if a roads authority or a district council incurs expenses as a result of that offence it has a right to try to recover those expenses. The only way that it can do so is when somebody "offends" under clause 95(1) because, having dropped the material, he failed to remove it. Under subsection (2) the district authority or the roads authority can recover the expenses if it wishes. However, there could be occurrences where that person was not known and not available, but was still an offender in terms of clause 95(1) because he had fulfilled the provisions of the clause. The hon. Gentleman's amendment would cover those circumstances. It would put upon local authorities and roads authorities a duty that could not be fulfilled, and as a result would be bad law. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would advise the hon. Gentleman of that, too.
        Mr. Maxton: I still do not think that the Minister is right, but the way in which we have considered the Bill—the Government wrongly tabled a series of amendments, which turned the Committee stage last week into a farce—means that we have not had sufficient
        912
        time to cover the Bill properly. This is essentially a minor technical amendment, so I have no intention of pushing it to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 96

        EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES IN REPAIRING ROADS DAMAGED BY HEAVY VEHICLES ETC.
        Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 66, line 43, leave out from 'shall' to 'within' in line 2 on page 27 and insert
        'not be commenced later than 12 months after the damage has been done unless that damage is the consequence of a particular building contract or of work extending over a long period, in which case they may, notwithstanding that such period of 12 months has elapsed, be commenced'.
        Clause 96 codifies a long-standing provision whereby roads authorities may recover from those responsible unusual road maintenance costs occasioned by excessively heavy vehicles or traffic. It is our view, on reflection, that the clause is a little rigid and would not, as presently drafted, cover work such as quarrying, which might take place over a long period. The amendment is necessary to cover such circumstances and to make the clause more flexible.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 97

        TRADING
        Mr. Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 66, line 24 at end insert—
        '(1A) No roads authority shall unreasonably withhold permission for the stationing of such stall or vehicle at convenient places adjacent to public roads, provided that adequate room is available for customers and their vehicles, the area is kept free of litter and the stall or vehicle is of tidy appearance. '.
        This amendment is in the name of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] His name is on the Order Paper. He does not appear to be here, but I assure the House that I am well able to speak for him and myself.
        The purpose of the amendment is to try to inject a policy into the Bill where no policy presently exists. All hon. Members will be aware, as they drive around the country, that traders operate in laybys selling refreshments, but there is no clear policy about what terms those traders can or should operate under—whether they come under the classification mentioned by the hon. Member from Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), and should be moved on at the earliest opportunity, or whether they have a clearer right to operate.
        The purpose of the amendment is to say that, where the Bill deals with trading, it should not be bureaucratic. The principle of allowing people to operate in that fashion should not be presumed against. We are aware that such refreshment bars can create problems of congestion, litter and nuisance, but if they are properly regulated and fulfil conditions that do not cause litter and congestion, they can provide a useful service. In many parts of the country that is the case.
        Mr. Craigen: I understand that, just as the owner would be responsible for keeping the vehicle in a tidy condition, he would also be responsible under the amendment for keeping the area free of litter.
        Mr. Bruce: That was the intention of the amendment. If anybody operates in such a way, he should be required to meet those conditions. Provided that he does, it is a reasonable proposition that he should be allowed to trade.
        Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am desperately trying to work out where the amendment fits in. The Order Paper refers to page 66, line 24, and that makes no sense.
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I should have made that plain. I thought that Mr. Deputy Speaker had done so. There is a misprint. It should be page 67, line 14. Has the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) concluded his speech?
        Mr. Bruce: The Bill leave unclear what rights those traders have. The amendment seeks to make a clear regulation so that those facilities, which do operate, will operate under proper regulations.
        10.45 pm
        Mr. McQuarrie: I oppose the amendment because it is unnecessary. The Bill clearly states that such trading may not take place
        "except with the consent in writing of the roads authority and in accordance with such reasonable conditions as the authority think fit."
        I have had wide experience in my constituency of the sort of trading that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) described. It has caused great problems in regard to discarded litter, untidiness and danger. The traders are invariably in laybys on trunk roads, and policemen cannot run after them every minute of the day.
        The Government are right to suggest that it is adequate for the roads authority to lay down conditions as it thinks fit. I oppose the amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do likewise.
        Mr. Ancram: I can set the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) at rest, as I shall resist the amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will withdraw it.
        The amendment does not make sufficient provision for road safety. Even if all the other criteria set out in the amendment were met, road safety is not considered and the dangers of sudden manoeuvres by motorists to take advantage of the facility will still cause danger to other road users.
        Secondly, the amendment includes the subjective test of what is meant by "adequate room". That could lead to considerable problems of interpretation—for example, if a mobile snack bar were popular, parking that was initially adequate might prove to be inadequate. That would raise questions about road safety and would cause dangers to road users.
        Clause 97 is important. It is important that roads authorities should not have their new power under the clause restricted further. I believe that authorities will operate their powers constructively and will grant consent where there are no overriding reasons of public safety or amenity for refusing it. That will be my right hon. Friend's policy for trunk roads. We shall issue guidance to local authorities in a circular. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Bruce: I am interested that the Minister will issue a circular to give guidance on the matter. However, the Bill does not make it clear—the circular may clarify the position—exactly what the position will be when the Bill is enacted.
        The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) fairly identified the problem. I do not wish to pretend that a potential problem does not exist if such trading is not regulated. Clearly, litter, traffic and road safety must be considered. I have a letter of a few years ago from the Scottish Development Department to the Grampian regional council, which shows that the council was not clear about its rights and wrongs, and that the circular did not shed light on the matter. I accept that the Minister raised some points about the drafting of the amendment, which might make it looser than it was intended to be.
        In the light of what the Minister said about issuing a circular—I hope that he will make it clear that the Government recognise that such stalls will operate and want to provide a sensible framework that is fair to all parties with regard to safety and which will allow the operators to operate effectively—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 98

        CONTROL OF STRAY AND OTHER ANIMALS ON ROADS
        Mr. Ancram: I beg to move Government amendment No. 16, in page 68, line 3:5, at end insert—
        ': Provided that no such payment shall be exigible where the owner took all reasonable steps to ensure that the animal was not so left as is mentioned in subsection (1) above or, as the case may be, did not so stray as is there mentioned. '.
        Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 17.
        Mr. Ancram: These amendments will be welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) because they follow submissions that he made in Committee. As a result of the changes, the owner of an animal will not be required to make such payments if he takes all reasonable steps to ensure that his animals are not left on or stray on to the road. I hope that that meets the points that he made.
        Sir Hector Monro: I want to thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I did not recognise what I said last week translated into this amendment. My hon. Friend might have explained the details of amendment No. 16. We talked about guidelines when discussing the previous amendment, and it would not be a bad idea if we had some guidelines on clause 98, which seems to leave us exactly where we were before we started discussing the Bill.
        Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister——
        Mr. Craigen: The second vote of thanks.
        Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman was not present through most of this and the previous debate. He is unaware that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and others spoke at some length on this serious matter. I drew attention to the difficulties which were experienced in my home when my children's ponies were some miles away from their paddock. I realised the

        915
        difficulties that we would cause for people. I thank the Minister for taking such a realistic view of the representations that we made to him.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 17, in page 68, line 36, at beginning insert—
        'Subject to the proviso to subsection (2) above,' —[Mr. Ancram.]

      Clause 143

        REVOCATION AND VARIATION OF CERTAIN SCHEMES AND ORDERS
        Amendments made: No. 18, in page 96, line 5, after 'Where', insert '—(a)'.
        No. 19, in page 96, line 5, after 'Act, insert—
        "; or
        (b) an order under section 9 or 12 of this Act in relation to—

        (i) a special road; or

        (ii) a main road (within the meaning of the said section 12), which has not been opened for the purposes of through traffic,".

        No. 20, in page 96, line 6, after 'road', insert 'main road,'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

      Clause 155

        SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
        Amendments made: No. 21, in page 104, line 22, at beginning insert
        'Subject to subsection (3) below,'.
        No. 22, in page 104, line 22, leave out
        'and sections 35 to 40'.
        No. 23, in page 104, line 26, at end insert
        , and different days may be so appointed for different provisions, for different purposes and for different areas'.
        No. 24, in page 104, line 27, at end insert—
        'section [Restricted roads: amendment of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984] and Schedule [Restricted roads];'.
        No. 25, in page 104, leave out line 29 and insert
        'Schedule 10 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984' —[Mr. Ancram.]

      New schedule

        'RESTRICTED ROADS
        Amendment of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

        1. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall be amended in accordance with this Schedule.

        2. In section 82(1) (restricted roads)—

        (a) after the word "if' there shall be inserted "—(a)";

        (b) for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "carriageway";

        (c) for the words "200 yards" there shall be substituted the words "185 metres"; and

        (d) at the end there shall be inserted the following words—"; and

        (b) the road is of a classification or type specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State.".

        3. In section 85 (traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions)—

        (a) in subsection (4), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "carriageway", and for the words "200 yards" there shall be substituted the words "185 metres";

        (b) in subsection (5), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "carriageway"; and

        916

        (c) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

        "(5A) In any proceedings for a contravention of section 81 of this Act, a certificate of an officer of the Secretary of State that a road is of a specified classification or type shall be sufficient evidence of the facts certified; and a document purporting to be such a certificate and to be signed by such an officer shall be deemed to be such certificate unless the contrary is shown"

        4. In section 134(2) (provisions as to regulations), after the word "sections" there shall be inserted the words "82(1),".

        'RESTRICTED ROADS

          Transitional provision
          5. Where, immediately prior to the commencement of this Schedule—

          (a) a road is or is deemed to be a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and that road would, apart from this paragraph, cease to be a restricted road in consequence of the first regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 82(1) of that Act as amended by paragraph 2 above; or

          (b) a road is not and is not deemed to be a restricted road for those purposes and that road would, apart from this paragraph, become a restricted road in consequence of those regulations,

          the roads authority may, prior to the commencement of the regulations, make an order specifying the road, and the road shall, notwithstanding the commencement of the regulations, continue to be, or to be deemed to be, a restriced road or, as the case may be, a road which is not a restricted road until such time as the order is superseded, in relation to that road, by a direction under section 82(2) of that Act (directions making specified roads restricted or not restricted) or an order under section 84(1) of that Act (power to fix speed limits).'.
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Schedule 8

        MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
        Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 119, line 38, leave out '12' and insert '7.62'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 27 to 38.
        Mr. Stewart: These are technical amendments requested by British Rail.
        Mr. Craigen: They are indeed technical, but they raise some interesting questions. Why are these amendments proposed now? What co-operation was there between the Scottish Office and British Rail? We have known about the proposed change from imperial to metric measure for some time, so we were not taken aback by that. From what I heard on the grapevine, it seemed to me that British Rail would face some considerable problems with its bridges and at one stage with the gradients, if the amendments were not accepted.
        Why do we have these amendments now, months later and after the Bill has been through another place? This is not the first time that British Rail has faced problems with roads. I believe that it has just made several complaints to the Scottish Office about the draft provisional order to authorise Lothian regional council to construct and maintain the western relief road. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland here because if he had grasped the nettle about that road and instituted a public inquiry, instead of leaving it to the tortuous procedure of the parliamentary commissioners, a lot of time and money would have been saved in the Edinburgh area.
        ********************Audit***************

        917
        I hope that the Minister will answer those points. The amendments are technical, but they raise some interesting questions about how the Bill has been prepared.
        Mr. Allan Stewart: Section 41 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 presently defines separate minimum arch dimensions of railway bridges over turnpike roads, public carriage roads and private roads and the Bill proposes to amalgamate the turnpike and public carriage roads provisions into a "public road" minimum clearance for railway bridges. However, British Rail has recently drawn attention to the fact that the obsolete turnpike standards, instead of the smaller public carriage road dimensions to which BR operates, have been used in schedule 8. That is why the amendment comes so late.
        If allowed to stand without these technical amendments, the amended section 41 of the 1845 Act could increase BR's costs when rebuilding existing bridges since they might have to be reconstructed with a larger arch for vehicle clearance.
        As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said, these are technical amendments. They were not spotted until recently but——
        Mr. Craigen: If the Minister tells me that BR is now happy, I shall approve the amendments.
        Mr. Stewart: I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made:
        No. 27, in page 119, line 39, leave out '4' and insert '3.66'.
        No. 28, in page 119, line 41, leave out '6' and insert '4.57'.
        No. 29, in page 119, line 42, leave out '4' and insert '3.05'.
        No. 30, in page 119, line 47, leave out '4' and insert '3.66'.
        No. 31, in page 120, line 1, leave out '3' and insert '2.74'.
        No. 32, in page 120, line 2, leave out '5' and insert '4.27'.
        No. 33, in page 120, line 4, leave out '30' and insert '20'.
        No. 34, in page 120, line 9, leave out '11/2' and insert ' 1. 22'.
        No. 35, in page 120, line 9, leave out '1' and insert '0. 91'.
        No. 36, in page 120, line 13, leave out '12' and insert '7.62'.
        No. 37, in page 120, line 13, leave out '4' and insert '3.66'.
        No. 38, in page 120, line 15, leave out '30' and insert '20'.
        No. 39, in page 184, line 30, at end insert—
        '(42A) In section 134(4) (provisions as to regulations), for the words "or section" there shall be substituted the words ", 132A or". '.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]

      Schedule 10

        REPEALS
        Amendments made: No. 40, in page 192, column 3, at end insert—
        'In Schedule 10, paragraphs 14
        to 16.'.—[Mr. Allan Stewart.]
        Order for Third Reading read.
        [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
        10.57 pm
        Mr. Allan Stewart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. It is basically a non-contentious measure. Much of it consolidates 40 previous enactments. The fact that it has been non-contentious is shown by the absence of any Divisions. We are witnessing the disappearance of venerable Scottish enactments from the previous century. This Bill might not be quite so durable, but I have no doubt that it will be a sound and solid measure. I am sure that the House hopes that it will last a considerable time.
        10.58 pm
        Mr. Maxton: It must be said that, although this is a non-contentious Bill in a strict party political sense, in that there is no division between the Government and the Opposition, it is important to many of our constituents, as has been shown by the number of issues that have been raised.
        We were misled by the Government about the way in which the Bill was to be considered. It was agreed that the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House, and that there would be one day for the Committee stage, on the basis that the Bill was a non-contentious consolidation measure containing very little new material. We then found that pages and pages of Government amendments had been tabled. I do not believe that the Bill has been debated as fully as it should have been. I think that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) agrees with me, and probably the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).
        None the less, I hope that the Minister is right and that the legislation will be durable. I hope that it will last at least for the next four years and that thereafter the subject of roads in Scotland will be debated not here but—when the next Labour Government have been elected—where it should be debated, in an assembly in Edinburgh.
        Mr. David Marshall: During the Committee stage last week, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that he would write to me about the questions that I had asked. He has now done so. Whilst his answers are not what I might have hoped, they are very helpful and I thank him for them.
        Mr. Craigen: I feel that the Bill may haunt us for some time. There have been so many drafting errors—including some discovered this evening—that I feel sure that amending orders will be necessary.
        Codification is normally regarded as a means of making life easier for those who have to deal with a multitude of statutes. My initial welcome, on Second Reading, of this consolidation measure on those grounds must be qualified in the light of experience. The Minister has given us some assurances that, now that we are moving into a rate-capping period, any extra costs connected with the innovations will be borne in mind. The costs of maintaining existing public roads and adopting and updating private roads will also fall upon the roads authorities.
        Finally, there are some good and some bad provisions among the miscellaneous measures. There are some

        919
        circulars that encapsulate the views of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), at least in respect of hedgehog ramps. Among other measures, we welcome the road bonds, which will be useful.
        I thank the Officers of the House and others who have been involved in this lengthy process.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Animal Health and Welfare Bill
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Bill reported, without amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mrs. Fenner.]
    11.4 pm
    Mr. Mark Hughes: On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the Bill. It is not a major contribution to legislation in this area, but it is wholly useful and desirable. The first four clauses, amending the Animal Health Act 1981, bring into context certain minor problems that have arisen, particular in connection with the supply of feedingstuffs from grain stores in—for example—Liverpool, the current outbreak of fowl pest and the ability of officials to enter premises. We wholly welcome those measures. In Committee, significant Government amendments on the slaughter of poultry were tabled. I said that we might wish to consider them when we had received advice. I am happy to inform the House that, having received advice, we find these amendments generally acceptable.
    However, there are some minor difficulties on which we would welcome clarification. There should be a clear duty on local authorities to execute and enforce the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 and any regulations made under it. There should be no peradventure about that. The wording of the new clause and the amendments thereto make that absolutely clear.
    The British Veterinary Association asks that, in licensed poultry slaughterhouses, where the law already requires the presence of an official veterinary surgeon to supervise hygiene standards, the responsibility of that official veterinary surgeon should be extended to include welfare.
    At this point perhaps I can transgress the strict terms of the Bill. According to press reports, all the evidence from the Harrison committee regarding the slaughter of red meat only reinforces the requirement that qualified veterinary surgeons should oversee the welfare of animals in slaughterhouses. When the regulations are laid, I trust that the Minister will make certain that the powers will be effectively used to make certain that official veterinary surgeons shall have power to include the welfare of poultry. Such a power should extend not only to red meat slaughterhouses but to every aspect of slaughterhouse activity.
    I suspect that the small on-farm slaughtering provision caused most difficulty, not only in the House but in Committee. I refer particularly to the relationship between the authorised and official veterinary service and the seasonal and occasional slaughtering of poultry on farm. Clearly, this is a technical as well as a welfare problem. No one wishes to see inhumane slaughtering simply because it is on farm. Nothing should be done on farm which is more disadvantageous to the welfare of poultry than what is done in licensed slaughterhouses.
    However, there is a technical difficulty for the operators of small poultry, turkey or hen farms. I hope that the Minister will require periodic veterinary inspection of all such premises, and periodic and adequate veterinary control over the on-farm slaughtering of poultry.
    We entirely welcome the tightening up of the current unacceptable practice of selling in markets live chickens

    921
    which are subsequently sold slaughtered as a gift from the seller. That was the wrong and unacceptable way of circumventing the will of this House.
    We welcome the fact that that should now be inhibited.
    Clauses 10, 11 and 12 are also important. I have seen many of the problems in the developing countries and the Third world and the power of politicians to control the quality of breeding stock—bulls, rams and so on—and to inhibit the improvement of livestock quality. That no longer applies in this country, and the licensing of bulls and so on must be desirable. The need to bring legislation into line with modern technology on such things as embryo plants must be a step in the right direction.
    On clauses 13, 14 and 15, there is a difficulty. I refer to the letter that I received from the Under-Secretary regarding the control envisaged on medicated animal feedingstuffs. Here, I refer specifically to the problem of Northern Ireland. I quote from the Parliamentary Secretary's letter of 25 June:
    "Your first question concerns the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland on this clause."
    That is, clause 13, which is one of the few clauses that applies to Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady continued:
    "No consultations have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic on the amendment to the Medicines Act. Since the Medicines Act is a United Kingdom statute any import requirements under that statute would apply to imports from the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland in the same way as they apply to imports from the Irish Republic to Great Britain.
    We have no details of any analogues legislation in the Irish Republic. Like the United Kingdom they are, however, obliged to comply with and implement European Community Directives 70/524 on additives in feedingstuffs and 81/851 on veterinary medicinal products."
    I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider carefully the implications of that in terms of control of animal feedingstuffs in Ulster impregnated with veterinary drugs. Northern Ireland has access to medicinally impregnated feedingstuffs, and although this Bill is supposed to cover Northern Ireland, I have grave doubts as to its efficacy in this instance. I doubt whether it inhibits the use in Northern Ireland of drug-impregnated feedingstuffs that we, on the mainland of the United Kingdom, find unacceptable.
    The second concern is the controls envisaged on the importation of medicated feedingstuffs. The Minister's letter says:
    "The second question related to the controls envisaged on the importation of medicated feedingstuffs. The current position under Section 40 of the Medicines Act 1968 is that medicated feedingstuffs may only be imported into the United Kingdom if the medicinal product has been incorporated into the feed in accordance with a product licence, an animal test certificate or a prescription issued by a veterinary surgeon for the treatment of a particular animal or herd under the care of that veterinary surgeon."
    I regret to say that many in the livestock sector are unhappy about the efficacy of that regulation. I hope that, when the Minister replies, she will assure the House that in the United Kingdom as a whole there is no risk of animal feedingstuffs being used that have been medicated with products that are unacceptable under United Kingdom law. I especially want an assurance that no animal feedingstuffs are available and used in Northern Ireland that are not acceptable under United Kingdom law.
    The Eire Government have not implemented the necessary regulations. It would be wholly inappropriate for Eire to have the advantage of growth promoters and all the other elements while farmers in Northern Ireland are
    922
    inhibited from using them. If the Eire farmers are permitted to use growth promoters and other feedingstuff additives under the pretence that it is simple medication—which is frequently done—that would be a further disadvantage to our Ulster colleague farmers—given all the pressures on them, with dairy closures and so on—vis-a-vis their southern Irish colleagues.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government would be better occupied in consulting the Government of the Irish Republic about practical matters rather than about the constitutional arrangements for part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hughes: It has always seemed to me that the Government would be far better concerned with consulting on veterinary problems and associated matters than on esoteric matters of constitutionality, but that is a strictly private view. Veterinary problems are common problems that must be consulted about on a common basis.
    Has the Minister received any information about veterinary surgeons performing illegal operations in the form of either research or quasi-research in the production of what I can refer to only as monsters—hybrid animals that have no hope of progeny. Were she to receive information of such experiments, will she undertake as a matter of grave urgency, to satisfy public opinion that: the veterinary profession is not concerned with experimental practices?
    Having said that, on behalf of the Opposition I welcome the Bill as a modest but wholly welcome improvement in the provisions for animal health and welfare in this country.
    11.20 pm
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: I begin with a somewhat heretical expression of regret. The Second Reading of the Bill was relegated to a Friday morning, with all that that implies; the Standing Committee deliberated for 1 hour 27 minutes; and the messages that have reached me tonight suggest that brevity would be appreciated. I shall comply with that wish, and the consequence will be an abbreviated speech.
    I wish to speak about three clauses. First, with other hon. Members, I applaud and welcome the Minister taking, in clause 1, additional powers to seize infected materials from premises on which a notifiable disease has been confirmed. On Second Reading, I was one of those who pointed out that where the industry contributed financially to an eradication programme—Aujesky's disease or Newcastle disease—there must be the closest consultation between the Government and the industry at the point of formulating secondary legislation.
    I listened carefully to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading and in Committee. I have read and re-read the Official Report of what was said and I do not believe that the Government have yet taken on board explicitly the need for consultation in this area of the proposals. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will assure us tonight that the Government appreciate the need for thorough-going consultation between the industry and. Government in relation to eradication programmes.
    Secondly, let me turn to what was clause 5 in our earlier deliberations and has now become clause 6. I speak with

    923
    a degree of trepidation and apology because, in essence, the point I wish to make is the same as that which I made on Second Reading and in Committee, and to which the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) referred a few minutes ago. I raise the matter again because I remain unhappy about it. What happens if, when we move into the licensing era, the small poultry farmer who is basically operating a one-man show falls ill? How does he fare? The same point applies to the larger farmer who goes in for poultry perhaps as a seasonal sideline.
    In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, when moving a series of amendments to the then clause 5, said:
    "Subsection (2)(b) and (d) will enable us to make exceptions in appropriate cases from any of the provisions in the regulations."
    She went on:
    "we will give careful consideration when we come to make the regulations to any requests we may receive for special treatment".
    She stressed that the welfare of animals was most important, and who can quarrel with this? I asked what would happen if a licensed slaughterer fell ill, and my hon. Friend assured me
    "that the powers are wide enough to enable us to take account of those circumstances and we will need to consider the point when the regulations are made".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 June 1984; c. 8–9.]
    I believe that in due course the regulations should reflect the difficulties that may affect the small man and should allow him to retain responsibility but in certain circumstances to second the act of slaughter to someone else. I stress that point again, because we must realistically take on board the small farmer's problems while bearing in mind our wider moral responsibility—if we can call it that—for the welfare of the animals. We should not seek the non-application of these controls. We should allow the delegation of those controls to someone else, despite the indication of disapproval by the hon. Member for City of Durham.
    Thirdly, I turn to clause 10. Perhaps I indulged in a little scaremongering on Second Reading when voicing the worries of farmers in my constituency, whose views were, I believe, prompted by the National Farmers Union. My basic question—I still await an answer—was: are people right to think that this clause, and clauses 10 to 12 generally, prepare the ground for the charging of fees for licences and approvals to regulate breeding? If the answer is yes, is there justification for the further belief that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is thinking in terms of £200 or £300 per bull? Those are the figures cited. Such sums would impose a considerable financial burden on the industry. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on that point.
    Finally, let me remind the House that I tried on Second Reading to discover whether my hon. Friend had in mind secondary legislation, either giving vets a monopoly on supervising advanced artificial breeding techniques or allowing technicians—they do this now—as well as qualified vets to perform those functions. When summing up on Second Reading, my hon. Friend made comments that were not re-echoed or built on in Standing Committee. She said:
    "I understand that embryo transfer … is already conducted by people other than veterinary surgeons. Whether that should continue, possibly subject to some form of veterinary
    924
    supervision, is a matter for subordinate legislation, on which there will be full consultation."—[Official Report, 18 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 654.]
    I was tempted then to probe my hon. Friend's thinking on that matter, but I ask her now whether she has had further thoughts on this matter.
    I ask my hon. Friend to deal with these points in due course.
    11.28 pm
    Sir Peter Mills: Naturally, I welcome the Bill and support what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has done.
    I return to the point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) about Northern Ireland. As a former Northern Ireland Minister with responsibility for agriculture I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture is well able to look after itself. It is probably one of the most efficient Departments in the United Kingdom. When I had the privilege of being the responsible Minister, the Department was extremely careful in its actions with regard to control. Indeed, it was sometimes difficult for me to get done some of the things that I wanted done because it was so keen to isolate itself from any of the other problems and diseases. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—although I should not be winding up, as it were, for the Minister—that I have the highest regard for the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and its ability to deal with such matters. Perhaps that will set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
    Naturally, I welcome the Bill. The need for this measure, particularly the animal health side of it, is increasing all the time. Because of the size of our flocks and herds the dangers are real. One has to accept the stringent measures in the interests of all in the control of diseases. I am certain that farmers are willing and ready to accept them.
    The position has changed out of all recognition from days gone by when there were small flocks of birds and small herds of cattle and sheep. Therefore, it is right that we should have such stringent measures. Disease spreads rapidly and the need to protect other herds and flocks is real. The dangers of disease spreading are great because there is immunity for some time and then it breaks down rapidly. I wholeheartedly support the clauses dealing with animal health matters.
    There is no doubt that there is great concern in Britain about the slaughter of poultry and humane conditions and practices. I receive many letters on that subject. The problem is that it is a minefield of difficulties. The Government are doing all they can to assist in that area and to be helpful. I think that they are on the right course. However, mass production means mass killing and that is not pleasant. Anybody who has been to a poultry slaughterhouse, where hundreds of thousands of birds are slaughtered a week, knows that it is an unpleasant business. The public do not realise the exact position. They want cheap birds and poultrymeat and yet many of them are not prepared to accept that mass production means mass killing. It is not at all pleasant. We should take real precautions to see that humane conditions and practices exist. I welcome what is being done in that area.
    I hope, too, that there will be another look at the need for birds to travel great distances. As the number of slaughterhouses that are able to deal with the mass killing of birds becomes smaller, so birds have to travel literally

    925
    hundreds of miles. In Cornwall, alone, I do not think that there is a single slaughterhouse for birds. They all have to go to Devon. That means some suffering for the birds.
    We should consult producers as well as the vets on this subject. The British Veterinary Association is to be congratulated on its work. It has set up research work in that area and a chair to promote the study of animal welfare. That is right and proper in the age in which we live because of the enormous number of slaughterings that occur. I hope that the Government will support that. As the results are produced I hope that we can rapidly change our methods so that we can assist in more humane conditions in the killing of animals and birds.
    I hope that through the Bill we can be flexible about such matters. I am sure that in a few years' time there will be real changes in the methods of mass slaughter so that conditions become more humane. The chair of research set up by the British Veterinary Association will help very much.
    This is an excellent Bill, which will assist us in resolving some of the difficult and sensitive problems, although the public still want the food and the protein that comes from the slaughterhouses. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on their progress in this area.
    11.34 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The Bill has received a broad welcome in the House—the Opposition have made that point tonight—and in another place, and I am sure that Opposition Members will not wish to delay the passage into law of what we all agree is a useful package of measures. However, I appreciate that anxiety has been expressed about one or two specific areas and about the implications of the new provisions included in Committee in the clauses dealing with the slaughter of poultry. I hope that I can reaassure those hon. Members who have expressed concern.
    The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) said that local authorities should have a clear duty to implement the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps I can enlarge on what we intend to do to introduce veterinary supervision of welfare. I realise that there may be enforcement problems in Northern Ireland with regard to feedingstuffs, but we must get the legislation right first.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was worried about formulating regulations and the amount of consultation. In Committee I assured my hon. Friend that the powers are wide enough to take those circumstances into account, and we must consider the matter when the regulations are made. I did not say that we should make exceptions; the powers are wide enough to draw the points that he made into the regulations. There will be extensive consultation before we produce the regulations, which I hope will reassure him.
    In Committee my hon. Friend asked about clause 6 and licences. We shall consult before we prepare the regulations to bring into effect the licensing provisions. My hon. Friend acknowledged that we can make exceptions, but we shall make different provisions for different cases, and we have the power to enable delegation of responsibility. I cannot say now how we shall deal with this matter, because we must consult first.
    My hon. Friend asked about charges. It is estimated to cost between £200 and £300 to approve a bull, so it is
    926
    impossible to say now what level of charges can be fixed as a means of reducing some costs. In addition, it may be decided that it is inappropriate to charge the full rate, or any rate, for some activities carried out under the existing regulations.
    I welcomed the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) about the need for welfare in intensive farming. I hope that he will agree that the main thrust of the middle section of the Bill is about exactly that and responds to the recommendations made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council about the welfare of poultry at slaughter.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for taking the hon. Lady back to a previous subject, but I had not appreciated that she would deal so briefly with the points raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes). Will she confirm that the Government are ascertaining that the Irish Republic is applying the controls required of it in this respect by international agreements? I believe that that question was specifically asked by the hon. Member for City of Durham.
    Mrs. Fenner: As I told the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) in a letter, as a member of the European Community the Irish Republic is committed to the two directives in respect of feedingstuffs and veterinary medicines. If the right hon. Gentleman washes me to confirm that to him I shall try to do so in due course in a letter.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am most grateful to the Minister.
    Mrs. Fenner: What has been said today clearly shows the Government's difficulty in framing provisions to respond to the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council for improving the welfare of poultry at slaughter. On the one hand, there is a case for strengthening our measures to assure the proper welfare of poultry. On the other hand, local authorities and the poultry industry are worried that new measures may create unacceptable extra costs for them.
    An area of concern brought to my attention by the poultry industry concerns clause 6, which has been drafted to take into account recommendation No. 35 in the councils report on the welfare of poultry at the time of slaughter, which states that staff employed in the stunning or slaughter of poultry should be licensed. Regulations made under this provision will be concerned basically with achieving humane treatment and conditions for the birds concerned.
    On licensing, a previous print of the Bill clearly referred to people, and the requirements were directed at slaughter for commercial purposes, but that did not cover situations in which customers bought live birds which were slaughtered after sale. The provision was redrafted to refer to premises rather than people, but I assure the House that our intentions remain as before.
    Local authorities will grant the licences, but the licensing provisions cannot be triggered until the regulations are made and I assure the House that the regulations will not be made without the fullest consultation beforehand. The Bill therefore does not seek to specify the details of any future arrangement but enables the Government to devise a scheme. I regret that this may have led to some misinterpretation of our intentions, but

    927
    I assure the House that when the licensing regulations are made they will apply to people and not to premises. I felt that I should add that to reassure the industry, which clearly found the position a trifle ambiguous.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: I am most grateful to the Minister, but as soon as it applies to people rather than premises, the problem referred to by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) becomes more difficult for the very small producer, because if only one person is licensed and that person is sick, there will be no licensed slaughterer on the premises? Will the regulations be drafted sufficiently widely to get around that.
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, indeed; as I tried to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstone, after consultation the regulations can be drafted in such a way as to make certain exceptions and to deal with particular circumstances. I hope that the hon. Member for City of Durham, too, will be reassured by my answer on that.
    I assure the House that I know that local authorities and the poultry industry may be worried that new measures will create unacceptable extra costs for them. As I have said several times in Committee, the welfare of the birds is our prime concern. I assure the House that the Government are well aware of those concerns.
    I hope that it will be possible to reconcile the two positions. We shall seek to take positive steps to improve welfare in ways that will not impose unreasonable costs on the industry or on enforcement authorities. The details of our proposals will be for subordinate legislation. We shall take carefully into account all the interests concerned before introducing such measures.
    I hope that that shows the seriousness with which I take the points that hon. Members have raised, throughout the Bill's passage. The hon. Member for City of Durham and other hon. Members have called this evening for an enhanced role for veterinary surgeons in the enforcement of the welfare legislation. We intend to use the power provided by the Bill to require local authorities to give formal responsibility for the supervision of welfare in licensed slaughterhouses to the official veterinary surgeon.
    We shall look carefully at the possibilities of an increased role for veterinary surgeons in unlicensed premises. We have the powers under clause 9 to require local authorities to arrange for periodic inspections of those places by vets. I assure the House that we shall examine that possibility carefully and that we shall consult the organisations representing the veterinary profession before taking any decisions.
    I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke felt that his valuable contribution this evening was circumscribed by the need to be brief. This is a small measure, but it covers several very important areas. I hope that hon. Members feel that they have had an opportunity to debate it thoroughly on Third Reading.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    Education (Northern Ireland)
    11.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
    That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7 June, be approved.
    The draft order before the House is long and complex, but I shall attempt to deal with it briefly. It amends the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, and it incorporates in that order the procedures, contained in the Education (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, whereby certain grant-aided schools may become controlled integrated schools.
    The main provisions of the order derive from the Astin report on the management of schools in Northern Ireland, the Benn report on voluntary schools in Northern Ireland and indirectly the Warnock report on the education of handicapped children and young people in Great Britain.
    The order has been the subject of wide-ranging consultation with educational interests in Northern Ireland. I also met deputations from two of the Northern Ireland political parties. And I know from the report of the Northern Ireland Assembly which was laid before this House on 23 November 1983 that the draft order was carefully examined by the Assembly education committee. I would like to record my appreciation of the interest shown by the Assembly and by some 150 other bodies and individuals who submitted comments on the order.
    Arising from the recommendations of the Assembly and the other comments, 10 changes of substance have been made to the order. Copies of the Government's response to the Assembly report have been placed in the Library. Hon. Members will be interested to know that the Government's response was generally welcomed by the Assembly. I have also written separately to hon. Members advising them of the main changes that have been made to the proposal for the draft order. I hope that that will have assisted them in their study of this particular piece of legislation.
    I have painted the backdrop in some detail to illustrate not only the scope of the consultation but the volume of critical scrutiny to which the order has been subjected.
    Of course, inevitably, some people, perhaps including some hon. Members, may be disappointed that we could not adopt their particular suggestions, or that we could meet only some of them. However, I hope that, upon reflection, they will be able to accept that in an area as wide as education, where there are many-sided interests, there has to be some give and take. The Government have had to weigh all views and interests, however diverse, and we have done our best to ensure that the decisions we have taken are in the best interests of the education service for Northern Ireland. That sets the scene. I now refer to the draft order itself.
    Perhaps the most significant provisions are those concerning changes in the management structures of schools. Historically in Northern Ireland, considerable attention has been paid to school management, but the position has remained static for a substantial number of years. The management structures for local authority schools, now called controlled schools, have been laid down in law since 1923 and the present provisions have remained unaltered since 1947. The present management arrangements for all but a handful of voluntary schools

    929
    have been in operation since 1968. It was appropriate and timely that there should be fresh consideration of school management structures.
    A working party chaired by Professor Astin, former pro vice-chancellor of Queen's university, Belfast, reported in 1979, and the Government announced in March 1981 that they accepted most of the recommendations of his report. The most significant were that parents and assistant teachers should be represented, as of right, on the boards of governors of all grant-aided schools. Those recommendations were given a general welcome although views differed as to the proportions in which the various categories of membership should be represented on the boards of different schools.
    Following consultation with the major interests involved in school management, the Government announced their proposals for the future composition of boards of governors in September 1981. A more recent round of consultations on the draft order has led to numerical changes in the composition of some of the smaller boards of governors. The transferor representation on the smallest board of governors of controlled primary and intermediate schools has been increased from three to four, thereby increasing the voting membership of those boards to nine. In the case of the smallest board of governors of a maintained school, and of a voluntary grammar school, which has entered into an agreement with the Department or an education and library board, the number of members representative of the trustees or foundation governors has been increased from five to six, thereby increasing their voting membership to 10.
    There has been no change in the required numbers of parent and teacher governors. The Government decided against the recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Assembly, the three main Protestant Churches and others, that the additional transferor should be a parent because that would upset the balance of statutory parental representation between controlled and voluntary schools. However, there is nothing to prevent transferors from nominating one or more parents as their representatives if they so wish—the increase in transferor representation should facilitate such flexibility.
    Parents and teachers will be given a responsible role on the boards of governors. They will be elected by fellow parents and fellow teachers, rather than nominated by some other body, as was suggested by some of the interests with which consultations took place. The Government believe that it is right that they should be able to determine by democratic means who will represent them. That fundamental principle is already enshrined in legislation in England and Wales.
    I appreciate that the holding of elections, particularly in large schools, could pose logistical problems. For that reason, the order does not set down rigid procedures that must be adhered to when such elections are being held. The education and library board, in the case of a controlled school, and the board of governors, in the case of a voluntary school, will determine the best and most appropriate arrangements for elections, although such arrangements will be subject to my Department's approval. The only statutory requirement is that any vote taken in an election is to be by secret ballot. That is a fundamental prerequisite for any democratic election, and I believe that it is right to enshrine it in legislation.
    The order also provides for the implementation of a number of other Astin recommendations. I draw attention
    930
    in particular to article 25, which requires school authorities to prepare schemes setting out the procedures to be followed in regard to the suspension and expulsion of pupils. I share the views expressed in the Astin report that, in this controversial area, it is essential that there should be clear and readily understood procedures laid down. Many of the difficulties in regard to suspensions and expulsions arise because such procedures do not exist or, where they do exist, they are sometimes not clearly defined, understood, or, in some cases, followed. Article 25 will empower my Department to prescribe by regulation certain fundamental matters that must be common to all schemes.
    Article 34 of the published proposal—now article 33 of the draft order—contained a provision which would have given an education and library board the power to appeal to the Department, if it considered the board of governors of a controlled school was acting unreasonably in not giving consent to the redeployment of a teacher. The provision was based on an Astin recommendation, but it was strenuously opposed by controlled school interests on the grounds that it was unacceptable that there should be a statutory provision, whereby controlled schools could be required to accept teachers from voluntary schools, while voluntary schools retained absolute control over their own teaching appointments. In the light of these views I concluded that the provision should be removed from the order.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: The Minister did not deal with article 33. It provides for a teacher to go to a school without advertisement for the post if,
    "the teacher is a teacher in the school to which the appointment is to be made and the Board of Governors of the school has given to the board its prior consent to the appointment".
    That appears to be parochial, because instead of cross-fertilisation, and teachers with outside experience coming to a school, promotion will occur within the school without an advertisement.
    That would be difficult to do on the mainland because teachers, governing bodies and education authorities prefer to have experienced teachers from many places, rather than promotion within the school. Will the Minister comment on that?
    Mr. Scott: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is too late to amend the order. We are anxious to have the best teachers for our schools, and to have a sensible scheme for the redeployment of teachers at a time of falling rolls. The change that I announced may in a minimal way make it less easy to redeploy teachers, but the feelings in Northern Ireland were so strong that I was right to make this alteration before the order was laid.
    The Benn report on voluntary schools recommended that voluntary grammar schools which become nonselective secondary schools should have the choice of either adopting the maintained school system of financing their revenue expenditure or continuing to receive their recurrent grant from my Department. Articles 7 to 11 enable such a school to exercise that choice and, if it wishes after experience of one system, to change its initial option.
    If the school decides to become a maintained school, that is, a voluntary school which includes education and library board representatives on its board of governors, the financial arrangements, with one exception, would be the

    931
    same as for existing maintained schools. Its recurrent expenditure and expenditure on equipment would be the responsibility of the education and library board. Grant would be payable at the rate of 85 per cent. towards capital expenditure on premises but, unlike existing maintained schools, the school authorities would be able to charge a fee, within a prescribed maximum, for the purpose of meeting capital expenditure not met by grant.
    If the school opted to continue to receive recurrent grant from my Department it would be a direct grant voluntary intermediate school. Articles 12 to 14 govern the financial and other arrangements, which would apply to such a school. In particular, grant would be payable at a rate of 85 per cent. towards capital expenditure and the school authorities would be able to charge a fee, again within a prescribed maximum, for the purpose of meeting capital expenditure not net by grant. I would also draw attention to article 13(3), which applies article 95(2) of the 1972 order to direct grant voluntary intermediate schools. Under article 95(2) an education and library board may apply to my Department for a vesting order if it wishes to acquire, compulsorily, Iand which it considers necessary for the purposes of a maintained school or a voluntary grammar school which has entered into an agreement conferring on the head of a department or a board or both the right to appoint members to the board of governors. Under articles 7 to 11 a school cannot become a direct grant voluntary intermediate school unless such an agreement exists between the school and the Department. It is therefore reasonable that article 95(2) should apply to a direct grant voluntary intermediate school as it applies to an "agreement" grammar school and to a maintained school. I should add that although compulsory acquisition powers have been available since 1978 in respect of most voluntary schools, no applications for vesting orders have been received, nor is it expected that it will be necessary to exercise the powers frequently in the future. Of course these powers are subject to the usual safeguards for the owner of the land both at the initial stage of vesting and in the event of disposal.
    As hon. Members already know, the Northern Ireland assembly recommended that articles 7 to 14 should be removed from the order. The Government accept that these provisions are unlikely to be used to any great extent. Nevertheless with declining enrolments, some voluntary grammar schools may see their future role, or indeed their continued existence, in secondary education as nonselective schools. As articles 7–14 would enable such schools, despite ceasing to be grammar schools, to retain their direct grant relationship with my Department, they could promote and encourage positive moves towards rationalisation of secondary school provision. For this reason the Government decided against the Assembly recommendation that the provisions should be removed.
    Further changes arising from the Government's acceptance of certain recommendations of the Benn report relate to the method of financing recurrent expenditure for voluntary grammar schools. The present system of recurrent grant distribution involving a large number of specific grants which has been in operation for over 30 years is cumbersome, complex and difficult to administer. Article 30 provides for its replacement by a simplified and streamlined block grant system. The grant which now meets the tuition fees for non-fee-paying pupils in
    932
    voluntary grammar schools will be subsumed in the block grant. In future the only fees chargeable by grammar schools will be those to meet expenditure not met out of public funds, for example, tuition fees for pupils who do not obtain non-fee-paying places, capital fees, preparatory and boarding department fees. The maximum capital fee chargeable by a group A voluntary grammar school, that is one which is required to reserve places for non-fee-paying pupils, will continue to be prescribed by my Department but in other respects the determination of these fees will be left to the school authority rather than, as at present being subject to my Department's approval.
    I would now like to deal with the revision of the law on special education. These provisions are very much in line with legislation in Great Britain which was based broadly on recommendations of the Warnock committee on the education of handicapped children and young people.
    Although Northern Ireland was not included in the Warnock committee's terms of reference there is much in the report which is relevant to special education in Northern Ireland. It is therefore proper that the Northern Ireland law should also be updated. This order takes account of the revisions made in the law in Great Britain so far as they are relevant to Northern Ireland. I would like to highlight three main features.
    First and foremost, the order replaces the concept of special educational treatment for children categorised according to one of 10 particular types of handicap, with a new wider concept of special educational provision based on the special educational needs of individual children. The Warnock report presented strong arguments for this change of emphasis and I am sure hon. Members would not disagree with the view that we need to look at the child rather than the handicap, and that a single handicap is less common than a multiplicity of problems. The real need is that, for every child with serious learning difficulties, the teacher should have a clear and detailed account of the nature of those difficulties together with recommendations about what is needed to meet the child's needs.
    The term "special educational needs" is defined in such a way as to recognise that, as the Warnock report said, up to 20 per cent. of children may have special needs which require special help at some time in their school careers. As at present, of course, in many cases such help will be provided in the ordinary school. It is expected that only a small percentage of those children will have such special educational needs as to require assessment by a team of professionals so that their special educational provision can be determined by an education and library board. The order provides a detailed framework of the procedures for assessments and statements of special educational needs of such children.
    The second main feature is the emphasis on the importance of involving parents at all stages in the making of decisions about the special educational provision for their children. This is not new in practice, of course, but the legislation makes specific provision for parents to have the opportunity of making their views known and of talking to the professionals involved in the assessment of their children's needs.
    Thirdly, the order includes the statement of principle that, wherever possible, children with special educational needs should be educated in ordinary schools. This will, of course, be subject to certain safeguards, including that

    933
    the school should be able to provide for the child's special needs and that his presence there should not prejudice the provision of efficient education for other pupils or the efficient use of resources. Clearly not all children with learning difficulties can be educated in ordinary schools, but the Government hope that this formal statement of principle in legislation will provide a further stimulus to the integration of such children in ordinary schools wherever it is possible.
    These changes make up the bulk of the order. There are also a large number of less detailed, but none the less important, amendments. Those of most interest are perhaps contained in articles 20, 22, 27, 28 and 34.
    I turn first to article 20. Unlike England and Wales, in Northern Ireland pupils can transfer at the age of 15 from secondary to further education. That policy of transferring at age 15 was reviewed in 1982 and it was concluded that there would be both educational and administrative advantages in retaining all 15-year-olds in schools.
    There are several advantages. Pupils who transfer at present at 15-plus are often those who can least afford to lose the continuity of care and teaching and the kind of individual attention which the school can be expected to provide. A small number of final year pupils, because of the date of their birthday, are able to transfer to further education after only three years of secondary education. The removal of a number of these pupils can adversely affect school organisation in certain circumstances. Since, today full-time training or education is to be offered to all 16-year-olds under the youth training programme, there is less justification for beginning vocational courses at 15-plus. The absence of 15-year-olds would free college resources in further education for the development of appropriate link courses and courses under the youth training programme.
    The new policy, ending the transfer of pupils to further education at 15, has been implemented voluntarily. Article 20 gives it a statutory base by changing the law to ensure that, in future, further education may be provided only for persons over compulsory school age.
    Article 22 clarifies and amends the present legislation concerning school development proposals. It makes it clear that my Department may give directions that development proposals should be submitted in respect of voluntary schools as well as controlled schools. It also extends the circumstances in which development proposals are needed to include cases where proposed changes in one school would have a significant effect on another.
    Article 27 re-enacts existing legislative provision in that it requires milk, meals or other refreshment to be provided for pupils at grant-aided schools and enables a similar service to be made available to pupils at institutions of further education. The provision of the service will be governed by arrangements approved by my Department, instead of by regulations. This is in line with Great Britain, where the school meals service has not been subject to regulations since the Education Act 1980 came into operation. However, while local education authorities in Great Britain have discretion about the provision that they may make, for example, in relation to the standard of school meals, the same level of discretion will not be extended to Education and Library Boards. The arrangements approved by my Department will lay down requirements relating to the standard of school meals to be provided in Northern Ireland.
    934
    The article also introduces a new requirement for facilities to be provided for pupils to eat food which they have brought to school. Similar provision was made for the rest of the United Kingdom in the Education Act 1980.
    Article 28 re-enacts, with amendments, existing provisions relating to the training of teachers and makes new provision for account to be taken of the current value of redundant facilities in the payment or repayment of capital grant in respect of a voluntary college of education. The new recovery provision is intended to ensure that where grant-aided sites or premises cease to be required for the purposes of a college of education, an equitable share of their value will accrue to public funds. Under existing regulations, my Department may recover an amount not exceeding the actual grant paid. This does not take account of the effect of inflation on the value of property. It is therefore proposed that in any future cases—grants paid after 1 August 1984—public funds should receive an equitable proportion of the enhanced value of any grant-aided facilities which are no longer required for the purposes of a college of education. In other words, both the Department and the voluntary authorities would receive their proper share of the inflated value of the redundant college facilities.
    Similarly, where grant is sought on the replacement of college premises, the grant may be reduced by an equitable share of the value of the redundant premises. It is intended that this latter provision should apply to any new grants being paid, irrespective of when or whether grant was paid on the old premises.
    While on the subject of colleges of education, I should draw hon. Members' attention to paragraph 30 of schedule 8, which requires colleges of education to be open at all reasonable times to inspection by my Department. This requirement is a grant condition in existing regulations but under this order regulations will apply only to capital grants, so the general rule in schedule 8 becomes necessary. Article 91 of the 1972 order, which requires a variety of educational establishments to be open at all reasonable times to inspection by inspectors and other officers of the Department, is therefore being extended to include colleges of education.
    Article 34 and schedule 7 amend the law relating to the Northern Ireland Schools Examinations Council. The Northern Ireland General Certificate of Education examinations board and the Northern Ireland Certificate of Secondary Education examinations board will be abolished, their functions will be transferred to the council and the constitution of the council will be changed to take account of the transfer. These changes originated in the consideration which led to the decision, announced last week, to introduce a common system of examinations at 16-plus. The examinations council proposed, and the Government accepted that, irrespective of any change in the examinations system, there would be advantages in moving from the existing administrative structure to a single examining body, as in Scotland and Wales. This will offer advantages in the operation of the existing system and will give greater flexibility in responding to the proposed changes.
    The remaining provisions are largely technical or administrative. If hon. Members wish to raise any points I shall do my best to respond later. Most of the order will come into operation on 1 August 1984. Article 34, which deals with the examinations council, will come into operation on 1 December 1984.

    935
    I commend the order to the House.
    12.11 am
    Mr. Peter Archer: The Minister said that this was a long and complex order. This is not the hour to embark on a long and complex debate, and I do not propose to do so, but it is a measure of the disadvantages of direct rule that important matters are discussed by way of unamendable orders late at night and in a thin House. While we have a direct rule, it is wrong for the Government so to overload the Order Paper for one day.
    I endorse the value of the consideration given to the order by the Assembly committee to which the Minister referred, and the evidence given to it by those who took so much trouble to submit their evidence.
    The most disappointing feature of this order is article 16, which gives effect to the new article 25E. It is the law relating to children who are perhaps somewhat dismissively referred to as
    "children unsuitable for education at school".
    It appears that provision for them is to be unchanged. The Minister said that the purpose of the order was to bring the subject into line—I know that I am paraphrasing him somewhat loosely—with post-Warnock thinking, but such children will continue to be seen entirely as the concern of the health boards, and not of the education authorities. That philosophy has been left behind by contemporary thinking and experience.
    There have for many years been people who argued that all children are educable. If there remained any doubt about that, I should have thought that the Warnock report settled the argument. Those of us who have seen in our constituencies what can be done to realise and develop the potential of the severely mentally handicapped know that, in any meaningful sense of the word "educable", they are educable. There is now virtually a sub-profession in teaching of teachers who have developed high expertise. On this side of the water, the House recognised all this in 1970. It recognised that that activity was essentially an educational activity and that responsibility for it should fall to the Department of Education. Indeed, the House went further and recognised the principle that, where possible, children with special needs should be integrated into the regular schools system but that where that was not possible they should at least be within the education system and should have access to the wide range of advice and professional opinion to be found there.
    In fact, in 1971 the right to full-time education, not just to care and health provision, was extended specifically to the severely mentally handicapped in England and Wales.
    All that is not to deny that those in Northern Ireland who care for severely mentally handicapped children are doing so magnificently. What is at issue is our assertion that children in that category in Northern Ireland should have the same opportunities as children elsewhere.
    As I understand the consultative document, the Government's argument is that the transfer of responsibilities to the Department of Education could interrupt the smooth transition from special care schools to adult training centres. In other parts of the United Kingdom any doubts on that issue have been resolved by reversing the argument. The ATCs, now social education centres, have been integrated into the education service. I have written to the Minister expressing my anxieties on this, and I am
    936
    fortified by the knowledge that they are shared by the Ulster Teachers Union, the Presbyterian Church, the Western Education and Library Board and, I believe, the great majority of teachers in Northern Ireland. I have heard that last week the Belfast Action Group voted overwhelmingly in support of that suggestion.
    The Children's Legal Centre is canvassing whether, if the proposal proceeds, it ought not to be challenged before the European Commission on Human Rights. I have not considered that matter at all carefully, and I do not essay any view on that subject. But I do not believe that the order seeks to maintain arrangements which were appropriate to an earlier age.
    As I understand it, the Government say that all these matters must be considered within the framework of limited resources. The transfer would, of course, entail additional resources to the Department of Education. I suspect that that is the real issue. It goes to the root of all the provisions in this order relating to children with special educational problems.
    In the explanatory paper originally published, the Government volunteered the assurance that the order will not lead to any increase in public expenditure or to any increase in staff in the public sector. I do not know whose minds they were seeking to set at rest, but I suspect that that reassurance was directed at their colleagues in the Government, particularly in the Treasury. It certainly gave no joy to educationists, who find it profoundly depressing.
    At first sight the order appears to introduce imaginative provision for children with special needs, but that must entail resources. Imposing duties on boards and then announcing that they will not be provided with additional resources can only mean that they will have to find those resources from elsewhere in their budgets, and the more seriously thay take their new responsibilities, the more seriously they will have to cut their other services.
    Again and again, when the education committee of the Assembly was taking evidence about this, it was told, in effect, by one witness after another that to introduce the provision without providing the resources was like providing a motor vehicle and then withholding the petrol.
    The Warnock committee pointed out that its proposals entailed additional resources. It said:
    "The quality of special education, however, cannot be guaranteed merely by legislation and structural change. The framework provides the setting within which people work together in the interests of children, and the quality of education depends essentially upon their skill and insight, backed by adequate resources—not solely educational resources—efficiently deployed".
    A moment's thought confirms that if teachers are to detect the child with special needs they require training, possibly in-service training. They need to be relieved of some of their existing burdens that are additional to teaching. The school receiving a handicapped child may need to make special physical adaptations relating to access, and provide special equipment.
    Someone must have the time to go through the exercises that the Minister mentioned in discussing this matter with parents, because for parents it can be a traumatic experience to learn that their child has a problem. Whoever deals with them will require a great deal of time and patience. That is bound to entail additional provision of staff. I fear that this might be another example where, if teachers, by their dedication and submission to longer

    937
    working hours, manage to make bricks without straw, the Government will be content to announce that the straw has been shown not to be needed.
    This inconsistency shows through also in the provision for expulsion and suspension. Article 25 requires boards to establish procedures to be followed for suspension and expulsion. Full marks for that—it has received general approval. But, if a child has been expelled, what is to become of him? Is he to become a problem in another school, or is he to be left to mark time aimlessly and perhaps finally to drift into the clutches of those who thrive on frustrated and aimless young people? Even at this time of cuts, the north eastern board has recently opened a guidance centre in Coleraine, referred to in evidence to the Assembly by Mr. McKee of the National Association of Schoolmasters. I understand, although I have not yet had the opportunity to visit it, that the Jaffe centre in Belfast is providing similar promising experiments. However, it is asking a great deal of boards to provide such centres without the additional resources.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to the redeployment of teachers. Article 33 recognises the tragic problem of redundancy among teachers, as indeed the Minister said. It is a problem which exists all too evidently on this side of the water, but here it relates to newly qualified teachers who are waiting for an opportunity to use their training constructively. Teachers who are already established have, for the most part, been redployed. In Northern Ireland, the combination of demographic trends and what has come, not always accurately, to be called "rationalisation" has led to more than 1,000 redundancies. The difference is that in England and Wales there is a system of central appointments.
    The original proposal, for a right of appeal to the Department if the management committee of a controlled school vetoed a transfer, was not regarded by teachers as a complete answer to their problems—they did not think of the whole arrangement as a particularly happy one—but they felt that it went some way to meet their problems. That appeal has disappeared from the order. We know why. It is a further example of how sensible arrangements can become distorted, for reasons not directly related to how best to administer education. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that this problem, if not that specific solution, will be looked at again.
    Direct rule is a frustrating arrangement at best, but as it entails that arrangements in Northern Ireland usually follow what has been done in Great Britain at an interval of some years, it does at least provide an opportunity to benefit from experience on this side of the water, to adopt what has been shown to work well, and to make adjustments where they appear to be necessary. Here the Government do not seem to have turned their mind to what has happened in England, Scotland and Wales. A great opportunity has been missed, and the concern has been less to benefit children than to benefit the Treasury.
    I have some sympathy with the Minister. I suspect that he has scarcely more sympathy for that approach than I have. But that is typical of the Government in which he serves, and for better treatment in their social services the people of Northern Ireland must await a Government with a different philosophy.
    12.24 am
    Mr. Harold McCusker: The House will be pleased to know that I do not intend to extend the debate unnecessarily. I find myself in the rather strange, albeit welcome, position—one that I should relish, perhaps even cherish—of welcoming what the Minister has said. I am sure that that position will not last for too long, so I may as well enjoy it while it does.
    I agree with the criticism expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) about our inability to amend the order, but our experience shows that the proposals for a draft order system that enables representations to be made to Ministers and others—I hope that they take account of them—has paid off. I well recall the meeting that my colleagues and I had on 10 February when we had what I thought was a positive exchange of ideas. I made a reasonable, albeit positive contribution, which the Minister described as a harangue. If harangues are usually as successful as that was, perhaps I should use them more often.
    On that occasion I referred to the three matters that the Minister has said he is prepared to change in the order. They go to the heart of education in Northern Ireland and across the political divide, The right hon. and learned Member may regret that division, as I certainly do. For many years, especially when I was in the teaching profession, I harboured aspirations towards the eventual integration of education in Northern Ireland. I reached the conclusion that that was an impossibility. It will not happen because the Roman Catholic hierarchy has a system of education that it controls, which is financed from public funds and which is probably as good a system as it is ever likely to get, and at no time is it likely to relinquish its hold.
    The Minister discovered that early in his career in education in Northern Ireland. He was 'told bluntly in a headline in the Belfast Telegraph, "Hands off our schools." The hierarchy was telling the Minister what it would have told a Northern Ireland Government in the same circumstances—except that that would not have been necessary because successive Unionist Governments have backed away from any possible confrontation on the issue. In many respects, in trying to meet the Roman Catholic community's desire for its own education system, and to avoid the possibility of allegations of discrimination, successive Unionist Governments probably entrenched their position to the extent that there is no way in which the Roman Catholic hierachy will ever give up its hold.
    The three issues included the representation of the transferors in the management committees of controlled schools. I am sure that the Minister will accept the historic contribution that the main Protestant churches have made to the establishment of education in Northern Ireland, and their continued contribution. He knows how jealously they want to preserve what little influence they have left in that sector of education. We do not have what was once described from the Government Front Bench as a Roman Catholic system of education and a non-Roman Catholic system—which I found highly offensive. We have a Roman Catholic system and a non-denominational system that is in essence, Protestant education concerned with the education of Protestant children. The tranferors were concerned that what influence they had left should be maintained.

    939
    I am pleased that the Minister has reacted positively to our representations and those from the churches, the Assembly and others who said that the transferors were entitled to more than what the draft order gave them. I am also pleased that the Minister has accepted that the management committees of the controlled schools have some contribution to make towards the selection of staff for those schools. He has now ensured that it will be a requirement that representatives from those management committees are able to attend meetings of teacher appointments committees and make a contribution. They will thus be able to ensure that not only those making the appointments know what the school requires but will, I hope, be able to make an assessment of the candidates to see that the best decision is made for all concerned.
    The third issue to which the Minister was sensitive enough to respond—it goes to the heart of this discussion, and I accept the criticism of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West—was that of the redeployment of teachers from controlled schools. The Minister knows that there would have been no justification for saying to the controlled sector of education, which has suffered greatly from a reduction in intakes into schools, "We shall, if necessary, deploy teachers from the voluntary sector of education into the controlled sector, and if we feel that management committees are acting unreasonably we will appeal to the Department of Education to enforce what we want," if, at the same time, he intended to say, "But there is no way in which redundant teachers from the controlled sector will ever be redeployed into the voluntary sector." Irrespective of what any of us might feel about that issue, it is only sensible to accept that there cannot be one-way traffic in that situation. As those who have to live with the position in Northern Ireland appreciate, that was the only decision that could be made.
    Like the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, I am concerned about disruptive pupils and the fact that children can be expelled from voluntary schools and, in essence, be dumped on the controlled sector of educaton. I have experienced this from the other end. When I was teaching, frequently Catholic parents would come to the school at which I worked asking us to take their children into our school. We welcomed that, and they were brought in. Normally it was not a dispute between the clergy and the child that had caused that to happen. It was a dispute between the clergy and the parents. As a consequence, parents took their children from the local voluntary school and placed them in the local controlled school.
    What was the reaction of the clergy? They used every coercive method available to them, including the possible refusal to grant the children confirmation, to force those Roman Catholic parents to take their children out of our school and into the parochial school. Now they have it both ways. They can use that coercive pressure to ensure that Roman Catholic children whom they want to attend their schools attend them. But when they have a troublemaker, out he goes, and the responsibility lies with the controlled sector.
    Mr. Flannery: We in this country have managed for a long time to live with the situation that the hon. Gentleman is describing, and the system works reasonably
    940
    well. Concessions must, of course, be made, but there is no deep trouble. I am not claiming that the situation here is parallel with that in Northern Ireland, but I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is making such an issue of it when it works well here.
    Mr. McCusker: It works here because there is not the same degree of separation between the two systems. The divide in Northern Ireland in education is so clear that both sides are watching to see who is getting the greater advantage. I am not saying that the separation of systems is ideal—I wish that it did not exist, but that is reality.
    There are one or two Protestant voluntary schools in Northern Ireland. A manager of one of those schools said to me, "This is the business to be in. I should know, because I am at it every day." He played the local Catholic voluntary primary school up the road to his advantage. If the Catholic school got a new piano, he got a new piano; if it got a new boiler, he got a new boiler. If there was any dispute, he could say, "What is good enough for St. Pat's is good enough for us." Unfortunately, that is the nature of education in the Province.
    Managers of schools will use every possible coercive pressure when it suits them to force parents to send their children to the denominational school away from the controlled sector of education.
    Mr. Flannery: That happens in Britain.
    Mr. McCusker: Unfortunately, that does not happen in both instances.
    When it comes to a disruptive pupil, however, the local parish priest says, "Out you go. You can go along and be educated with those heathens if you want. You will not cause trouble for us here." That poor boy or girl must be absorbed into an environment that may be hostile to him or her. He or she may create disruption in the next school. That is why I support the statements of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. Whatever the sector, if there are chronic problems with disruptive pupils, something must be done about their treatment.
    The Under-Secretary of State referred to his responsibility in Northern Ireland in a difficult time. Decisions were deferred for years before the hon. Gentleman arrived on the scene. Those decisions involved falling enrolments and the consequences on teacher training and school closures. The hon. Gentleman has shown himself to both sides of the community to be sensitive to their wishes and demands. He has shown that sensitivity to the controlled sector of education by his behaviour on these issues tonight. On behalf of the people who asked my party to raise these issues, I express our gratitude to him.
    12.36 am
    Rev. William McCrea: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that this is a long and complex order to be discussing at this hour. It is now 12.36 am. This order was discussed extensively in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly's education committee investigated the matter in depth. I must agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that debating this order at this time in the morning illustrates one of the problems caused by direct rule in Northern Ireland. I do not see hon. Members full of beans at this time.
    This extensive and important piece of legislation could not and will not be properly discussed in the House. Many

    941
    of the points that have been raised, and which the Government later accepted, were taken into consideration because of the legislation's exposure to the scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This legislation well illustrates the value of that Assembly and the improvement in legislation affecting the Province. Hon. Members who know me understand that I and my collegues believe that Ulster can best be served by a full-blooded devolved Government and Parliament with executive and legislative powers. It must be pointed out that several months of painstaking inquiry was involved in the Assembly's examination of the legislation, and that must be in the best interests of the Northern Ireland people.
    Many aspects of the legislation concern my party. I am pleased to say that many of the Assembly's representations to the Government have been accepted. Having said that, and it is proper that I do, I take issue with some aspects of the order. Like the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) I must point out that it is appreciated that many recommendations made by the Assembly, political parties and others in Northern Ireland for legislative change have been accepted by the Minister. While I disagree with some points I deeply appreciate the fact that the Minister accepted many recommendations either wholly or in part.
    The three aspects with which I wish to deal tonight will not come as any surprise to the Minister. First, I am unhappy that the Government are not prepared to include in the draft order the recommendations regarding the composition of school management committees. The order provides for an increase in the transferors' representation on the board of governors of controlled schools. That is an increase of one in the number of Church-based or nominated representatives on the board of governors.
    The view of my party and the Assembly committee was that the legislation should stipulate that at least one of the transferors' representatives should be a parent of a child currently at the school but nominated by the transferors. The effect of that would have been to give more parental representation than there is on the board of governors at present. It would have gone a long way to meet the demands of many parents to have a greater say in the education of their children. It is only to be welcomed that parents today increasingly have a greater desire to participate and to take an interest in their children's education. Therefore, I appeal to transferors to use that extra position wisely. While not required by law to give the extra place to a parent of children at the school, albeit a parent nominated by them, I hope that they will recognise the rightful case of parents for a greater say in what is going on in schools which their children attend and that they will make a generous gesture and allocate a place on the board of governors to a parent's representative.
    One aspect to the draft order which caused great concern, especially among the Protestant community in Northern Ireland, has already been touched upon.
    The offending article allowed for the redeployment of teachers within schools and was designed to help deal with teachers who may have been made redundant because of falling numbers. Many feared that the effect of that original article would be to allow a movement of teachers from the maintained sector—the Roman Catholic sector—into the controlled sector, which, for various reasons, not least the desire of the Roman Catholic Church to maintain a separate system of education, is staffed by a vast majority of Protestant teachers. The main concern is that while a movement from the Roman Catholic sector
    942
    into the controlled sector would have been possible, there would have been no movement in the opposite direction because of the tight hold which the Roman Catholic Church keeps on its system of education in an attempt to maintain what it calls the Catholic ethos.
    Originally the order recommended that education and library boards could appeal to the Department of Education to go over the head of the board of governors of a controlled school if it were felt that it was unreasonably withholding its consent to the redeployment of teachers. Fears have been expressed that that in effect allowed the maintained and voluntary sector to offload redundancies to the controlled sector while the controlled sector would not have the same flexibility and right in redeploying teachers in the other directions. That would have been the effect of the legislation. Roman Catholic teachers would have had more access to state schools, but the agreement would not have been reciprocated. For that reason, the Assembly recommended that the article should be amended to provide for limited redeployment only in the controlled sector.
    The Assembly also asked that redeployment should be extended to further education. After representations from the Assembly, the Minister went some way towards meeting its recommendations, and he said that educaition and library boards could appeal to the Department if the board of governors of a controlled school withheld its consent to the redeployment of a teacher. The Minister should have gone all the way and kept the flexibility limited to the controlled sector of education, but I suppose that half a loaf is better than no bread.
    I am also concerned that the Minister ignored the recommendation that the powers of direction of the Department of Education to close schools in one Board's area should be deleted from the order. That view was held strongly by many in the Province. The issue of what is now known as the rationalisation of schools has generated much anger and resentment in the Province, not only among teachers but among parents. In this so-called rationalisation, there has been unanimity in the desire to keep many of those schools open, for many different reasons. Many people believe that the Department, by openly wielding the big stick or by gently nudging the various education and library boards in a more covert way, has been able to enforce its wishes to close schools, although the communities and their representatives could show that it was in the best interests of the communities for the schools to remain open.
    Two and a half years ago the Department of Education drew up a list of about 600 schools in the Province which, it informed the boards and education authorities, were causing concern simply on the basis of numbers attending. There was no reference to the quality of education in the schools, the results obtained by the schools or to the inspectors' reports of the standard of education in the schools. The Department simply examined the number of children attending those schools, and decided to axe them on that basis. Unfortunately, because of a tightening of financial purse strings and other factors, the Department could force through the rationalisation programme in some board areas. Some boards were more willing to accept the gentle nudge than were some others.
    The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) has explained to the House many times the difficulties in Ms constituency, and many other elected representatives have discovered increasing problems in their constituencies.

    943
    The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) could tell us about similar problems. The Assembly's report on the draft education and library order recommended the deletion of this power from the order, which would have placed the responsibility for closing schools upon the boards alone.
    Democracy in Northern Ireland is not the same as it is here, because even if the decision to close schools is taken by the boards the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are in a minority on the boards so the majority nominated by the Minister can close the schools even when the communities involved wish them to remain open.
    I join the hon. Member for Upper Bann in condemning the practice whereby disruptive pupils from the maintained sector are dumped in the controlled sector. For example, when a young girl in east Londonderry got into trouble of a kind that made her church very angry she was expelled from her school despite her mother's pleas to the parish priest and the school governors, which made headlines in the newspapers. She was then sent to a controlled school in my constituency. Indeed, a number of disruptive pupils have been dumped in that same school in the heart of my constituency.
    I agree entirely that disruptive pupils must be looked after properly and not left to other disruptive elements, which may encourage them to get into crime, but it is wrong that it is always a one-way street whereby disruptive pupils are moved from the maintained sector to the controlled sector but never in the opposite direction. I hope that further consideration will be given to that problem.
    In conclusion, although I have dealt with certain aspects of the order with which I do not agree, I accept that the Minister has sought to respond to the representations of elected representatives in the Province and that the draft legislation has been changed as a result. I wish to put on record my deep appreciation of that.
    12.52 am
    Mr. Scott: With leave of the House, I shall reply briefly.
    I shall not enter into a long debate with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) about the basis of rationalisation of schools in Northern Ireland, save to say that, grateful though I am for his closing comments, his description of both the procedure and execution of the rationalisation process was a caricature of reality. We are trying to rationalise schools in the interests of the education of today's and tomorrow's children in Northern
    944
    Ireland. I also wondered what I had done to deserve the praise lavished on me by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), although I hope that heaping praises on my head will become a regular habit with the hon. Gentleman.
    I wish to answer three specific points. If I miss any matter that has been raised, I shall be happy to write to hon. Members. I make that point especially to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) who has written to me about the needs of mentally handicapped children. I shall certainly write to him about that. Briefly, discussions are still going on in relation to the responses that we received to the consultative document issued by the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Social Services. The Assembly considered the matter—recommending, incidentally, that responsibility should remain with the Department of Health and Social Services—and we are now considering the Assembly's views and the other responses that we have received. I did not think it right to hold up the other very important aspects of the order until a conclusion was reached on that matter, although I appreciate its importance. There will, of course, be other opportunities to discuss the matter.
    Despite the changes that have been made in the provision for redeployment of teachers in response to representations, there is still scope for increased flexibility. Boards will have the power to cover redeployment of teachers within their own areas and also within areas covered by other boards across Northern Ireland. Discussions are still going on between unions and employers about an agreed scheme for the redeployment of teachers, which will include more flexibility.
    I hope that the new arrangements that I have outlined and the powers that the Department will have under the order to set down recognised procedures when dealing with disruptive pupils will mean that many fewer will be expelled or suspended. I do not believe that anyone would quarrel with the fact that the education and library boards have the ultimate responsibility for the education of any children who slip through the net.
    The order is important, and the comments made upon it reflect that importance, as did the admirable way in which the Assembly tackled criticisms and amendments. It will be for the good both of the education system and of the children of Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7 June, be approved.

    University of Ulster
    12.57 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
    That the draft University of Ulster (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.
    Following publication of the Government statement of 23 March 1982, in response to the final report of the higher education review group, the New University of Ulster and the Ulster polytechnic entered into discussions about the creation of a new style of higher education provision to be formed by their merger. After detailed consideration and the occasional hiccup the two institutions agreed to the merger and have since taken the necessary procedural steps to bring it about.
    In November 1983, the NUU and the Ulster polytechnic jointly petitioned Her Majesty for a charter for the new university institution, to be known as the University of Ulster. The NUU also sought that, if Her Majesty were graciously pleased to assent to this petition she would, at the same time, revoke the charter of the NUU.
    A copy of the petition, with the draft charter and statutes, was tabled in the House on 16 January this year. The charter contains many of the measures needed to bring about the merger and, although the charter is a matter for my noble Friend, the Lord President, there are a number of aspects to which I should like to refer briefly.
    As hon. Members will be aware, this is the first merger in the United Kingdom of a university and a polytechnic and as such it has attracted a good deal of interest on this side of the Irish sea as well as in Northern Ireland. I want to re-emphasise what I have said on many previous occasions. In no sense is this merger a test bed for higher education in the United Kingdom as a whole. It is and was designed to be the answer to the special problems facing higher education in Northern Ireland. If others can learn from it, so much the better.
    A unique feature of the charter is the requirement that no less often than every seven years an external review be carried out to assess how effectively the university is fulfilling the objectives laid down in its charter, and is using the resources available to it. This is of particular importance because of the wide-ranging and challenging nature of those objectives, encompassing as they do work at all levels of higher education, including research, degree and non-degree work.
    The draft charter and statutes were prepared jointly by NUU and the Ulster polytechnic and at every stage in the drafting there has been wide consultation including consultation with staff and students. It is planned that the University of Ulster will be inaugurated on 1 October 1984.
    If, then, Her Majesty is pleased to grant the charter to the petitioners, certain legislation is required to deal with those aspects which could not be included in the charter and to amend or repeal existing legislation affected by the murder—sorry, the merger. This short order contains these measures.
    Article 3 transfers all the assets and liabilities of the New University of Ulster and Ulster polytechnic to the University of Ulster. Hon. Members will note that the article also provides for proceedings in connection with anything so transferred to be continued in the name of the
    946
    University of Ulster. I draw particular attention to the provision for Magee university college, Londonderry to be maintained as an integral part of the university of Ulster. Magee college is a higher educational establishment originally founded by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in 1865 for the training of its clergymen. Its courses and entrants were broadened over the years and, with the establishment of the New University of Ulster in 1968, it became a part of that university under the terms of the Magee University College, Londonderry (Northern Ireland) Act 1970. Finally, the article also transfers any bequests, gifts, trusts or endowments originally made in favour of the New University of Ulster or the Ulster polytechnic to the University of Ulster.
    Article 5 dissolves the statutory corporate body known as the Governors of the Ulster Polytechnic, which will not be required following the merger as its work will be subsumed in the council of the university. I am glad that some members of the present governing body will continue to serve on the university council. I was particularly pleased to note that the work of Mr. McNeill, who has been chairman of the governors of the polytechnic since it was established in 1969, is to be recognised by the conferment of an honorary degree by the New University of Ulster at its last series of graduation ceremonies in the near future. That gesture is a sign of the spirit of cooperation that has developed between the university and the polytechnic in planning the merged institution. During the 15 years of its existence, the polytechnic has gained a fine academic reputation and the admiration not only of the community in Northern Ireland but much more widely. Much of the credit for those achievements can be attributed to the leadership and influence of its governors during this period.
    Article 5 makes provision for regulations to be made by the Department of Education, which would allow present employees of the New University of Ulster and Ulster polytechnic to claim compensation in certain prescribed circumstances. I shall not go into those circumstances in detail today, but essentially the article provides a means of redress should any members of staff feel that he employment offered to them does not meet the criteria envisaged by the statute.
    I shall not weary the House with other minor amendments included in the order. However, I should like to pay tribute to the work and reputation of both the New University of Ulster and Ulster polytechnic. Both were established in the late 1960s in response to the recommendations of the Lockwood Committee's Report on Higher Education in Northern Ireland. The University of Ulster has determined to carry on and build upon the very best traditions of both institutions. A recent leading article in The Times Higher Education Supplement made the following comment on the qualities of the ideal university of the future:
    "A comprehensive university with large stakes in non-degree courses and continuing education as well as conventional degrees and research … looks very much like the kind of higher education animal that would thrive in the 1990s; an isolated university with a narrow range of courses … does not".
    I firmly believe that the University of Ulster is the blueprint, perhaps even the prototype, for just such a university.
    I commend the order to the House.
    1.2 am
    Mr. Clive Soley: The Opposition do not oppose the merger—indeed, we welcome it—but we have one or two anxieties and cautions about it. Perhaps we can test the Minister a little on his commitment. I was a little troubled by his slip of the tongue when he said "murder" instead of "merger". I hope that it was not a Freudian slip, in view of the Government's intentions towards public expenditure on education.
    It is true that the matter has been discussed with considerable care in Northern Ireland and here. In the 1981–82 Session of Parliament, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts examined it in some depth and made certain recommendations. I should like to draw two points to the attention of the House. First, the Committee drew attention, as the Minister did, to the importance of Magee college being given an enhanced role. There was a feeling that there had been some slippage in the availability of higher education within the city of Londonderry, which is to be regretted. I hope that the new merger will not allow that to continue and that we shall go forward in a stronger and more positive way.
    Secondly, the Select Committee said in its final recommendation—I refer to the short list of recommendations in House of Commons Paper No. 557—that it intended to monitor the progress of the merger. There is considerable anxiety about whether the Government will provide sufficient funds to make the merger a success.
    It is difficult and unusual to produce a successful merger. There is always the well-founded suspicion, which has been established by the Government's history, that the Government are seeking to cut public expenditure by the back door. The Northern Ireland Office, which is almost a Government in exile, tries to protect public expenditure to a limited extent—it would not normally get away with it because of the Prime Minister's philosophy—and is slightly more successful than others in so doing. Nevertheless, it is clear that the university would face problems if it had to meet all the bills that could be laid at is door as a result of the merger.
    The Northern Ireland Assembly expressed anxiety about three area: the compensation that may have to be paid to lecturers or others who are not included in the New University; the transfer of polytechnic staff to the university salary scale; and superannuation. These three factors will increase expenditure, as will other problems that may result from the merger. If the university is told that it must fund them from the existing budget, it will cut back in another area.
    The Government are doing what they have done in many other areas with which I have been associated—for example, the Alcohol education centre. Groups have been merged on the bizarre principle of adding their budgets together, usually as they were some years previously, and making the total the budget for the new organisation. It is never sufficient, because it does not take into account the inflation of the intervening period.
    The new university may have to finance its development and carry a public expenditure burden, which is completely unplanned for. The problem involves both increased expenditure and planning for it. It is invariably difficult for a large organisation, which cannot plan its budget effectively from year to year, suddenly to meet a
    948
    bill of £500,000. It could easily be that sum or even more. The Northern Ireland Assembly quoted that figure. In those circumstances, the university would be in trouble.
    Will the Minister give a clear commitment that the university will not have to meet additional payments, which may arise from the merger, such as payments of compensation, payments for the transfer of staff from polytechnic to university salary scales and for superannuation? Then we would be more confident that the Government were not making back-door public expenditure cuts.
    Unless a change was made recently, the merger does not include plans for a students union. If that is still so, are the students to be left without one for the foreseeable future, will the New University have to fund one within the next few years, or are the Government prepared to consider meeting special needs payments of that sort from the reserve fund?
    The lack of a union will affect the quality of the university. One of the problems was of students going to Britain or to the Republic of Ireland. If we do not provide the university with good facilities, and if it is not respected, that will continue and perhaps increase. We should be aiming for a high standard. I have always taken the view that we should not impose upon Northern Ireland lower standards than we would impose upon people in Great Britain. That is another point that the Minister should answer if only to give the students some idea of what their future will be.
    Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that the Select Committee went to Northern Ireland less than two years ago—the Minister remembers this well—to study this merger. The merger, which cannot be mentioned in the Order in Council, came about of necessity. The thriving polytechnic was almost bursting at the seams and doing wonderful work under splendid leadership. The new Ulster university could not compete. It could not help that because it did not have the number of students. We passionately want the merger to be a success, and therefore it needs money. The Labour Members of the Select Committee believe that the valuable byproduct which arose from merging a polytechnic with a university means that the ethos of the polytechnic will move towards the university. We believe profoundly that that should occur over here in the future. We believe that Northern Ireland has set the example. We want the merger to be a great success, and, for it to be so, as my hon. Friend said, it needs money.
    Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has far more knowledge about these matters than I have. I remember that when we visited the New University some time ago we discussed the point that he has raised. There could be great possibilities along the lines that he mentioned. I do not feel that I have sufficient knowledge to be able to make a general statement on the matter, but I take his point and that made by the Select Committee. It is important, and it is one of the reasons why I hope that the Select Committee—as I am sure it will—will continue to monitor the merger. It could provide lessons for elsewhere.
    There has been a continual complaint about the lack of effective consultation, and I should welcome the Minister's views about that. People feel that they have not

    949
    been able to make their voices heard effectively. There is anxiety about the parts of the budget to which I have referred. I should like to hear whether the Minister believes that the consultation has been as effective as it should have been and whether he believes that the merger can be carried out in time for the new session in 1984 without rushing matters to the point of lowering standards. Some anxiety has been expressed about that.
    Apart from those points, we welcome the order. We want to see how the merger develops, but, above all, we shall be keeping our eye on whether the Government provide sufficient resources to ensure that it is a success and not something that is allowed to run into the sand because of the Government's bizarre economic policies.
    1.13 am
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The substantive aspects of the order and the merger to which it relates will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and perhaps the other hon. Members, when they come to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
    I want to restrict myself to the constitutional aspects which are thrown up by the order, and which have an application that extends beyond Northern Ireland. The House is particularly fortunate that the Leader of the House should be present to hear this as, indeed, he was present during the previous debate.
    The previous debate illustrated, in one way, the principle that there is no substitute for legislation by Bill—the only way in which this Parliament makes law for the rest of the United Kingdom. The same principle happens to be illustrated in a curious fashion by the order which the Minister has just moved. If these changes were being made in the law in any other part of the United Kingdom, it would be by a Bill, which would be a hybrid Bill. The fact that certain special interests are differentially affected would result in the procedure dealing with hybrid legislation affording a full opportunity to citizens specially affected to petition the House and avail themselves of what is, in effect, the procedure adopted on private legislation.
    This order, as we now know authoritatively on the word of the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place—I shall come in a moment to the circumstances in which that judgment is delivered—is a hybrid order. My hon. Friends and I became aware of this only at a relatively late stage, but I am reassured by the fact that anyone listening to the Leader of the House during Business Questions last week would have concluded that it was only last Thursday afternoon that the fact of the hybridity of the order came to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman—whosoever the fault may have been.
    It is worse than that. In a written answer in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland infornied the House that the Queen's university of Belfast (NI) Order 1981 had also been hybrid. We had a long and interesting debate on that order in this House in April 1981 without anyone in any quarter being aware that it was a hybrid order.
    It cannot be satisfactory that the rights that citizens would possess if the law were being changed by means of a Bill are not available to them if it is being changed by an affirmative order, or that changes which preclude those
    950
    rights should be made by affirmative order in one part of the United Kingdom and not in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    The position of the House in respect of hybridity of affirmative orders is unsatisfactory. It may perhaps be nearer to being remedied as a result of our experiences in dealing with this order. The House has no procedure for dealing with hybrid orders, unlike another place, which has such a procedure. This is not the fault of the various committees which have reported on the subject. As long ago as 1966 and 1967, the Statutory Instruments Committee drew the attention of the House
    "to the unsatisfactory situation arising from the fact that there is in the House of Commons no procedure for considering private objections to statutory instruments which, like Hybrid Bills, affect a particular private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class."
    It is 17 or 18 years since it was drawn to the attention of the House that, unlike another place, we are in no position to deal with hybrid orders such as the order now before us.
    That was followed by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation which in 1973 also drew attention to the lack of symmetry between the two Houses and tentatively suggested that the two Houses might get together to do the job collectively. It was interesting that, on that occasion, the then Second Clerk Assistant, whom we all remember—Mr. Richard Barlas—argued
    "that although in theory it might be desirable to extend the hybrid procedure to the House of Commons, it would not be practicable, owing to the pressure of business in that House which would take prior claim on the manpower and time available."
    I do not know who put the Second Clerk Assistant up to urging those arguments on that occasion, but I do not think that either side of the House would take kindly to the suggestion that we have not the time or opportunity to provide the proper opportunities of representations to citizens who might be prejudicially affected by legislation. However, the position at the moment is that only by dint of what is done in another place can a partial remedy be provided when hybrid legislation comes forward in the form of a statutory instrument. In effect, it was on 9 June that the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place announced, with the consequent running of 14 days for petitioning against this order, that it was in his view hybrid.
    I do not think that it can possibly be satisfactory that, so soon before this Bill would be taken in this House, its hybridity was thus disclosed. I do not think that an adequate opportunity was given by this procedure to those who might, upon maturer consideration, have wished to petition against the Bill.
    I want therefore to put forward, within the hearing of the Leader of the House, three distinct propositions which go further than matters relating only to Northern Ireland. First, that no order which has been found to be hybrid should be placed alongside the other orders of the House without an italicised note to draw the attention of hon. Members to the status of that order. That is a simple matter and I hope that we can have an assurance in due course, when it has been considered, that that modest improvement can be made. My second proposition is that this House ought not to delay any further in providing itself with the means of dealing with hybrid statutory instruments, either co-operatively with the other place or by a separate House of Commons procedure. The third, which is a matter of special grievance and was the turn of

    951
    the knife in this case, deals with the fact that Orders in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 ironically, just because they deal with substantive legislation, do not go to the Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. I would therefore, thirdly, put forward the proposition that in view of the special importance of these orders, they should be referred to the same Committees of both Houses as deal with other affirmative statutory instruments.
    If those propositions can be, as I am sure that they will be, considered by those to whom the responsibility falls, then good will have come from what otherwise would have been merely another illustration of the unsatisfactory manner in which, at present, this House makes the law in Northern Ireland. I say "at present" because I have a certain sense that the time is coming when the penny will have dropped or the stone will have been worn away and the necessity of a uniform system of legislation for all parts of the United Kingdom will be recognised on both sides of the House. Meanwhile let us do something about hybrid statutory instruments.
    1.23 am
    Rev. William McCrea: The draft order provides a statutory basis for the merger of the Ulster polytechnic and the New University of Ulster and the dissolution of the Ulster polytechnic. It also provides compensation arrangements for staff.
    After hearing representations, as have all political parties in Northern Ireland, I believe that it is important that the Government make the details of the proposed compensation arrangements available as quickly as possible so that staff in the institution have as much time as possible to consider their future employment. Some members of staff may decide, or have already decided, not to accept employment in the new institution because they believe that their new duties are not similar to, or an unreasonable addition to, those carried out prior to the merger.
    There will also be funding implications as a result of the formation of the new institution, especially as a result of the new compensation arrangements. It is important for the House to hear the Minister's views on the availability of funds for these compensation payments.
    In the early years, the new institution should not be strangled by financial problems. I trust that the Government will consider sympathetically the question of additional funds necessary to meet such claims. The idea of a polyversity is new and exciting. It seems to combine the best aspects of university and polytechnic education. I trust that the new institution envisaged in Northern Ireland will be a model for the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Many people in Northern Ireland believe that the merger was born out of expediency. Perhaps that is true. However, what was regarded as a short-term expedient will, I believe, turn out to be an exciting educational development. To this end, I trust that the Department of Education in Northern Ireland will not simply forget about the new institution, but will seek to encourage and monitor its development and to help with the many problems that will no doubt arise from this totally new educational concept.
    There will be problems, given that the new institution is on a split site, and it will have no other precedent from
    952
    which to work. However, all these problems can be overcome with good will and effort. I trust that both will be in evidence in the years to come. I look forward to this development and trust that the order will go through the House as smoothly and as quickly as humanly possible.
    1.27 am
    Mr. William Ross: I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the Minister said, as well as to all the other interventions. I listened with particular interest to the Minister's reference to the two institutions entering into negotiations and finally agreeing to the merger. That was a mild way of describing the methods used to bring the merger about.
    If the Minister reads what I said, as reported at column 489 of the Official Report on 7 July last year, he will find that the pressure put on the university to merge was not such that it would lead one to use the language which this evening he used to describe that merger. On that occasion I described it as little more than blackmail. Nothing in the intervening period has caused me to change my view. In that debate I hung a large question mark over the cost of the merger, never mind my misgiving, which I still hold, about the success or otherwise that will flow from it.
    I have, over the months since then, considered the matter carefully, and in March this year, I put down a number of written questions, some of which were answered on 7 March. I shall quote those answers to explain to the House why I believe that much of what is being said is not as clear-cut and forthcoming as one would like in regard to the details that should be made public. On 6 March, there is a question about the New University of Ulster, in which I inquired of the Minister whether he would give
    "the number of non-teaching administrative posts now designated and filled, and those to be filled in the institution to be created"
    at certain grades
    "and the individual designations applied to each of those posts, including posts such as dean, pro-vice chancellor, and provost which may be held on academic contracts but which are exclusively, or almost exclusively, administrative".—[Official Report, 7 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 572.]
    The Minister replied by saying that 11 such posts were designated, and that two more were following. In addition, there is the vice-chancellor, who is the chief academic and administrative officer.
    At first sight, the posts of pro-vice chancellor, provost and dean are all academic posts. In truth, they are nothing of the sort. They are almost purely administrative posts in the new set-up. In a follow-up letter on 19 March, the Minister pointed out that he would insert a note that the posts that I mentioned were academic posts with significant administrative responsibility.
    Because of the pressure of other things, I did not follow up that reply until recently, but I had answers to further questions yesterday, when I tried to get the Minister to separate and explain the balance between the teaching and administrative sectors of the posts designated. I was told that the information was not kept in the form in which I had requested it. If the Minister is not clear as to what the balance is, I ask him to go back to the university and the polytechnic and to make detailed inquiries to satisfy himself that these posts have a small academic input and are almost purely administrative.

    953
    The plain truth is that I have found it rather difficult to get, in clear, straightforward terms, the information that should be made public about this proposed measure and the administration and other costs that go with it. I alleged a year ago that the costs of the merger would be high. I said that the extra money that was needed to meet the increased superannuation payments could be between £8 million and £13 million, and probably about £10 million. The latest information that I have shows that the sum will work out at about £15 million. This sum appears nowhere in all the figures that I have sought regarding the costs of the merger.
    It is alleged that the Government will pick up the tab for those increased superannuation payments. If that is se, it is still public money and will come out of something. It will not grow on trees, and we deserve an answer to know what the cost of the superannuation will be and where all this will come from.
    The answers to the written questions that I put down for answer yesterday implied that certain other costs were rising. Those sums are not as accurate as one would wish. Perhaps the Minister has precisely answered my question, but I believe that there is a case for further information.
    For example, the Minister, in a written answer today, has told me that the University of Ulster employs 722 full-time staff, of whom 35 are in administrative grades, and that 28 members of staff, of whom 11 are in specified administrative grades, are seeking premature retirement during the period 1 June to 30 September 1984. The total cost to the 'Department is expected to be about 860,000, of which £225,000 relates to the administrative group.
    The problem is that those involved in the merger have until the end of September 1985 to apply for premature retirement. Once the merger takes place, all those who will be upgraded from polytechnic to university status can apply for the handsome sums under the excellent scheme laid down. We can expect a considerable number to apply. Therefore, I expect the sum quoted to double. Perhaps the Minister could make further inquiries and give me rather more information than has hitherto been given.
    All the teaching staff will have university salaries. The remaining administrative staff have all been upgraded. A considerable number of them are either retiring or moving elsewhere. It is a fruitful area for the Minister's research. No doubt he will make inquiries and try to find out how many of the remaining administrative staff have been upgraded and how much is the cost in additional salaries. No doubt he can tell us in great detail the forecast for the salaries of the teaching staff during the next 12 months.
    About half the senior administrative staff are either leaving or have already left. Those who have retired or are about to retire include all the accountants employed by the university. Through good housekeeping, the university has built up reserves of £1·5 million, so we are concerned that the continuity that the accountants would have provided has now disappeared.
    Magee college is an institution in which I have a great deal of interest as I have represented the city of Londonderry for nine years in the House. The protocouncil organisation has overseen the merger. It does not, as far as I am aware, have either money or power. Yet I am informed—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that that organisation has already briefed architects to provide plans to develop Magee, I presume on the basis of a newspaper report; and the sum of £4 million for new build has been mentioned. I want to know,
    954
    who had the authority to engage the architects; are they still engaged; who is paying them; and have they been paid to date? Has the university grants committee been involved in this matter at any level? Where is the academic plan for Magee college, which I understand has not yet appeared? What cost limits have been applied, either by the Government or the UGC, to any building work that is to be done at Magee in the city of Londonderry? From where is the £4 million to come?
    May we be told what effect that spending, if it takes place, will have on Jordanstown and Coleraine, where there has been little spending, particularly in Coleraine, in recent years? What development is to take place in Coleraine? If there are cost limits for each of the three campuses, perhaps the university authorities and the general public, as well as the House, could be given the figures, so that we may have some idea where we are going. Without that information, we are in the dark as to where this whole institution is proceeding.
    One of the great benefits of Coleraine university lies in the fact that, for the first time in Northern Ireland, we had a secular teacher training organisation to which Roman Catholic trainee teachers went. It was a tremendous step forward, it was most welcome and it was no mean achievement. Have we a guarantee from the church authorities that they will allow this teacher training facility to be used in future by their young men and women in the new institution? If not, that in itself will cause the most severe problems for the educational facility in the Coleraine campus.
    I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who said that the Labour party wanted these measures. When the polytech was set up in Northern Ireland—I am sure that the same can be said of the rest of the United Kingdom—such institutions were not seen as university bodies. They were seen as bodies to underpin the university structure. If that concept has now been forsaken, not only by this Government but by the Labour party, we should be told that in plain terms, so that higher education in this country may know that the polytechs as originally set up do not have a future, that the long-term prospects of their existing as separate bodies are nil and that it is the intention to merge them all into sort of polytech-university bodies.
    Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that the Labour side of the Select Committee, faced with this necessity, wanted this to be a success and thought that it could be a pointer to the future over here. That is different from saying that the Labour party laid that down. It has not.
    Mr. Ross: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misrepresenting him. The House will have noted from his comments the direction in which he would like things to go.
    The New University of Ulster, despite what the hon. Member for Hillsborough appears to think, was up to target. The plans for the development of that university had been met, and any shortcomings that occurred arose from the shortfall in funding from which the university suffered. The numbers were going up and have continued to rise and there is at present a healthy situation on that campus.
    We are now talking about a new body which will exist on three different campuses. We hear stories about a major

    955
    development at Magee. One begins to wonder where higher education in Northern Ireland is going if we are to wind up with Queen's university the major university, in Belfast, and another university spread over three campuses, each, no doubt, with its own specified, strictly controlled courses, which will amount to three small universities. We cannot have a cohesive unit that is spread from Londonderry to Jordanstown to Coleraine.
    I have never been happy with the merger. I have accepted it with ill grace because it was forced on us. I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that the order provides for a review after seven years. I was giving this set-up a maximum of 10 years before we had to go back to the drawing board. Perhaps we shall be back to the drawing board in seven years, when something sensible might be done with the Coleraine, Londonderry and Jordanstown campuses.
    1.45 am
    Mr. Scott: I shall deal first with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the hybridity of this order and his general points about the way in which the House does not deal with hybrid orders. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was present throughout his remarks. He has said that he will study Hansard and give a considered view of the various proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not for me to enter into that matter, except to say that within the existing rules the Government did their best to ensure that those who needed to be alerted to the problem of hybridity were notified by the normal procedures of publishing notices in the press and sending out circulars to those who had raised points about the order. We did our best within the existing rules to deal with that matter, but I accept that that does not meet the right hon. Gentleman's points.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Were there notices in the Northern Ireland press, which would be the relevant place for them to appear? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the case, as I believe was inadvertently stated by the Secretary of State, that the notice was sent to all who had received copies of the proposals for the order, for they were certainly not received by right hon. and hon. Members who, of course, automatically receive proposals?
    Mr. Scott: I am advised that advertisements were placed in the Northern Ireland papers, as well as published in the Belfast Gazette. Notices were sent to the institutions, but I understand that they were not sent to right hon. and hon. Members. There have been only three such orders since 1974, but I underline my right hon. Friend's commitment to look at the matter and give a considered judgment in due course.
    I shall make a general point. The Government would not have embarked on the road of setting up a new institution in Northern Ireland unless they were wholeheartedly committed to the concept and wanted to see it as a notable success for the future of higher education in the Province. The merger was not introduced to save money. Its aim was to provide a rational pattern for higher
    956
    education in Northern Ireland. I believe that we now have the basis for that rational pattern, and the Government are committed to ensuring that it is a success.
    Of course, I cannot give commitments about the level of public expenditure which may be available from year to year. The commitment of level funding for the first year of the institution's life in effect means that the new institution has been exempted from many of the pressures imposed in recent years on universities on this side of the water. The institution has got off to a good start. From there on it will obviously have the advice of the Northern Ireland working party on higher education which has been established so that there is some local input into the judgments of the University Grants Committee. On that front, there is a commitment in terms of political will and funding for the institution.
    The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) raised a point about the student union. Provision is made for the student union in the statutes attached to the charter for the new institution. Financing of the student union will be done in the normal way by the university, as with any other university.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister is not giving a clear answer to the questions that I raised on salaries and superannuation. Will the Government pay those or do they expect the new university to fund them out of existing money? A similar question applies to the student union.
    Mr. Scott: The existing university and polytechnic have student unions funded in the normal way, and so will the new institution. We have made special provision in that the Department has said that it will provide a further £360,000 towards the extra superannuation costs. That will be a protection. The steering group, which presided over the merging of the two institutions, said that within level funding it could cope with other costs. If compensation costs were to be at a level which put that commitment under strain, I would look sympathetically at any request for extra funding on those fronts. It is too early to make a judgment on that. Indeed, in general compensation terms we have not even established the final shape of any scheme. We shall be publishing a consultation paper shortly. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). Then we can see what sort of basis there will be for compensation regulations, in time judge what the burden is likely to be and see whether it is necessary for my sympathy to be exercised towards the new institution. We have responded generously. Taking into account the judgment of the steering group that many other things could be coped with within level funding, we have not been ungenerous in our approach to many problems that undoubtedly are created when facing a merger of this sort.
    The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has never shown particular enthusiasm for the merger. I was not surprised today that he raised a number of points. Many of them were addressed to the wrong person. Many could be matters for the Department of Education and Science on this side of the water, for the University Grants Committee, which will have a major role in funding the institution in future, for the steering group and for the proto-council and proto-senate and the new council and senate of the new institution when it comes into effect. I shall read the points that he made. If I can elaborate on any

    957
    of my answers I will. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I was anxious to give him such answers as I could obtain in time for the debate.
    However, many of the points are really no longer for me. The role of the Department and myself was to see that this merger, which is essential for the future of higher education in Northern Ireland, took place. This is not a university that will be controlled by Government. Much of the work in setting it up was done by an independent steering group. It will be launched on 1 October this year. I assure the hon. Member for Hammersmith that there is no problem about meeting that date in good order, when the new institution will be operating under its own steam.
    I was slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman asked about consultation. Not only has there been widespread consultation by the Chilver committee which was looking into higher education in Northern Ireland as a whole, but once Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer took over the steering group, he was at pains to travel the Province on a wide basis, to make it known when he was there that his door was open to any representations that had to be be made, and to encourage consultation with staff, students and those in authority in the different institutions, and, indeed, all those who had any interest in the future of higher education. Lack of consultation cannot be laid at the door of the Department and still less at the door of the steering group which was responsible for bringing the new institution to its present stage.
    In conclusion, I pay tribute to the many people who have worked so hard to bring about the merger which is being brought about in part by this order today and in part by the petition to the Privy Council. The unique union was guided by a steering group under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, and its immensely complex task with many difficulties along the road was virtually completed within two years. That was a remarkable achievement. Frankly, I do not think that anybody else would have been able to achieve it in the way that Sir Peter did. I should like to record my thanks to him and to all the members of the steering group for a job well done in an exceptionally short time.
    The work of knitting the two institutions together will fall to the council and staff of the university and in particular to the vice-chancellor designate, Mr. Derek Birley. One of the most gratifying aspects of the past two years, with all the difficulties that he has faced, has been the way in which the staff from both institutions at all levels have come together to plan the courses and the faculty structures for the University of Ulster. That work has been fostered by Derek Birley, but of course his work and that of the University of Ulster is only just beginning. In the creation of a new university, tuned to the economic, social and commercial needs of Northern Ireland and its young people, I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing Derek Birley and the University of Ulster well as they set their hands to this task.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved.
    That the draft University of Ulster (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

    Industrial Training (Northern Ireland)
    1.54 am
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
    That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.
    This is an important and seemingly fairly lengthy order. Nevertheless, its purpose is relatively simple. In my opening remarks I shall deal with its main provisions, and doubtless the finer details will be teased out as the House wishes during the debate.
    The draft order originated from the need to have statutory authority for the implementation of some decisions reached as a result of the review of industrial training arrangements in Northern Ireland, which was completed in September 1982. The review, which paralleled a similar review in Great Britain, considered not only which sectors of industry should be retained under statutory control, but the future role and composition of the Northern Ireland Training Executive and its relationship to individual sectors of industry.
    It may be helpful to explain that the Northern Ireland Training Executive provides a common administrative and secretarial service to the industrial training boards. That is a sensible arrangement as the boards in Northern Ireland are much smaller than those in Great Britain. By agreement, the executive has during the years developed some aspects of training that are applicable to more than one industrial sector. During the review, the majority of interests in the Province supported the retention of individual industrial training boards, where the industries themselves wished the boards to remain. They also supported the redefinition and extension of the role of the Northern Ireland Training Executive.
    Bearing in mind the views of those interests, and the size of the industrial base in Northern Ireland, it was decided that the industrial training boards, with the exception of the man-made fibres-producing industry training board and the footwear sector of the clothing and footwear board should be retained. It was made clear, however, that it would be the Government's policy to encourage the development, on a continuing basis, of voluntary training arrangements in sectors within the scope of the remaining eight industrial training boards, where those were desired by a sector, and to remove such a sector from scope where proposals for such arrangements were strong enough to provide effective training. In addition, it was concluded that the role of the Northern Ireland Training Executive should be redefined and extended, and that the new body should be called the Northern Ireland Training Authority.
    The proposed draft order will re-enact the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 and incorporate amendments concerning principally the setting up of the new Northern Ireland Training Authority and the regulation of levies for the industrial training boards. Other proposed amendments will bring the powers of the boards in Northern Ireland into closer alignment with their counterparts in Great Britain.
    First, I shall outline the provisions for the new training authority, which will replace the existing Northern Ireland Training Executive. It is the Government's intention through the order to create a dynamic body to encourage

    959
    the further development of industrial training in the Province. The authority will have the duty to keep under review all training in the statutory and non-statutory private sectors, and to report to the Department of Economic Development, as well as to the sectors concerned. Another important function will be that of encouraging voluntary training arrangements in sectors not within scope of a board so that appropriate and effective training will be provided. It will also have the responsibilities of developing and promoting new techniques of training and training in new technology, and of providing advice on such training.
    In addition to those duties, the authority will have the power to provide training generally, including the provision of courses and other facilities and the payment of grants, fees and allowances. The authority will be obliged to develop links with the public sector and to cooperate in the provision of relevant training in that sector when requested. These functions will be in addition to those already carried out by the Northern Ireland Training Executive—the provision of a central administrative and secretarial service for all industrial training boards and cross-sector training—and clearly represent a major extension of the role of the executive.
    As a result of that extension, the membership of the authority will be enhanced. It will also reflect the close relationship of the industrial training boards with the authority. It is therefore proposed that the membership should consist of a chairman, the chairmen of the industrial training boards as ex-officio members, three representatives of employers, three representatives of employees, three persons with expertise in training or education, and one representative of the public sector.
    The authority will receive its finance from three sources—the industrial training boards will pay for services provided; income will be derived from the sale of similar services to the non-statutory and public sectors; and the Government will contribute towards the cost of functions which have a wider purpose than meeting the direct training needs of those boards and voluntary organisations using the services of the authority. Initially, pump-priming funds will also be available to help the authority become established.
    I think that that deals with the main purpose of the order. The individual articles are clearly laid out and supported by the usual explanatory note. The House will forgive me if I do not deal with them individually at this time of night but simply conclude by saying that I consider that this order, by setting up the new Northern Ireland Training Authority and by extending the responsibilities of the industrial training boards, will create the correct structure for the development of training in Northern Ireland to provide the appropriate skilled work force so necessary for the growth of the economy.
    2.3 am
    Mr. Peter Archer: This is another example of the consequences of direct rule by unamendable order. It is a great pity that with so much time and attention pre-empted for discussion of constitutional and security issues matters which evoke passionate political debate on this side of the water are relegated to this hour.
    960
    This order embodies a view of training for our industrial future and of the whole responsibility of Government which I believe is profoundly wrong and should be challenged. There is a gaping divide between the Government and the Labour party on this issue and it deserves a longer and more searching debate than we can give it today.
    The document on which the order is based sets out the Government's philosophy. Its very title—"Training for the Future"—should be a warning to us because it is a tautology. Training, by definition, cannot be for anything other than the future, but nodoubt the Government chose that title to insinuate the implication that it was a forward-looking document when in fact it reflects a view wholly consistent with the Prime Mininster's admiration for the Victorian era. It is a hymn of praise to the voluntary system. If that is criticism from my lips, I do not suppose that it would be regarded as criticism by the Minister, because the Government clearly accept it. The foreword by the Secretary of State expressly says so.
    That document embodies the belief that the Government's best contribution to industry is to stand by passively and that employers are the best judges of their own interests and should therefore decide these matters. The fallacy of that is not just that other people such as employees, consumers and future generations may have an interest in the outcome. It overlooks the fact that when people are asked to make decisions individually, knowing that their competitors are making similar decisions, they are virtually driven to decide to contribute the least that they can get away with because otherwise their competitors may contribute less and thus secure a competitive advantage. If they are asked to participate collectively in the decisions, that fear, at least, is removed. There is thus a wide chasm at the outset between the Government's approach and the approach that we would wish to see.
    The difference begins to show itself as soon as we start to examine the details. On the proposed provision for membership of boards to which the Minister directed our attention, article 14 refers us to schedule 2, which explains their composition. There is to be a chairman and an equal number of members representing respectively employers and employees. Certain others will represent neither category but, through their competence or their goodness, commend themselves to the Northern Ireland Office. The hon. Gentleman properly explained how it was proposed to select them.
    That appears to be a most fair arrangement until one recollects that the chairman who will hold the balance between employer and employee representatives is almost always himself a representative of employers. That is not disputed. It cannot be. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions made that point in- written representations on the consultation document and repeated them in written evidence to the Assembly committee, pointing out that imbalance. When Mr. Mayne the under-secretary was giving oral evidence the point was put to him. He replied:
    "The situation of course is that the chairman of the retraining board is not representing employers."
    He went on to say:
    "It is true to say that traditionally the majority of chairmen of training boards have been employers."
    The chairman may not be there with instructions to represent employers. He may even be trying to be fair. But the purpose of having as chairman a human being and not

    961
    a robot is that he will have the opinions, habits, interests and prejudices that go to make up any of us. And they will be derived from his experience and interests as an employer.
    The decision to compose boards in that way is not that of a Government who even wish to be seen to make balanced arrangements. The third category of members who commend themselves to the Northern Ireland Office as it is presently composed is hardly likely to include many who have been outspoken as champions of employees' rights. It is small wonder that the trade unions resent the proposal.
    It gets worse as it goes on. One of the most important duties of a board is to decide on proposals for a levy. Those who decide on the amount of the levy will be deciding on the amount of resources that a board will have available, and so to a great extent the measure of its activities. When we read paragraph 8 of the schedule, which is tucked away modestly among the provisions, we learn that employee representatives on the boards are not entitled to vote on any matter relating to the imposition of a levy. So the question of how much employers are to claim for the training of employees is to be decided by employers. I was always taught that for anyone to be judge in his own cause was the reverse of natural justice, but here it is the reverse of effectiveness.
    As the Irish Congress of Trade Unions points out, the need for industrial training boards arises because employers do not always make proper provision, which is essential if the country is to compete with other industrial nations.
    The order makes it clear that there is to be a remission of levy, which may extend to total remission, for those employers who comply with their obligations, that is to say, even the obligations as defined by the employer representatives of the board.
    The Government, in accordance with their philosophy, would prefer employers to make their own provisions individually. So the levy that we are considering is, by definition, to be paid by those employers who do not make appropriate provision for training, yet the rate is to be decided by employers' representatives. It is as though penal policy were to be decided by a committee of three, two of whose members were Mr. Fagin and Bill Sykes.
    The more we consider the implications, the more worrying they become. The running costs of the board will no longer be paid by the Government. They will be returned to industry. In the depths of recession, when many companies are struggling to survive, the running costs are to be returned to industry. That proposal is denounced in the annual reports of virtually all of the boards.
    The levy will need to make provision for the running costs, and the levy applied for this purpose will be a maximum of 0·2 per cent. of the payroll. But the running costs have always been greater than 0·2 per cent. of the payroll, so the intention is clearly to bring about a reduction in the activity of the boards.
    There is no end to it. Even the employer representatives on the boards are not to have the last word. The Department may set aside their view if the relevant employer organisation considers that the provision which it proposes is too generous. As the Irish Congress of Trade Unions states, that might have been a reasonable response had there been any evidence of profligacy by the boards in the past, but of course there is not a shred of evidence
    962
    that in the past the boards have diverted too high a proportion of industries' resources into training. That has not been the problem of British industry in its efforts to compete with the rest of the world.
    Clearly the Government do not really like public provision for training at all; they would like to return it entirely to the hands of individual employers. Training should mean picking up the job by sitting next to Nellie. The Government cannot wholly dismantle the system, but they can draw the teeth, and they expect our industry to compete with other countries, where Governments see such provision as a very important part of their responsibility.
    The order has missed another great opportunity. In its response to the consultation document, the Equal Opportunities Commission stated that women in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged in employment perhaps to an even greater extent than elsewhere. Women comprise about 40 per cent. of the work force, and are largely trapped in low-skill and low-paid jobs. Girls are substantially more likely than boys to leave school without the technical and scientific skills that would enable them to qualify for apprenticeships or other forms of training. Of the 2,000 places available for apprentices between 1980 and 1982, no more than 10 were taken by women. Of those released by employers for part-time study, only 13 per cent. were women.
    The Equal Opportunities Commission responded to the consultative paper by calling for
    "a concerted programme to combat inequalities and for positive action to compensate for the effects of past practices which have been detrimental to women."
    The EOC spoke of flexible hours for training courses, increased contact with schools, less rigid age conditions for apprenticeships, supportive counselling and day care facilities for children. Where in the order is there a word of response, a word of recognition, a word even of encouragement to the boards to take cognisance of all that? The consultative document was called "Training for the Future". It would have been more appropriate to call it "Training for a return to the Past".
    2.12 am
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I should like to take this opportunity to offer congratulations from these Benches to the Minister on his appointment as Privy Councillor.
    I welcome the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 in that it makes provision for Northern Ireland similar to that already existing for the rest of the United Kingdom, as laid down by the Industrial Training Act 1982. However, I emphasise that I resent—and members of my party resent—the need for such separate legislation, particularly at this time of the morning.
    The main difference in the provisions proposed for Northern Ireland from those already existing for Great Britain is the establishment of a new body with enhanced powers, to be known as the Northern Ireland Training Authority, which will replace the Northern Ireland Training Executive, established under the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. It is appropriate that after 20 years in which the Northern Ireland Training Executive fulfilled its role with distinction, progress should be made to meet present and future demands in industrial training.

    963
    We in Northern Ireland welcome the opportunities arising from the establishment of the Northern Ireland Training Authority, and will demonstrate, although to some extent we are being used as guinea pigs, that although at present in Great Britain there is no analogous body to either the Northern Ireland Training Executive or the proposed Northern Ireland Training Authority, we can create and develop such a body to the benefit of industrial training in Northern Ireland so that other regions of the United Kingdom will wish to learn from our success and example.
    The opportunity under section 6 for the Northern Ireland Training Authority to develop and promote new techniques of training and training in new technology should be advantageous to the 120,000 people unemployed and to the numerous school leavers and graduates unable to find employment. Some feel forced to emigrate to find work. Regrettably, we continue to have a severe brain drain from Northern Ireland. That is our loss, and we hope that it will be arrested.
    I hope that the new body will seek at an early date to review training programmes and basic skills for existing industry, and to research the new skills required for today's and future silicon valleys. I hope that the Northern Ireland Training Authority will harness the talent of our people, and develop their skills through new imaginative training programmes so that the skill resource inherent in them will prove of equal importance to the excellent industrial incentives in operation and, thus, help to attract new business ventures and create jobs.
    Levies on industry are never popular. Many are seen as a form of tax on jobs. It is appropriate that the system of levy remission should be incorporated into legislation for the proposed administrative system. Small businesses—two or three-men operations—cannot afford a further indirect tax on jobs. Most of them do not make use of the industrial training facilities at present provided. They poach trained personnel from larger employers.
    Section 17 is headed "Training for employment overseas". It would be interesting to know the details of previous uptake in that area and whether an effort was made to attract and provide training for student apprentices from the Third world or other countries. Will the Minister tell us whether there is provision, for example, for reciprocation of training opportunities within European Community countries? I believe that the interchange of experience would be beneficial for our young people, especially if useful, industrial experience gained outside Northern Ireland could be passed on when they return to Northern Ireland.
    It is difficult to identify controversial provision in the draft order. Nevertheless, under article 29 it is ridiculous to propose further icing on the cake to that which is already enjoyed by firms that operate in enterprise zones by suggesting that we are not carrying on business. It seems that enterprise zone operators have a friend at court.
    Finally, I wish the Northern Ireland Training Authority and all who serve on it success and satisfaction in the task which they face in providing for the industrial and training needs of Northern Ireland.
    2.19 am
    Rev. William McCrea: I join with the House and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs)
    964
    in congratulating the Minister upon his elevation to the Privy Council. I trust that our response to the order will be as pleasant as possible for him.
    The order is the outcome of a long and detailed review of training arrangements in Northern Ireland. The review has taken into account the Government's national proposals for new training initiatives and was undertaken in close co-operation with a wide range of interested organisations. The major change brought about by the order is the replacement of the existing Northern Ireland Training Executive by the Northern Ireland Training Authority, a new body with enhanced powers.
    The new authority will take over the centralised administrative functions of the industrial training boards and will have wide responsibilities for reviewing the training needs of industry and encouraging the development of training arrangements with the non-statutory and public sector, as well as developing and promoting new training techniques and training in new technology.
    The matter has been discussed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, which recommended three changes to the order. I am pleased to say that the Assembly's success rate has been high, as two out of three of its recommendations have been accepted completely by the Secretary of State and are embodied in the order, and an undertaking has been given to respect the spirit of the third recommendation.
    Some dangers must be highlighted, and I trust that the Government will take note of them. The membership of the Northern Ireland Training Authority will be such that any new statutory training board that is set up will be allowed to have its chairman as a member of the authority. That point was mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). It has been pointed out that that could lead to an imbalance on the training authority in favour of employers, as the chairmen of most industrial training boards tend to be employer representatives and therefore in time an authority could develop which was in favour of employers rather than fairly represented the wide range of interests within industry.
    I am pleased that the Secretary of State, in response to the Northern Ireland Assembly's representation on the matter, is willing to keep the matter under careful review and has promised that, should the Government consider at any time that the chairmen of the boards were unjustifiably frustrating the wishes or decisions of the other members, the position would be rectified by the Department. That statement by the Secretary of State has allayed genuine fears.
    The second point that I feel must be highlighted relates to the danger that the work of training boards may be threatened by the percentage of their levy that firms will be able to retain in the form of a remission. Under the present proposals, firms could receive remissions of up to 0·2 per cent. of their payroll. If every firm received that amount of remission, it has been submitted that most training boards could not exist. The maximum permissible levy was 1 per cent. of the firms' payroll, but at the moment few boards are charging that.
    Most small firms would be exempt, though there is no set limit on which firms would be exempt. That varies from industry to industry. The limit for exemption depends upon the amount of money paid out by a firm each week in wages, and is set by each industrial training board.

    965
    Clearly, those industrial training boards which cover mainly small firms will have to have a much lower threshold than those which cover mainly larger firms.
    The hon. Member for Antrim, East has referred to enterprise zones. Firms located in enterprise zones will be exempt from the payment of levies to industrial training boards and from the supplying of statistics and information about training to the board or to any authority. There is a real fear that firms will renege on any responsibility for training by locating within enterprise zones. Every effort must be made to educate enterprise zone companies about the standards of training acceptable in the statutory sector, and to encourage them to achieve and maintain such standards by making use of the services and facilities provided by the Northern Ireland Training Authority. It is important that firms in enterprise zones do not simply forget about their important role in maintaining a skilled work force, and poach workers from firms which have trained them.
    Small firms are adversely affected by the time-consuming burden of training returns. It is appreciated that there is a need for such information, which forms the basis for educated policy and planning decisions, but I sympathise with the frustration felt by small business men and women who are obliged to deal with the demands of bureaucracy, which unfortunately divert their attention from the task of building up their firms and ensuring that they continue to function.
    Requests to employers for information should be limited as far as possible, and the number of approaches made to companies by the Department should be minimised. The Government have, I am glad to say, declared their interest in alleviating the burden of paperwork imposed on firms. I am sure that every hon. Member finds unbearable the increasing burden of struggling under a mountain of paperwork. I trust that our firms will. find themselves more free to tackle their principal task of producing goods as competitively and efficiently as possible.
    Other hon. Members may wish to raise other aspects of industrial training. One of the great assets of Northern Ireland is the skilled work force which it possesses. Any legislation which seeks to protect the position of that work force and to ensure that a skilled work force will be available in future in the Province is to be welcomed. At present, the statutory training boards cover only 45 per cent. of the work force in Northern Ireland. I trust that the order will give the encouragement needed to lead to an extension of industrial training facilities to the remaining 55 per cent., which is mainly in the public sector or in certain sections of industry which rely at present on voluntary training. Some of those areas train their employees very well—I am thinking of the teachers and the nurses, for instance—but there is still a large area where there is at present no form of training.
    We must balance the need for a trained industrial work force with a recognition of the fact that this control must lead to a huge and unnecessary burden of paperwork, especially for small employers. I trust that, in the administration of the order, the correct balance will be reached and that the excellent work that has been done by the industrial training boards—our appreciation should be put on record—will continue under the new Northern Ireland Training Authority.
    2.29 am
    Mr. Butler: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a personal note, I thank the hon. Members for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) for their congratulations. I greatly appreciate what they said. The right hon. and learned Member or Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has also and separately congratulated me. I equally appreciate that. Having said that nicely to him, I must say that I find a considerable difference in tone between what he uttered from the Opposition Front Bench and what the two hon. Members from Northern Ireland said. It struck me that their approach was much more realistic. It was certainly more supportive and I think that they have a better grasp of the situation in Northern Ireland than perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman has.
    The question whether we should be debating this matter was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, East. Presumably he was running the normal line of the Official Unionists and was saying that his party would have preferred legislation to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. That would have provided arrangements for Northern Ireland that would not have been at all appropriate. The result would have been several different training boards and certainly not the Northern Ireland Training Authority, which is most appropriate to Northern Ireland's needs and is unique to Northern Ireland. He is as aware as anybody of the work done by the Assembly committee which shadows the Department of Economic Development and from which the order originates. That was good work. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster told us of the recommendations made by that committee. Two thirds have been accepted and, in respect of one third, the Government have said that they will treat the amendment in good spirit.
    I find myself in tune with what the hon. Member for Antrim, East said about the need to harness the talents of the people of Northern Ireland. He and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster made some important points. I especially noted one in regard to the reciprocation of training in EC countries. Certain courses have been used for catering training in West Germany. My Department will encourage reciprocation whenever it is feasible. There is a special point in regard to people who are to work overseas. In many cases, they will work for the benefit of the Province, so nobody would quarrel with their benefiting from our training arrangements.
    The hon. Members for Antrim, East and for Mid-Ulster mentioned small firms. I note what they said. It is difficult to decide how to cope with them. I know from my industrial experience that small firms tend to sit back, let the bigger ones do the training and then poach from them. However, there is much to be said for exempting smaller firms up to a given limit. I also agree with the need to balance requests for information to avoid burdening small firms with too much bureuacratic bumf.
    I found the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West a somewhat sour little piece. Much of his criticism seemed to be drawn from the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. In some respects, he was completely off the track. He was critical of the make-up of the training boards and said that the employers would now decide the levy.
    The constitution of the boards, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has been the same for the last 20 years.

    967
    So far as I am aware, during the time that it was in power, the Labour party made no attempt to alter this. The balance has been one of equality between employer and employee representatives, with the addition of educationalists. Even without the educationalists, and given the 50–50 balance between employer and employee representatives, the chairman would have the casting vote. That has not changed.
    Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I seize the opportunity of saying what a pleasure it is to be able to use that term of him? I confess that previously I had overlooked the good news, but the fact that my congratulations are belated does not make them any less sincere.
    My point about the employers deciding the levy had nothing to do with the balance of the boards. It was that paragraph 8 of schedule 2 says that employee representatives shall not vote in deciding the levy.
    Mr. Butler: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his personal remarks.
    As I said, the position has not changed over these years, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a hare which should not be pursued.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman was also concerned about the representation on the authority, and pooh-poohed the fact that the chairmen of the industrial training boards could be employee representatives, although the greatest number have been employers. He pooh-poohed the fact that they might not fairly represent the boards of which they are chairmen. That is an unfair attack on such chairmen. They are ex-officio, and it will be their responsibility to reflect the feelings of their boards.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman was also concerned about a lessening of the statutory sector. His Socialist approach would, of course, always prefer the maximum amount of bureaucracy. If adequate training can be brought about without the necessity for statutory boards, surely even he would prefer thereby to forgo the administrative cost, which could be up to 20 per cent. of the whole, just for the sake of some bureaucratic interference.
    The Government see this legislation in the context of ensuring that training is maximised and carried out as effectively as possible. There will be no lessening of the statutory sector unless or until those voluntary arrangements can be seen to be well organised, well worked out and likely to be effective.
    In his condemnation of this small piece of legislation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed even to mention the new training authority. That was most remiss of him. It has an enhanced role and a remit over the whole private sector. For the first time, it will be required to liaise with the public sector. The hon. Member for Antrim, East reminded us that it will be promoting new techniques and training including training in new technology. No one can
    968
    describe that as training for a return to the past. It looks forward very much to the future, and in that spirit I again commend the order to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.

    Industrial Training (Northern Ireland)

      WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That during the proceedings on the matter of rural affairs in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 67 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee have considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79 (5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
        BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES
        That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

        VALUE ADDED TAX
        That the Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 736), dated 24th May 1984, which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
        Question agreed to.

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
      INTEGRATED MEDITERRANEAN PROGRAMMES
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5978/83 and corrigendum, 8931/83, and 10370/83 and corrigendum and considers that any proposals for Integrated Mediterranean Programmes should be implemented within the framework of the existing Structural Funds of the Community.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

      HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (LINDANE)
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8721/83, a proposal for a Council Directive of limit values and quality objectives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane and in particular lindane; and affirms the need for a directive which takes proper account of scientific knowledge and fully reflects the provisions of Council Directive 76/464/EEC, thus permitting the continuation of United Kingdom water pollution control practices by the system of water quality objectives.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Question agreed to.

  Norfolk Schools (Public Entertainment)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  2.40 am
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in this Adjournment debate about the application of licensing laws regarding public entertainment in schools in Norfolk. I make it clear that this matter is causing concern not only in Norfolk but in other parts of the country. I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), for attending this debate at this late hour, and I am looking forward to his reply.
  The villain of the piece is the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, part I and schedule 1. The first mention of this problem in the national press was under the headline, "Jowett's cause lost at Balliol".
  It said:
  "A law designed primarily to control public sex displays has brought to an end a century-old musical tradition at Balliol College, Oxford … The musical evening was started in 1884 by the college's eminent Victorian Master, Dr. Benjamin Jowett."
  Unfortunately, this matter is part of a deeper problem. Recently I was sent a list of Government requirements on local authorities over the past four years. There are 89 articles on the list, including the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. At a time when we are rightly trying to contain public expenditure, this flood of Government work emanating from Government Departments must be wrong.
  I shall read extracts from letters from head teachers in Norfolk. First, a letter from the headmaster at the Larkman middle school in Norwich, writing to friends of the school, said:
  "On behalf of the children, staff and governors of this school, I would have liked to invite you to our Carol Concert this Christmas.
  Unfortunately, the rigorous licensing requirements of the Local Authority (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which came into force this year, have meant that schools are no longer exempt from the need to obtain a licence for public entertainment."
  Another head teacher wrote to me saying:
  "the Act's ramifications are causing distress and anxiety to many heads and PTAs … It is very sad that I am now expected to exclude people who are not parents, but normally very caring, interested and supportive to our school, because of a wretched licence."
  As I said, concern is not confined to schools in Norfolk.
  The chairman of the Norfolk Federation of Parent Teachers Associations, Mr. Richard Bird, has shown me letters that he has received from as far away as Lancashire and Gwent demonstrating further dismay and confusion. The head teachers and colleagues in the country primary school in Alkborough, near Scunthorpe, have written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saying:
  "How can all this be justified when the school premises are already passed as fit for normal school activities?"
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may wonder, particularly at this hour of the morning, how all this fuss started. It started in Norfolk with a letter to head teachers from the county education officer dated November 1983.
  This letter states that:
  "The previous legislation for licensing premises for music and dancing did not apply to premises that were used only
  970
  occasionally for such purposes and schools normally did not require a licence for such occasions as the annual P.T. A. dance. Schools are no longer exempt from the need to obtain a licence even if the premises are to be so used on only a single occasion … If admission to the event is confined to pupils and teachers, or pupils, teachers and parents of pupils, no licence would be required for it, but if admission is extended to others, then a licence would be required."
  From this time forward, concern in Norfolk schools has steadily increased. In correspondence with myself and other hon. Members, Ministers have given a slightly different interpretation of the Act, which if confirmed and amplified might reduce the concern and remove pressure that might otherwise arise for legislation to exempt schools from the provisions of the Act.
  In a letter dated 2 April 1984 to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley), whom I am delighted to see supporting me this evening, my hon.
  Friend the Minister said:
  "it is unlikely that a district council would view an entertainment in a school hall and attended only by teachers, parents and others associated with the school, and their guests, as 'public' for the purposes of the 1982 Act."
  That is also the gist of a letter, dated 6 February 1984, that I received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. That was confirmed in an oral answer in the House on the following day.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also stated in his letter that
  "We have recently become aware that District Councils (the licensing authorities under this 1982 Act) seem to be taking a variety of approaches to the need for licensing of school premises and the evidence is by no means restricted to Norfolk."
  I regard that as further evidence of confusion. It justifies my decision to press for an Adjournment debate on the issue.
  There are two major problems—the distinction between a public and private performance and, secondly, the difficulty of enforcing the provisions of the Act as they affect performances in schools.
  In his letter of 2 April 1984, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department repeated an assertion that I think is open to criticism. He said:
  "It must be remembered that school halls, under the Education (School Premises) Regulations, are subject to safety requirements designed for the protection of the pupils and staff. The controlled environment of a gathering of pupils in the hall or of their parents and other persons with an interest in the school is very different from an event open to all members of the public where problems of disorder may arise or the weight of numbers attending may increase the risk of accidents and fire and impede the access of emergency vehicles should the need occur."
  As someone who knows something about schools, I do not think that that stands up to close examination. Of course, it is vital to ensure safety in schools. But the Act may not be suited for application to schools any more than it is suited to concerts and places of public worship, which are exempt from the regulations. I gather from a further letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science on 21 May 1984 that
  "the Home Office is actively considering the issue of guidance to district councils clarifying the interpretation of the legislation in its application to schools and that they hope to let us have a draft of their proposals in about two weeks' time."
  I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure me tonight on that point.
  As I said earlier, I have been in touch with the Norfolk Federation of Parent Teacher Associations, which is campaigning for schools to be exempt from the Act and also for the removal of the effective requirement for parents, in practice, to have to pay not only for the licence

  971
  but for the necessary improvements to the school hall to obtain that licence. Thousands of pounds are raised annually by parent-teacher associations. The effect of the Act may be a serious reduction in the money available for schools—money presently raised to pay for computers, pianos, minibuses and so on.
  I agree with the editorial in the Eastern Evening News on Tuesday 20 March 1984 headlined "Release this stranglehold". The article stated:
  "It does seem rather silly that schools should suddenly be penalised after years of staging fund-raising activities which are often vital to their smooth economic running."
  I hope that the Minister's reply will reassure me that there will be no need for hon. Members at any time to contemplate amendment of the Act. However, it is clear that the present situation is unsatisfactory. After all, there is an important distinction between schools, on the one hand, and theatres and concern halls, on the other. It is vital that safety standards in any public building are high, but there may be better ways of achieving the conditions. Indeed, if time permitted, I could suggest ways to achieve that if schools were exempted from the provisions of the Act. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that there is genuine concern in Norfolk and elsewhere that the Act needs clarification or is faulty in its application to schools.
  2.51 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): During his relatively brief time here, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) has shown commendable diligence on behalf of his constituents on a range of issues and has shown a considerable ability to follow through a problem, even a most detailed one. That is absolutely the right way to perform one's duties in the House, and I congratulate him warmly on the way in which he presented an interesting point to us tonight.
  I wish, as he must, that he had chosen an evening when events would have brought us on rather earlier, but that is not a matter within his control. I agree with him that this matter is well worthy of being raised and is one on which, I know, he has the support of a number of schools inside and outside his constituency. I also pay tribute to the valiant effort of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) in being here. He remains silent, but he is here in support, proving Milton's precept that
  "They also serve who only stand and wait."
  It may be helpful in dealing with the cogent points that my hon. Friend has raised if I begin by explaining why it was found necessary to introduce, in January of last year, a mandatory licensing code for indoor public entertainments. Throughout the Greater London area, a uniform system of public entertainments licensing had existed since 1965. In the case of premises elsewhere in England and Wales, the licensing of public music and dancing was governed by a patchwork quilt of different enactments.
  In some parts of the country, the responsibility for issuing such licences lay with the licensing justices under the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1890 or with local authorities under local act provisions. In some places there was no control at all and in yet more places—since what control there was derived from local Acts passed before the reorganisation of local government in 1974a situation existed where a licence was required in some
  972
  parts of a local authority area but not in others. Some of these local Acts dated back to the end of the 19th century. It was, to say the least, a somewhat anarchic and unsatisfactory situation.
  The decision was, therefore, taken to establish a new and uniform code of licensing. That decision was made after careful thought and in response to representations from the local authority associations, which were as conscious as we were about the difficulties that this patchwork arrangement imposed on everyone who looked, for reasons other than just bureaucratic tidiness, for some kind of orderly and consistent thread running through the whole country in arrangements of this type.
  We also took into account the fact most of the recent local authority Bills had included provisions for controlling these entertainments, showing that there was widespread recognition of the need for change. The code that we are discussing is contained in schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Its purpose is to ensure that, for the protection of the public, premises used for public music and dancing and like entertainments have adequate standards of safety and hygiene.
  It is important to be clear about exactly what types of indoor entertainment require to be licensed by district councils under the 1982 Act. These are public dancing, music or entertainment of a like kind and entertainment which consists of, or includes, any public contest, exhibition or display of boxing, wrestling, judo, karate or any similar sport. There is a common misapprehension, particularly among those who provide entertainment on school premises, that the licensing code extends to events such as quiz shows, debates, sales of work or even meetings of parent-teacher associations. Although I am bound to say that, once a Bill passes from Parliament as an Act, it is for the courts to decide what is meant by the words in the statute
  "entertainment of a like kind"
  to the best of my knowledge they have not yet been called upon to do so and it is safe and proper for me to venture the opinion from the Dispatch Box that a licence is generally required under the 1982 Act only when the entertainment consists of music, dancing or a sport of a martial nature. In particular, the performance of a play, in which music is an incidental ingredient, as with the introduction, interval or conclusion, is exempted from the requirement to hold a public entertainments licence, but may have to be considered under the Theatres Act 1968.
  I shall refer more specifically to the matter of public entertainments held on school premises. The provisions of the licensing code apply to school premises just as they do, for example, to hotels or public houses. To the best of my knowledge, no exemption from licensing requirements has ever existed in respect of schools. If, before January 1983, any particular school did not require a licence to hold a public entertainment, this was almost certainly because no general licensing power existed in that part of the country or because the local licensing justices interpreted the provisions of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1980 to mean that no licence was required in respect of a building in which public entertainments were held only occasionally.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has suggested eloquently that schools in his area have found their activities hampered by the 1982 Act's licensing provisions. He has urged upon us the need to issue advice

  973
  to district councils on the definition of "public" in the term "public entertainment", stating clearly that there are differences of opinion between local authorities on what constitutes a public entertainment.
  The problem of defining when an entertainment becomes public and thus requires a licence is one that has led several district councils and others concerned with entertainment on school premises to seek guidance from the Home Office. I want to be helpful on that point. It seems to be a proper request. I venture the caveat that interpretation is a matter for the courts, but I shall do my best, subject to that proviso. There is no statutory definition in the 1982 Act of what constitutes a public entertainment, nor have the courts as yet considered that point.
  There have, however, been a number of judgments arising from earlier legislation which can be helpful. I shall refer to two such judgments. The first is that in the case of Gardner v. Morris, in 1961, in which it was held that the test of whether premises are open to the public is not whether one or more members of the public are present but whether, on the evidence, any reputable member of the public, on paying for admission, could attend. The second case, that of Severn View Social Club and Institute Ltd. v. Chepstow Licensing Justices, in 1968, helps to clarify who should, or rather who should not, be regarded as a member of the public. It was held that, for entertainments licensing purposes, guests of members of a bona fide club were not members of the public and that a licence was accordingly not required for their entertainment.
  Taken together, those cases are helpful, because if we apply the judgments to entertainments on school premises, we can go some way towards resolving the sort of difficulties that have arisen. In the case of entertainments, such as concerts and dances, which are promoted by a parent-teacher association and attended only by members of the association and their guests, it would seem, in the light of the judgments to which I have referred, that no entertainments licence is required. Similarly, an end-ofterm concert or similar entertainment promoted by the school and attended only by pupils, parents, teachers and their guests is unlikely to require a licence. I stress the word "guests" because it introduces the element that worried my hon. Friend—people who have no formal contact with the concert but are guests of parents. What would be significant, however, would be the advertising of the entertainment to the public much more widely than that and the presence of members of the public who merely obtained tickets as a result of such advertising without any connection with someone who, because he or she is a parent, could be said to be connected with the school. If that were to happen an entertainment licence might be needed. The salient point is not the nature of the premises in which the entertainment is provided but who is permitted to attend.
  My officials have discussed the matter with the office of the director of administration of the city council. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the council completely agrees with our view that where attendance at a concert or dance is restricted to members of a PTA and their guests, there is no need for a public entertainments licence. With the greatest respect to some of the headmasters and others with whom he has had dealings,
  974
  while I am anxious to state the law with precision it is important that they for their part do not seek to exaggerate the difficulties that the law imposes upon them. Some of the points that my hon. Friend read out from his letters teetered on the brink of doing that.
  Armed with the report of the debate and with what Mr. Hyde, the deputy director of administration, has told my officials, it can be seen that there is room for a commonsense solution. We do not need to think about draconian measures to change what we believe is a perfectly commonsense law in order to reach the commonsense conclusion that we all want to reach in relation to the problem of school entertainments. No one should want to be a martyr on this issue. I assure my hon. Friend that neither the Government nor the local council want to cause schools difficulties.
  On a number of occasions my hon. Friend has properly asked whether we will issue general advice to local authorities on what constitutes a public entertainment in terms of activities promoted on school premises. We have considered the point that he raised with great care. We are in his debt for his persistence on that. We do intend to do so. Therefore, he can report back to his constituents that he has had real success tonight. As a result of the efforts spearheaded by my hon. Friend we think that it would be right to issue general advice that will benefit others. A draft has been prepared and is now being discussed between Home Office officials and those of the Department of Education and Science. I hope that that circular will be issued fairly soon. I stress again that that can only be for guidance. We cannot usurp the functions of the courts. There is no question of our requiring a local authority to follow a particular line. That does not lie within our power. On the whole, we find that in other areas such guidelines are received in the spirit in which they are intended and are helpful to local authorities.
  I hope that in this brief debate I have managed to put my hon. Friend's mind at rest on some of the points that he has raised. Having set out why we felt the need in the previous Parliament to make such changes, I think that he understands that that was not done from some narrow, bureaucratic desire to interfere with the legitimate activities of schools, but was forced upon us by the unsatisfactory patchwork quilt arrangements for public entertainments that existed, or in some cases did not exist, around the country.
  While inevitably in all new legislation there may be some problems, there is a danger that they can he exaggerated. Given good sense on both sides, those can be resolved. I am satisfied from the inquiries that I have made that there is a great desire on the part of my hon. Friend's local authority to show good sense. I hope that he will go to his headmasters armed with commonsense guidelines which we believe are a proper and sensible interpretation of the Act and that using those people will be able to enjoy, as they always have done, entertainments in schools without, as parents, members of the PTA or guests, feeling that they thereby run foul of the law or are put to unnecessary expense.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Committee on Discovery of Documents
  Committee on Discovery of Documents
ENERGY
  Coal Mines (Economic Criteria)
  Coal Mines (Economic Criteria)
  Coal Production (Costs)
  Coal Production (Costs)
  NCB (Capital Reconstruction)
  NCB (Capital Reconstruction)
  NCB (Capital Charges)
  NCB (Capital Charges)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Trading Standards Officers
  Trading Standards Officers
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Unsafe Electrical Equipment (Imports)
  Unsafe Electrical Equipment (Imports)
  Oil (Imports and Exports)
  Oil (Imports and Exports)
  Duolite International Ltd.
  Duolite International Ltd.
HOME DEPARTMENT
  After-care Hostels
  After-care Hostels
  Penal Establishments (Qualified Mental Nurses)
  Penal Establishments (Qualified Mental Nurses)
  Youth Custody (Suspended Sentences)
  Youth Custody (Suspended Sentences)
  Public Lighting and Crime
  Public Lighting and Crime
  Subversion (Definition)
  Subversion (Definition)
  Security Services
  Security Services
  Court Appearances
  Court Appearances
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Immigration Appeals Tribunal
  Immigration Appeals Tribunal
  Coal Industry Dispute (Orgreave)
  Coal Industry Dispute (Orgreave)
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mental Health Act 1983
  Metropolitan Police C Department Computer
  Metropolitan Police C Department Computer
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Police (Cautioning Practices)
  Police (Cautioning Practices)
  Fine Defaulters
  Fine Defaulters
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Members' Correspondence (Transfer)
  Members' Correspondence (Transfer)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Performance Incentives)
  Civil Servants (Performance Incentives)
  Statistical Services
  Statistical Services
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Dairy Farmers (Outgoers Scheme)
  Dairy Farmers (Outgoers Scheme)
  Heroin
  Heroin
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
  "Taxation of Husband and Wife"
  "Taxation of Husband and Wife"
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Finance Council
  Finance Council
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agriculture and Food Policy
  Agriculture and Food Policy
  Salmon and Sea Trout
  Salmon and Sea Trout
WALES
  Teachers' Pay (Dispute)
  Teachers' Pay (Dispute)
  Motorways (Accident Statistics)
  Motorways (Accident Statistics)
  Water restrictions
  Water restrictions
  Drought Act 1976
  Drought Act 1976
  Housing Allocations
  Housing Allocations
EMPLOYMENT
  Jobcentre, Westbury
  Jobcentre, Westbury
  Secondary Picketing
  Secondary Picketing
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Association of British Professional Divers
  Association of British Professional Divers
  Carpet Industry
  Carpet Industry
  EC Labour and Social Affairs Council
  EC Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Farm Shops
  Farm Shops
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Scottish Assembly Building, Edinburgh
  Scottish Assembly Building, Edinburgh
  Housing Action Areas
  Housing Action Areas
  Hillingdon (Caravan Sites)
  Hillingdon (Caravan Sites)
  House of Commons (Air Conditioning)
  House of Commons (Air Conditioning)
  Water Restrictions
  Water Restrictions
  Rates (Empty Properties)
  Rates (Empty Properties)
TRANSPORT
  M65 Link (M6/M61)
  M65 Link (M6/M61)
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
  Civil Aviation Authority (Review)
  Civil Aviation Authority (Review)
  British Airports Authority (Chairman)
  British Airports Authority (Chairman)
  Motorways (Accident Statistics)
  Motorways (Accident Statistics)
SCOTLAND
  Norway Spruce
  Norway Spruce
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Housing (Insulation)
  Housing (Insulation)
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Seals (Fish Consumption)
  Seals (Fish Consumption)
  Electoral Review
  Electoral Review
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  Health Statistics
  Health Statistics
  Special Employment Programmes (Dundee)
  Special Employment Programmes (Dundee)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong (Student Visas)
  Hong Kong (Student Visas)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
  Chiropodists (Training Costs)
  Chiropodists (Training Costs)
  Seals
  Seals
  Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Entrants)
  Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Entrants)
  Comprehensive Schools (Specialist Teaching)
  Comprehensive Schools (Specialist Teaching)
  Liverpool Polytechnic (Fine Art Course)
  Liverpool Polytechnic (Fine Art Course)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Child Cruelty and Abuse
  Child Cruelty and Abuse
  Transcendental Meditation
  Transcendental Meditation
  NHS Waiting Lists
  NHS Waiting Lists
  Dental Caries
  Dental Caries
  Patients Confidential Files
  Patients Confidential Files
  Rowley Regis Community Hospital
  Rowley Regis Community Hospital
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Scoop and Save Shopping (Hygiene)
  Scoop and Save Shopping (Hygiene)
  Parental Rights
  Parental Rights
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Benefit Costs (Liverpool)
  Benefit Costs (Liverpool)
  Domiciliary Oxygen
  Domiciliary Oxygen
  Regional Renal Programmes
  Regional Renal Programmes
  Renal Failure (Treatment)
  Renal Failure (Treatment)
  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Blind and Partially Sighted Persons
  Blind and Partially Sighted Persons
  NHS (Drugs Supplies)
  NHS (Drugs Supplies)
  Benefits (Inflation)
  Benefits (Inflation)
  Drugs (Clinical Trials)
  Drugs (Clinical Trials)
  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mentally Disordered Persons
  Mentally Disordered Persons
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Old People's Home (Erdington)
  Old People's Home (Erdington)
  Barking Hospital (Dispute)
  Barking Hospital (Dispute)
DEFENCE
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Nuclear Submarines (Radiological Safety)
  Nuclear Submarines (Radiological Safety)
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Frigates
  Frigates
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Missiles
  Nuclear Missiles
  Air-Land Battle Strategy
  Air-Land Battle Strategy
  Arms Negotiations
  Arms Negotiations
  Emerging Technologies
  Emerging Technologies
  Noise Disturbance (RAF Cottesmore)
  Noise Disturbance (RAF Cottesmore)
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Trident
  Trident
  Maralinga Nuclear Tests
  Maralinga Nuclear Tests
  Departmental Land
  Departmental Land
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Services' Examination (Pass Rate)
  Services' Examination (Pass Rate)
  British Army Equipment Exhibition
  British Army Equipment Exhibition
  NATO (Nuclear Capability)
  NATO (Nuclear Capability)
  Vulcan Phalanx Gun
  Vulcan Phalanx Gun
  Northern Ireland (Allowance)
  Northern Ireland (Allowance)
  British Aerospace (Acquisition)
  British Aerospace (Acquisition)
  Submarines and Warships (Refits)
  Submarines and Warships (Refits)
  Departmental Advisers
  Departmental Advisers
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Defence Contracts
  Defence Contracts
  Dreadnought Hospital
  Dreadnought Hospital
  Internal Audit
  Internal Audit
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Enterprise Ulster
  Enterprise Ulster
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Housing Council
  Housing Council
  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Youth Committee
  Youth Committee
  Boundary Commission
  Boundary Commission
  Council for Education Research
  Council for Education Research
  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards
  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards
  Health and Safety Agency
  Health and Safety Agency
  Fair Employment Agency
  Fair Employment Agency
  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights
  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights
  Labour Relations Agency
  Labour Relations Agency
  Madams Bank Bridge
  Madams Bank Bridge
  District Councillors (Expenses)
  District Councillors (Expenses)
  Salmon
  Salmon
  Tourism (Anglers)
  Tourism (Anglers)
  Hybrid Orders
  Hybrid Orders
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

European Air Fares
Lord Gainford: 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 when the officials appointed by the European Council of Ministers to introduce greater competition into European aviation will publish their report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the working party of high level representatives of the member states and the Commission is due to report to the Ministers before the end of this year. Such reports are not generally published. We hope however that the Council will quickly take decisions on the report. Any such decisions will of course be made public immediately after the Council meeting in the normal manner.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Considering the fact that in a lot of people's minds is the possibility of cheaper fares in and around Europe, is there any possibility of an announcement being made of further reductions in fares from this country to destinations abroad and inside the United Kingdom as well?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend will perhaps have heard the recent announcement in connection with services between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which is a first step in that direction. As for a wider reduction in fares in Europe, that is something we should very much favour, but it depends upon agreements being reached between the governments concerned.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, can the Minister say how many bilateral agreements permit more than one British carrier on routes in Europe? Can he explain why independent airlines in this country are expressing great concern that the privatisation of British Airways might create something like a monopoly, which will injure those airlines?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that it is true that a monopoly will be created by the privatisation of British Airways, because of course there is always competition not only among British carriers on a particular route but between British carriers and other national carriers. The noble Lord was quite right when he implied in the earlier part of his supplementary question that very few of the bilateral agreements permit the operation of more than one British carrier on routes to Europe. However,
778
one of the results of the recent agreement with the Netherlands will be an end to that situation so far as flights to that country are concerned. The Government very much hope that that can be achieved in connection with other countries as well.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister's reply to the original Question mean that we shall know only of those recommendations which are accepted by the governments? If that is the case, is it not unfortunate, and would it not be better if we knew also of those which were unacceptable and the reasons for that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the deliberations in the Council of Ministers are not normally revealed in detail; but, going on past form, I would not be surprised if a good many of the proposals which do not see the light of day become known at least to the noble Baroness.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, following on the point that the noble Lord was good enough to make about the agreement with the Netherlands, may I ask him whether he agrees that that agreement for reduced fares reveals the extent of the cartelised racket in air fares in Europe at the present time? On reflection, does he also agree that, instead of leaving this matter to his noble friend Lord Bethell to deal privately with the European Court, it might have been a good move if the initiative had come from the Government themselves?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there has been no shortage of initiatives from the Government in this matter, starting when this Government came to power, and not least during the time when I had some responsibility for these matters in 1981. But the noble Lord is quite right to imply that progress in these matters has been lamentably slow. The Government very much regret that and are doing all that they can to speed things up.

Shoplifting Offences
2.41 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many offences of shoplifting were recorded in 1983 in England and Wales.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the police in England and Wales recorded 236,000 offences of theft from shops in 1983.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. But is it not a fact that the rigid policies in force fail to distinguish between the menace of the deliberate shoplifter and, say, the confused shoplifter who may be an elderly person of pensionable status, and additionally someone who may go in for shoplifting who is mentally unstable? Has any Government policy guidance been given to authorities on these categories of people?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Gridley, the Attorney-General has issued to the police guidelines on the factors to be taken into account when considering whether to prosecute. The guidelines apply to cases of alleged shoplifting, as to other offences. They set out the criteria for prosecutions applied by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The age and mental or physical health of the offender are taken into account. These points have been drawn to the attention of the associations representing the retail trade, but it must be remembered that the final decision is taken by the shop.
In answer to the second point raised by my noble friend with regard to old age pensioners and mentally confused persons, dishonesty is an essential ingredient in the crime of theft. An elderly person who absentmindedly forgets to pay for goods taken in a supermarket without intending to evade payment has a defence to a charge of theft. I would add that magistrates are well aware that theft is not always the intention. Where there is doubt, social and medical reports are sought and these can often uncover the reason behind a seemingly illogical action.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, would the noble Baroness confirm that Her Majesty's Government have no intention at present of depriving any defendant charged with shoplifting of the right of election of trial by jury? Although the amounts involved are very often small—if not trivial—for a person of hitherto good character a conviction upon a charge of shoplifting can have very grave and weighty consequences.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I confirm that the Government have no intention of taking any action other than what the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords. thank you.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question. In view of the fact that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has indicated his willingness to take over prosecutions for shoplifting if he is given the resources so to do, do the Government have any intention of providing those resources? Secondly, what are the Government's intentions regarding the proposals for an independent prosecution service in the White Paper, Cmnd. 9074?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is another matter. If he cares to put down a Question on it I am sure that he will get an Answer.
Regarding the first part of his supplementary, the present policy of the Metropolitan Police in prosecutions for theft from shops is that stores should not be discouraged from mounting private prosecutions. In practice this means that the great bulk of shoplifting cases in London are prosecuted privately and that the police involvement is confined to the purely formal aspects of the process. Thus the position in London differs from that elsewhere in the country, though as a matter of practice some large stores in provincial cities routinely undertake private prosecutions for shop theft.
780
However, there is no question of the police in London compelling the stores to undertake private prosecutions. Where a store specifically ask, the police will normally undertake the prosecution. As the noble Lord said, the commissioner has recently indicated that, as a matter of principle, he is not reluctant for the Metropolitan Police to take on the responsibility for these prosecutions. Any reservations are not of principle but are based on the very considerable resource and organisational implications for the Metropolitan Police. Discussions continue between the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police. I feel sure that in saying that to the noble Lord I am teaching my grandmother how to suck eggs.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many of those charged with shoplifting last year claimed diplomatic immunity?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no. I cannot tell my noble friend that. Again, that is another Question.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many of those who have been prosecuted were resident in this country and how many were overseas visitors?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that comes under the heading of not being part of the original Question but goes in with the other question that has just been asked.

Unemployment: Women
2.46 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give the number of women of all ages unemployed for each year from 1979.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the figures for unemployed female claimants of all ages in the United Kingdom were 323,800 in 1979 and 923.300 in 1984. I will, with your Lordships' permission, circulate the full information in the Official Report.
Following is the information referred to above:
The figures for unemployed female claimants of all ages in the United Kingdom in May each year from 1979 were:

1979

323,800

1980

396,400

1981

628,100

1982

737,000

1983

849,900

1984

923,300

Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Minister for that reply. Does it not indicate that, in the timescale that he has quoted,

781
unemployment of women in this country has trebled? Is is not a paradox that under the first woman Prime Minister of this country more women have been made unemployed than since before the war? Taking into account that since the war women have become in many families a major factor in earning money to advance the quality of life for their families and themselves, is this not an unacceptable trend? Can the Minister tell us when this trend will be reversed?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, no, I cannot say when the trend will be reversed because the Government do not accept, as the noble Lord and his party suggest, that the Government can control the overall level of unemployment in this country. I may say that the noble Lord's party. when in office, were singularly unsuccessful in putting that into effect.
There are two things that I think are encouraging. One is that women's unemployment remains considerably lower than men's—that is to say, 9.4 per cent. compared with 15.6 per cent.—and the other is that the latest MSC labour market quarterly report shows an increase in part-time employment accounting for the increase in total employment. Every 24 hours some 20,000 find jobs in the labour market. As I said in answer to a supplementary question on an earlier occasion in your Lordships' House, Britain has a very high proportion of its labour force in work.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Minister not agree that those figures greatly understate the extent of female unemployment because a very great many women are not entitled to benefit and therefore do not register, and others have given up all hope of getting a job? Would the Minister also confirm the possibility that in view of the desirable increase in part-time employment—and we are glad to hear that it is increasing in some areas—the Government should take the lead in finding ways within the Civil Service and in encouraging ways in local authorities to employ more women on a part-time basis, particularly in basic, domiciliary services provided by local authorities, which have been cut at a time when they need to be greatly extended?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am most interested in the noble Baroness's supplementary question. This very morning, as a Civil Service Minister, I have been working on this issue of part-time posts which, not exclusively but largely, involve women. It is not an easy issue. Many of the services required by the public need full-time workers. However, we are seeing that wherever possible we devolve jobs to people on a part-time basis.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, will the Minister also agree that the figures he has given are an underestimate of the number of women unemployed because such a high proportion of women are in part-time employment? Even if they were to register as unemployed, they would not be entitled to benefit because of their part-time status. Is the Minister prepared to look at this? Will the Government recognise that part-time employment must qualify for unemployment benefit?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the answer to the latter point would an unequivocal, "No". It would, in my view, be an insane thing for the Government to do. Employment is employment, and unemployment is unemployment. We are highly grateful for any employment we have at the moment in the Western economies, part-time of full-time.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as the noble Earl has stated that the number of those in the workforce is increasing, particularly the number of women, would it not be of interest if, besides giving the number of women unemployed at various dates, he also gave, in order to compare them similar figures for women who have obtained jobs during that period?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, not for the first time I am grateful for the perceptions about the very fundamental and, in my judgment, permanent changes that have taken place in the labour market, which have been drawn to the attention of the House by the noble Viscount. In fact, there is no evidence that women are suffering disproportionately from the problem that affects everyone. The employment figures show that in June 1983 the number of men in work was 88 per cent. of the number working in June 1979. The corresponding figure for women working full time—this includes the part-time issue—was 90 per cent., while the number working part-time has actually increased in real terms. While that is of no satisfaction to women who are seeking jobs and who are not able to find them, the overall picture is not as gloomy as the Question suggests.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister misunderstood my question. The point I was making was to ask whether the Government are prepared to recognise that women who have been working part-time and have become unemployed are, as unemployed, entitled to a benefit even if they are prepared to take up only part-time employment if part-time employment is available.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her point of clarification. It is a little wide of the original Question. I shall look at it and let her know.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, while taking account of the points that the Minister has made in reply to various questions, may I ask him whether he is aware that, as a result of the economic situation and of unemployment among men, in innumerable households the woman has become the breadwinner? Despite the figures that he has given, the number of women becoming unemployed is increasing substantially. Does he not appreciate that where this happens and the woman who is the breadwinner is made unemployed, we are creating on a still increasing scale families of despair? When is this going to alter?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have two points to make about this. The first is the statistical one. I am aware of the aridity of statistics in relation to individual suffering. However, from this Dispatch Box one has to look at the picture overall. There is no statistical

783
evidence that women are suffering disproportionately. In fact, on balance, they have done a little better than men. That, as I say, is no consolation for those seeking work and unable to find it.
The other point is that the vast majority of people are in work. Those people who are in work, if they really care about unemployment, must look to their own condition and their own good fortune in terms of wage demands and the rest if their concern for those who are out of work is to be meaningful.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that the current very sad coal strike threatens employment in many parts of the economy through the blockage of supplies to power stations and steelworks, and that it is therefore incumbent on everyone to try to get a solution to it?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree wholly with my noble friend. There are knock-on effects for people working in traditional areas of female employment. The fact is that, each day the coal strike continues, jobs go out of the economy, not simply for the duration of the coal strike but permanently.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl has answered questions very skilfully. Is it nonetheless true that female unemployment has increased more quickly than male unemployment since 1979? Is it not the case that well over 3 million men and women are out of work at present? Will the noble Earl be good enough to tell the House, coal strike or no coal strike, what positive and constructive steps the Government are taking to alleviate the serious employment problem?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as I have said on many occasions, the only way in which any Government can create permanent sustainable employment is for this country to become more competitive both internationally and domestically. It is to that end that the Government's policies are precisely directed. Anything else would be purely short term, as the record of the Labour Government demonstrates.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that there is a contrary view? There are certain things that need doing in this country, and it is better to do them when we have people unemployed than when we have full employment.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I would be the first to agree that much needs to be done in this country. Usually, at this point in questions about unemployment, there are suggestions that the Government should put more money into capital expenditure. However, in relation to the original Question on the Order Paper, there are very few female jobs in most large-scale capital construction projects.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister not a Minister in a department that is trying to encourage women into non-traditional jobs?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, yes. We are trying to encourage people to get the basic training to allow them to have a far wider series of choices than did their predecessors. That, as I think the noble Baroness will be aware, is a general and encouraging trend in the economy. Young men and women have a greater range of choice if they get such training. That is why training is so important.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the Minister not think that it would be good idea for the Government to promote a campaign in favour of marriage, and then the men could keep them?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am not quite clear of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, is making. Sometimes, from that corner of the House, there come suggestions that the overall employment picture would be better if women did not go out to work. That is the view that I have consistently and from personal experience resisted.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister say whether there are any opportunities for job-sharing among women? Many must be well situated in terms of family responsibilities to take up any such opportunity.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, when I was a Minister at the Department of Employment I looked carefully at opportunities for job-sharing. They exist, and as a Minister in the Civil Service, I have tried to encourage them. I am afraid that job-sharing can only help, probably, at the margin. It might interest the noble Baroness to know that the overwhelming number of new jobs being created in the American economy are through very small businesses and through the franchising to small businesses of business arrangements created by larger businesses. It seems to me that this is a most profitable and encouraging direction, which we should follow.

British Rail: Wage Negotiations
3 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state what directives they gave to the British Rail Board in recent negotiations with the trade unions and whether this represents a departure from the Government's declared policy of nonintervention in the management of nationalised industries.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the wage negotiations were the responsibility of the British Railways Board. Naturally, the chairman kept my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport informed of the progress of the negotiations and, in his turn, my right honourable friend kept his colleagues informed. This is because the Government need to know—and if necessary to comment on—the implications of wage negotiations for the finances of

785
the nationalised industries, for the taxpayer and for the public interest. On the recent pay settlement, the Government were content with the Board's proposals. There were no directives to British Rail and there was no departure from the Government's normal practice.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister if he will confirm that a letter was sent from the Prime Minister's office to his department, which stated:
"British Rail should increase its pay offer to keep negotiations in play",
and that the Department of Transport, quite rightly, made its views known to the chairman of British Rail. In the light of this precedent, would the Minister now state whether they are prepared to suggest to the British Rail Board that it proceed under civil law to prevent the railway unions disrupting coal and iron-ore supplies at Llanwern and also at Ravenscraig?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, so far as the first supplementary of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, is concerned, I would say that certainly there was an exchange of letters, and this would not be unusual between Ministers who have overlapping responsibilities in these matters. I feel that the noble Lord's second supplementary is somewhat wide of the original Question.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred has not been denied? Is the Minister also aware that a Written Question was asked of the Secretary of State for Transport, as to whether he had discussed wage levels in the railway industry with the chairman of British Rail? On 9th April, in a Written Answer, the Secretary of State said that wage levels in British Rail are for negotiation between the British Railways Board and the unions. Yet the letters to which we are referring were on 2nd April. This Written Answer was on 9th April. Has the Minister any suggestion of a permitted parliamentary terminological expression to explain that sort of conduct?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should hope that all of us, in all quarters of the House, would deplore and condemn the theft of documents and any breach of confidence between Ministers and their officials. Those who leak papers such as those to which the noble Lord refers must accept that they damage the reputation of the entire Civil Service and betray. the trust they owe the Government.
In reply to the earlier part of the question by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, it would be strange indeed—would it not?—if Ministers in charge of nationalised industries did not discuss with the nationalised industries' chairmen various matters of common interest. Of course that interest would include wages and wage settlements. But I repeat: there was no direction whatsoever from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the British Railways Board with regard to the negotiations to which the noble Lord has referred.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the Government were quite candid and said, "We represent the owners of these industries, and, when intervention is necessary, we will intervene", there would be no need for any breach of loyalty?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, suggests in his question something which is slightly misleading. He will recognise, and I am sure all noble Lords will recognise, that Her Majesty's Government are accountable to Parliament for the nationalised industries. It stands to reason that they must provide those industries with a broad framework within which to work, and that means discussing with them the implications of wider Government policies.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, in returning to this Question, I should like to ask if it is not a fact that last October the Government set the chairman a clear and achievable set of objectives for all its businesses? Is it not a fact that the Government have accepted in full the grant claim for £837 million submitted by British Railways for grant in 1984? We have not heard very much from noble Lords opposite about that fact.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, certainly on 24th October last my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out objectives for British Rail. Those objectives were accepted by the chairman, Mr. Bob Reid. I confirm the figure that my noble friend has quoted. I should add that the Government have also approved £134; million-worth of investment in British Rail since last October, since those objectives were set down.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that there is growing uncertainty in the public mind about the relations of government with nationalised industries, and that the time has come when this situation should be clarified in the form of a White Paper or by other means, as previous governments have done?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I do not think there is any confusion in the mind of the public. I have stated quite clearly, and on other occasions noble friends alongside me have stated, the relationship between government and the nationalised industries. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, himself, would have full knowledge of what are those kind of relationships.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, would the Minister thank me if I suggested that his reply might be on the lines that, if there is a possible chance of putting the tiniest bit of sense into the heads of the managements of these nationalised industries, and the unions, there is no reason in divinity, morals or politics why the Government should not have a go at it?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think I should thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord comment on the remarks being made about the duty of the Government to interfere in nationalised industries, on the basis that they own them? Will he agree that what has been going on is that the Government have been interfering much too much in the nationalised industries, and that this is the cause of most of their present troubles? Is it not one of the very good reasons why we should denationalise these industries so as to keep the Government's fingers out of them?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Viscount is, not this afternoon. It is 31 minutes since we started Questions, and the noble Viscount's point is rather wide of the original Question. Perhaps he would come back to it another day.

Business
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a little over an hour. During this adjournment the Committee stage of the Trade Union Bill will be completed.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power of constable to stop and search persons, vehicles etc.]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("constable") insert ("in uniform").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 1 of the Bill, as your Lordships will see, gives power to a police constable to stop and search any person in any public place—other places are mentioned as well—for stolen or prohibited articles if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find such articles. The clause does not require the constable to be in uniform. The amendment that I move proposes that he should be in uniform.
The powers that are given to the police to stop and search the citizen are considerable, and the statistics for their enforcement show that last year, in London alone, there were over a million stops and searches. If that were projected through the country as a whole one would see the wide extent of this activity affecting millions of our fellow subjects.
The vast majority of those suspected will have shown themselves to be wholly innocent. One of the difficulties is that if the person concerned is young or part of the minority of coloured people, he will be liable to be searched more often than the average citizen. So here is a power which is liable to bring the police certainly—putting it neutrally—into contact with the ordinary citizen, and, as we submit (and it is the purpose of the amendment to avoid this), into a state of conflict through misunderstanding with the ordinary citizen because it would involve a plainclothes officer in a coat approaching at night a citizen on his lawful passage, stopping him, interfering with his liberty of free passage and producing an immediate state of potential confrontation.
In such a situation the fact that the officer was in uniform would immediately indicate to the passer-by the rightness of the police in stopping and questioning him. But the danger of this being done by the plain clothes policeman is first to create the possibility of conflict and at the very least to produce a state of apprehension. Alas! there is a good deal of mugging going on in our cities. There is plenty of aggravation in our society already without adding to it unnecessarily as we believe this power given to the plain clothes policeman to stop and search the subject is liable to do.
Identification of the person stopping the citizen on his lawful passage is of vital importance. It is essential that we must avoid confrontation between police and public as much as possible. We believe that this amendment, if approved, would be in the interests not only of the public but of the police themselves.
In our view the coercive power that is given to the police to interfere with the liberty of the subject should only be exercised by a constable who has an overt manifestation of his office—that is to say, his uniform and the number by which he can be identified. Our objection to what is proposed is first one of principle. We believe that if the police are given coercive powers, as they are in this clause, it is essential that those powers should be exercised only by officers clothed in uniform, thereby showing the authority that they lawfully possess.
It is very interesting that the Royal Commission reported on this matter in paragraph 3.22 of their report and said:
"We considered whether the power to stop and search persons should be available only to a constable in uniform, and one of us favours this. Clear identification as a police constable is necessary to avoid misunderstanding, friction, and, later, disputes".
It is right that I should continue to read. It goes on:
"We accept this as a principle"—
and that we assert as a matter of importance—
"but do not believe the wearing of uniform essential to its attainment in practice. The police officer should take the necessary steps to ensure that the person whom he has stopped has his name and number".
and no doubt the Minister will refer us (as I willingly do) to Clause 2(2)(ii) which requires the constable so to inform the citizen who is stopped. That would be too late a step to take for the avoidance of confrontation. The immediate reaction is the important one to consider.
I go from the argument of principle, which the Royal Commission approved, to the argument of practicality. There is a danger that if you extend the power to stop and search to a constable not in uniform, that situation could well be exploited by someone masquerading as a plain clothes policeman. Indeed, there have been a number of such cases. The masquerader might be a robber or a miscreant of some other character. If the existence of plain clothes policemen were to be known, the citizen might initially be taken in and the first seconds in which he decides whether to resist or to run away could be very crucial for the citizen in that situation. Therefore, that is the practical objection to what is proposed. If the constable has to be in uniform there would be no room for the masquerade to succeed or for the misunderstanding to arise.
The vast majority of these stops and searches result, in practice, in a total failure of successful apprehension in any event. We believe that here we are in the presence of giving the police a power which, instead of giving them strength and authority, will give them nothing but room for danger in their relationship with the public. It has been said many times already during the Second Reading of the Bill that what is essential to fight the losing battle against crime (which has grown greatly in recent years) is total confidence between the police and the public; what is proposed in the Bill might well seriously undermine that confidence. I beg to move.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I should like to support the amendment. I suggest that it is an important amendment, perhaps one of the most important amendments which have been put forward to the Bill. Your Lordships will appreciate that the extent of the power which is being given to the police in Part I of the Bill is very great indeed. I imagine that the purpose of this amendment is to limit that power. The argument will no doubt be put forward by the noble Minister that this power has already been wielded by the Metropolitan Police Force and other police forces in certain municipal areas for very many years. I am anxious that the Committee should appreciate that in my submission that is simply not so.
The purpose of this power, which was originally granted right back at the beginning of the 19th century in 1839 under the Metropolitan Police Act, was to deal with goods in transit at a time when your Lordships will appreciate that London and other big cities were a prey to vagabonds, rogues, thieves, and so on, who were moving around. As a result there were the Peel reforms and the police force was created. The whole purpose of the original Act under which this power arose was—to use the words of the original Act—that:
"any person reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner any stolen or unlawfully obtained goods"
could be stopped and searched by a police officer. But it did not create any offence at all. It went hand in hand with another section in the Act, which was to bring that person before the magistrates the next day. That person then had to give an account to the magistrates and justify his possession of the property found on him, guilty or innocent as that person might be. It was
790
only then that an offence arose. The onus was on the person to give an explanation in regard to the property.
That was the origin of this power. It had absolutely nothing whatever to do with stopping people in the street, as it is now used—stopping young people in the streets or blacks in Brixton—to see whether they have anything on them which may be stolen, and so on. Of course, the second part of the Act which I quoted was repealed in the 1970s because it put the onus on the defendant to prove the point, which was of course entirely against modern thinking.
But this particular section was not repealed. As is perfectly clear from the PSI report, and from many other reports—and as is now universally acknowledged—its use has been entirely abused in the Metropolitan district. As is made perfectly clear in the PSI report, over and over again in the majority of cases the police do not have any reasonable suspicion whatever. In fact, they act on a hunch; they act on the appearance of the person they stop; they act bearing in mind the area in which the person is found.
There is no doubt—is there?—that this section of the Act gives rise to more problems, more harassment and more fear among the young in the big cities than any other single piece of legislation. I submit to the Committee that it is of crucial importance that this power is limited in some way. As has already been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as the power deals with street offences, it should be the officer in the street who deals with the matter. Surely that is the first way in which to limit the power: the officer in uniform should deal with the matter.
In addition to what has already been said, if this power is given to plain clothes officers, to detective officers, abuse would be too easy for words. What also arises from these researches is that the great majority of stops and searches are not reported at all. There is no reason to report them. In this Bill there are provisions for reporting, for recording and for telling the person stopped various things. But unfortunately the whole experience of dealing with this matter shows that it is the simplest thing in the world either to avoid reporting a stop or telling the person stopped what he ought to be told and giving an ex post facto account when you return to the police station to record what happened. It happens over and over again.
If plain clothes officers are involved in this, it would be the easiest thing in the world to continue the abuse which has followed over the years and which gave rise to the abolition of the suspected person legislation. If one is in plain clothes, one can stop someone and effect the search, and so on. One can give any information one likes because it is completely untraceable; there is no way of confirming that one is from a particular police station. The great thing about limiting this power to the uniformed officer is that the person stopped can see the number on the officer's uniform and will be able to take up the matter. The suspected person legislation gave rise to exactly the same problem which I would suggest will arise over this matter. Under the suspected person legislation the officer had to establish that the person concerned became a suspected person loitering with intent to commit some offence, and the suspicion was simply in the mind of the police officer. Therefore, many hours

791
were spent in magistrates' courts, and so on, dealing with the question whether or not the suspicion was justified.
If this power is left to plain clothes officers, I suggest that exactly the same problem will arise all over again, and that all the trouble which arose under the suspected person legislation will arise again; whereas, if this power is limited to the uniformed officer, at least we shall have gone quite a long way to control the situation. These are enormous powers and I hope that the Committee appreciates how broad they are and how much broader they are than the powers under the original Metropolitan Police Act. Under this part of the Bill it will now be possible to stop and search people for all matters which are set out in the Bill, including the possibility of possessing an offensive weapon. If there is to be some limitation, this surely is the clear and obvious way of limiting that power.
Lord Inglewood: It seems to me that we have revealed a principle in the very first few words of this very long Bill. It reveals the nature of the power which, under the Bill a constable is empowered to wield—a power that can be in the hands of the youngest constable the very first hour of his service after he has been sworn in. I give general support to this clause, and without doubt I think that we should have some power (such as we are now considering) which is now made uniform throughout the whole of England. The recent situation has been very unsatisfactory where a similar power has existed in London, on Merseyside and in certain other areas.
However, in looking at this Bill, I am not sure that we have sufficient clear words to show what is intended. The amendment says that a constable, in order to be identified, shall be a constable "in uniform". But it does not say what papers he should carry, whether he must show his warrant card and what happens if he has left it at home. Yet on the other hand he may find himself in a position where he ought to take action because he has seen something suspicious.
When we talk of police constables we are concerned mainly, with the members of the police forces which generally come under the Home Office but there are other larger and smaller forces in this country. Are we satisfied—and no doubt the Minister will tell us—whether more words should be inserted in the Bill or whether we have enough to make the meaning clear! We have the Ministry of Defence Constabulary and the Royal Parks Constabulary. We even have a much smaller force in Kew, which I believe is a separate force—I am not sure about the Customs and Excise—and we have the British Transport Police and the Prison Service. How many of these constables fall within the provisions in the Bill?
I do not want to split hairs but we ought to satisfy ourselves generally that the language is what we need. I am very interested in the role of the constable and his duties, which will come up for discussion from time to time as we proceed through the Bill. However, I should like to think that we ought not go any further without being given a clearer idea of who are these constables. They are not referred to as "police constables" in the
792
Bill. They are referred to simply as naked "constables". Now they are not to be naked, but they are to be clothed in uniform. The Bill does not even say that they need any identity papers or whether they need to belong to a service which is the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Lord Plant: During the Second Reading I made it clear that I endeavoured to speak on behalf of the Police Federation. I have discussed this amendment with the three police organisations, and they are bitterly opposed to it. If a detective, a CID man, is not in uniform he will not be able to stop and search if this amendment is carried. I think that is stupid. I know that many libertarians are opposed to some things that this Bill does in relation to stop and search. But whose side are we on? Is it the side of the police, the public or the criminal? We must be clear at the outset whose side we are on.
It is not in the interests of the public to agree to this amendment. I believe that it is in the interests of the criminal. I do not think there is any conflict, or any apprehension on the part of the law-abiding members of this country. The two speeches we have heard from this side have not convinced me at all of the need for this amendment. The Royal Commission did not come down in favour of an outright recommendation. Certainly it discussed this issue.
What you are attempting to do here is to see that 15 per cent. of the police force whose job it is to detect crime, the CID, shall not have the powers to detect crime; that is, to stop and search. You are going to handcuff the most effective detecting force that you have. Why are you going to handicap them? It is only the criminal who is going to benefit. These are the men who are detecting crime, and you are going to say that 15 per cent. of the police force shall not have the right to stop and search. It is one of their main jobs. I shall not go into detail about the prosecutions that have followed from stop and search by CID men. The figure is high. The Bill provides elsewhere sufficient safeguards for the individual for us to have no fears whatsoever about this first line of the Bill remaining intact.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord—
Noble Lords: Lord Denning!
Lord Mishcon: I am so sorry. I defer at once to the noble and learned Lord.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Denning: This is an important amendment. At common law there was no right in a constable, or anyone else, to stop and search a person or a vehicle. It was introduced in the metropolis and in other great cities by statute. Now fortunately the power is to be regulated by this statute and made clear for all. What form should it take? Quite clearly it is right that the constable should be in uniform, because when the man is stopped and searched he then knows at once that it is done under proper authority.
But imagine the feelings of an innocent person when he is accosted, and maybe accosted by an individual in

793
plain clothes. He is stopped, and it is said, "I want to search you". Clearly there would be the greatest resentment at once unless there is some safeguard and abuse can be controlled. This Bill suggests a way. It suggests that the police constable must produce his warrant card, he must explain his suspicions and why he wants to search the vehicle, and he has to make a record at once of what he has found, and the man is entitled to a copy of it. The whole question is whether those safeguards in the Bill are sufficient.
My mind has wavered to and fro even as the arguments have gone on in this Committee. But on the whole I think that I would not favour the amendment. On the whole, the safeguards which are provided later in the Bill by the individual having to justify himself, to produce his warrant card, and before he searches or anything to give his explanation of what it is he wants, are just sufficient safeguards to warrant the Bill going forward as it is without this amendment.
Baroness Gaitskell: I should like to know how the policeman who stops and searches knows that he is searching for something? Will anybody tell me what the policeman knows that makes him stop and search a person suddenly in this way? It seems to me that there is something wrong about that, too.
Lord Mishcon: May I say at once that I was so happy that I deferred, as I always would, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, so that he could make his contribution to the Committee. My only wish is that I might have interrupted the speech before the last sentence while he was still wavering, and hope that something that I might say might make him waver on the right side in favour of the amendment.
I really rise in order to deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, so that at least when we conduct these debates we know precisely where we are. If I may say so—and I say this, I am sure, with the concurrence of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, and my noble friend Lord ElystanMorgan—the noble Lord, Lord Plant, asked: whose side are we on? I can tell him frankly from the Opposition that we are on the side of law and order, and we shall maintain that position throughout this Bill.
At the same time as being on the side of law and order we are also on the side of other things. One of the principles that we shall be defending and protecting is the rights of the citizen, and I am talking about the innocent citizen, and I am talking about the citizen who has been charged but not yet found guilty. But the main thing that we are on the side of is the proper relationship between the community, with all its multifarious parts in this country, and the police. The one aspect that has been emphasised time and time again throughout this House is that the police need the co-operation and the confidence of the community; and the community need to have complete and absolute confidence in their police.
There will be no criticism on this side of the Committee of the police force as a whole. There may be doubts because every single organisation, any one that you can think of—if I may say with deference even your Lordships' House—has its good members and bad members, and that applies to the police force.
794
The one point that my noble and learned friend made abundantly clear in the way he moved this amendment was the limitation upon the confidence that the community might have in the police force even if you have a half safeguard of somebody making a record afterwards—and the provisions of the Bill do not make it necessary on all occasions that the record is made at the time—and one also has to imagine the atmosphere in which this is conducted.
If I may say so, one has to imagine one of your Lordships in this position—not some horrible criminal, but a perfectly innocent person—and an officious policeman coming up, not in uniform, and asking you, "Please, I am now going to stop and search you for certain reasons". You are outside Harrods, right in the middle of Knightsbridge, and this is being done in the view of goodness knows how many people who may well indeed recognise one of your Lordships, and done by somebody in plain clothes. It is something that all of us have to think about as carefully as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was thinking in regard to this amendment. I hope that the contribution I have made, small though it is, makes him and others of your Lordships feel that if there is any doubt it ought to be in favour of the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I shall be brief because I am not well versed in the law: I am only a common citizen who might be stopped. I would prefer to be stopped by an officer in uniform. An officer in uniform carries more weight and much more authority—not perhaps to somebody of my great age, but I am thinking specifically of the young. They need to have confidence in the people who might in the future stop and search them. It is important that the young person involved should be able to see the number and know, because of the uniform, that there was a perfect right to stop and search them. That is followed by confidence, and in turn will be followed by communication between the two. That will do both sides a very great deal of good, and I would be with the movers of the amendment.
Lord Gifford: The experience that I have had indicates that this question of plain clothes officers intervening to stop and search or to arrest people in the street is productive of an enormous amount of misunderstanding and conflict. It is not easy immediately to make oneself known convincingly as a policeman. One can produce, or flash, a warrant card. One may or may not be believed, and may or may not be understood. It is not just the person who is the object of the stop who may fear that he is being stopped, not by an officer of the law but by one or, as it often is, two or three people who are out for no good at all, who are footpads or thugs: it is other people'who may pass by.
I recall one case where a schoolmaster saw three of his pupils, young boys of 14 and 15 years, apparently being accosted by three rough-looking types who looked for all the world like members of the National Front. Police officers in plain clothes quite deliberately dress to be inconspicuous; not to appear to be officers of the law, but to merge with the general rough appearance of the area they are policing. In that case gross misunderstanding took place leading to arrests,

795
prosecutions and eventually to payment of compensation to this schoolmaster who had quite genuinely thought that his pupils needed protection from thugs.
Of course, plain clothes officers in the course of their duties will come across situations where they suspect that crimes are being committed. They will see people stealing, or with weapons. Nothing in the amendment takes away the right of an officer in plain clothes to make an arrest. But this clause deals not so much with the making of an arrest as with the prevention of crime.
Officers patrolling and using their powers to stop crime before it is committed—that is, those involved in the prevention of crime, using their powers to stop people carrying offensive weapons or prohibited articles—ought to be conspicuous and ought to be in uniform. If the power to stop and search is not limited in this way, I fear that it will be productive of frequent conflict, let alone abuse.
Lord Auckland: I intervene in the debate as a mere member of the general public who is not a lawyer and is not versed in the law. It seems to me that the amendment hinges on the use of the word "constable". In the armed services a member of the Royal Corps of Military Police has, as I understand it, to be in uniform himself or herself if an arrest of a serving soldier is made. That is one corollary.
It is clear that if the officer concerned is of the rank of sergeant or below, he should be in uniform. It commands very much more authority. Of course, the most important aspect of the whole matter is that a warrant card is carried. If no warrant card is carried the arrest cannot be valid.
There is one point here. If an off-duty policeman, who clearly will not be in uniform, sees a felony of a serious nature being committed, it is then possible that in the interests of the general public he may have to take action.
I believe that this amendment also helps the magistrates' courts. After all, magistrates have to deal summarily with cases which are brought to arrest. Subject to what my noble friend the Minister says—and I look forward to hearing from him—I must say that, particularly in view of what my noble friend Lord Inglewood has said about the various grades of constable, I am very much inclined to support the amendment.
Lord Hooson: During the Second Reading debate of this Bill I ventured to cast doubt on the test of balance as being a suitable test for deciding one's view on this Bill. It so happens that on this part of the Bill the question of balance is important. One can appreciate that there is a need for the police to have the power to stop and search. We all regret it, but it is necessary. Our concern largely arises because it is well known that there are many instances, particularly in London, of the misuse of this power. Research has been done on it, and the latest piece of research which I have read is by Dr. Vorhaus, who did some research in Middlesex, in the London borough of Hillingdon. Her findings on this were that the vast majority of young people who
796
were stopped were resentful of the police thereafter. The only ones who did not object to being stopped were those who were guilty; but the vast majority of those who were stopped were innocent, and it coloured their view of the police thereafter.
We have to use our common sense and judgment on this matter. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I wavered about this provision, but, unlike him, I have come down firmly in favour of the amendment. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, he described the safeguard provisions in Clause 2 as adequate, but I do not think he was addressing his mind to the circumstances in which a stop and search takes place. It is likely to be at night, very often in the rain, in a dark corner—in that kind of situation. How can one produce documentary evidence, and how can that be suitable?
It is correct that the powers given under this part of the Bill are exceptional powers. The noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Hutchinson gave a history of this matter which has gradually been expanded until we have the proposals in the modern Bill. It is contrary to the common law and is quite an exceptional power, but it is by no means the main power for dealing with crime.
I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said about this matter. I hope he will not use the kind of emotive language that he used in objecting to this amendment—"Whose side are we on?" It is a reprehensible question. I should have thought that we are all in favour of law and order in a civilised society. Law and order in a non-civilised society is very easy. One gives draconian powers to the police and that is all there is to it. Of course, I can perfectly well understand the attitude of the Police Federation. There must be many cases that it has in mind where it would be an impediment to the discovery of crime if a police officer in plain clothes could not exercise this power. That is, as it were, a minus to the amendment.
On the other hand, we have to put against that the knowledge we have that many young people are stopped who are entirely innocent. We have the knowledge that there is very considerable resentment and that it tends to colour the attitude of people towards the police. There is the obvious problem, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred, of the misuse of this power by felons, and it is obvious that this can be done. To put the whole thing in perspective let us ask ourselves sensibly the question: are the safeguards in the Bill to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred, adequate for this situation? I do not think that they are.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Elton: I think I am on safe ground when I say that all your Lordships agree that a power to stop and search is necessary for the enforcement of law and order and for the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property. The question to which your Lordships are addressing yourselves is the circumstances under which that power can be given to the police for their exercise, the extent to which it should be controlled and the limits within which it should be exercised.

797
It is quite clear from the report of the Royal Commission, and I think implicit in what your Lordships have so far said this afternoon, that the purpose of having a stop and search power is not merely to bring to light evidence of offences but also to prevent that being done in a more antagonistic way than necessary. Your Lordships have throughout the debate properly addressed yourselves to the question of the relationship between the stopper and the stopped. If I may at this point refer to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for whose experience I have a considerable regard because it is so apposite to the subject we are debating, I do not think it is a sufficient justification for the limitation or the removal of part of this power to say that it can be replaced by a power of arrest. As the report of the Royal Commission said, a power to stop and search is. in part, in order to make it unnecessary to take people to a police station to search them; that is, to arrest them.
Leaving that on one side, I come to the nub of the matter—the dangers implicit in the power. I do not seek to belittle or conceal them. I am aware of them not only officially but, as it were, also anecdotally. I have friends who have undergone the sort of experience that some of your Lordships have described. What they have told me has been an experience to which, in my view, they should not have been submitted. That means therefore that it is necessary to place a restriction on the power. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is and why I have an amendment down for a later part of the Bill to make possible an even closer regulation of what is done.
Before I turn to that, I reinforce what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Plant. I am sure he did not wish to express it in confrontational terms and I would not be asking your Lordships to take sides between the police and the public—which is what I think your Lordships' inferred to him. I think he asked: on whose side are you, the police or the criminal? However, that is a triangular description because there are the police, the innocent public and the criminals. We should not therefore use confrontational terms.
The noble Lord said, if I recall correctly, "You are asking the police to do a job which is to detect crime, and suggesting that 15 per cent. of the police force, whose job it is to do that, shall be deprived of one of the most important means of doing it." The noble Lord speaks with authority, but I would add to that a more precise picture that is at the back of my mind. In the market place, where there is persistent and valuable pilferage going on, it is not possible for a uniformed constable to patrol constantly without enabling the criminals active in this field to conceal themselves from him. Are your Lordships saying that the bobby must always be in uniform in all crowded places where an offence is likely to take place so that the offence then does not take place within his sight? That would be to restrict the powers of the police. It would also make it quite evident to the criminal public where the police are deployed at any one time and where, therefore, it is safe for them to pursue their nefarious activities.
Then again, what about the chance encounter? My noble friend Lord Auckland asked a very pertinent question. He referred to the commission of a felony—I
798
think a felony no longer exists on the statute book—but we are talking about suspicion. If a constable returning home, having left his uniform at the station house, or is off duty for the weekend, encounters someone who, all the circumstances suggest, has stolen property in his pockets or is concealing a prohibited article in the form of a offensive weapon, is he to say, "Good evening, will you wait while I change back into uniform?". That is a ridiculous proposition and I do not think my noble friend suggests that. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, on the other hand, wants to tell me what my noble friend really meant, so I will let him.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It was suggested earlier that there is a course which, in relation to comparatively certain suspicion, is available to a plain clothes policeman. He can arrest the man and take him to the station. If the policeman is wrong, he has to make a very strong apology. However, quite honestly, we do not want the plain clothes policeman to arrest people on suspicion that is less strong than that which really enables him to make an arrest. That seems to me to be the point.
Lord Elton: I can see both sides of that question. Let us consider that we are outside Harrods with the innocent noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and a constable who is not in uniform picks on us and not him because we look less innocent and guileless than the noble Lord habitually does. I said we, because I am not imputing this to myself alone. If I were among that suspect group I would rather be asked to turn out my pockets on the spot than to go off in an unmarked van to Kensington police station. Therefore, I think there are two sides to that question. The point I want to make is that power is needed. My examples may have been insufficient or controversial, but we are dealing with an important means by which the police are empowered to protect us and all other innocent citizens.
I now return to the focus of our concern—that this should not be done in a provocative or an extravagant way. We shall later be discussing the terms of Clause 2 but I remind your Lordships that the constable who is not in uniform is required to produce what I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred to as an overt manifestation of his identity in the form of documentary evidence—which is yet another form of saying, nine times out of 10, a search warrant—and, what is more, whether or not he is in uniform. So all this applies to the constable in plain clothes. Before he does anything in the way of searching, he has to give his name, the name of the police station to which he is attached, the object of the proposed search, to say the grounds on which he is proposing to make it and to say that he will be making a record which will be available if the person searched wants it at any time in the next 12 months. I am advised that the record will normally be made on the spot in what is charmingly and, to my mind, novelly described as "multiplicate". In other words, it will be possible to tear off from the pad a copy of the report of the account of the search and have sufficient copies left over for subsequent use.
In addition to all that there is the fact that the searched person knows who is searching him; knows first of all that he is a constable; knows which constable

799
he is; knows from which police station he comes; knows why he is being searched; and also has a record of this to which he can refer when he wants to make a complaint or inquiries. If that is not enough—for we are aware of your Lordships' disquiet about this and are not riding roughshod over anxieties—we are bringing in an amendment. As your Lordships will see, Amendment No. 156 will provide both a power and a duty for the Secretary of State to create a code of conduct for this sort of behaviour and, of course, under Clause 64, it will be enforceable under the disciplinary code. You cannot say in the Act on the statute book that policemen shall behave themselves in a courteous and restrained manner, but you can say it in the code of practice.
I think we do have here a sufficient balance in favour of the protection of the individual. I always find it both encouraging and depressing to be supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I am encouraged because broadly he is saying that I am right; I am depressed because he has said so more convincingly, more lucidly and more quickly than I could ever hope to do it. I pray the noble and learned Lord in aid.
I do not think that I should dilate on other matters that have been raised, unless your Lordships wish to prolong this debate. I think I have made it clear that the Government are sympathetic to the anxieties of the public, recognise the dangers, believe that they are sufficiently controlled by what is in the Bill and by what is proposed for the Bill and believe that without them the police would be significantly weakened, which is something that should not be done.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he give the Committee the number of the amendment which he quoted? I cannot find it in the revised list.
Lord Elton: It is Amendment No. 156.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: In the revised list?
Lord Elton: On the list which I have, which I take it is the revised list. I will check, while other noble Lords are speaking.
Lord Inglewood: Before the noble Lord sits down, could he give me a quick answer to my question about whether the term in the Bill which we are discussing covers all the various police forces which we have in this country, which together add up to quite a considerable number?
Lord Elton: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, yes, it is Amendment No. 156 on the Marshalled List (225-II), which I think was printed last night. It occurs on page 27 about halfway down.
As to the question of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, Parts I and IV do apply to constables in general, and that includes the British Transport Police and constables maintained by authorities other than police authorities. I think the definition is in Clause 90. But their powers are not available in all circumstances. That depends on their local Act. The provisions under
800
Part IX for the complaints system do not apply to these constables directly, but under Clause 90 the complaints authority may make arrangements to have complaints against these constables dealt with.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: I cannot understand why the noble Minister thinks it necessary to make possible searches by ununiformed police, with all this elaborate performance of producing documentary evidence and so forth, when a perfectly simple way around that is that they should be in uniform. This sidetracks all this unnecessary paraphernalia. Why does he want to enlarge the scope by bringing this in?
Lord Elton: The brief answer to that question is that not all policemen wear uniform. A lot of policemen do their work not in uniform. The Criminal Investigation Department for instance habitually do not wear uniform on duty. They would then be inhibited from doing this essential duty on duty as well as off it as the rest of them would be if the amendment was passed.
Lord Somers: I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. I think the thing that most of us are anxious about is the possibility of the wrongdoer masquerading as a plain clothes policeman. Do the general public as a whole know what a search warrant looks like? Would it be possible for the wrongdoer to produce a forged one which the person he was searching did not recognise or had to take as being the official one?
Lord Elton: The possibility of fraud and forgery are always with us. It is possible to have a faked uniform just as it is possible to have a faked warrant card. The penalty for impersonating a police officer is severe. In a moment or two I shall be able to tell the noble Lord what it is.
Baroness Vickers: May I refer to what the noble Baroness Lady Wootton said? If what my noble friend the Minister said takes place outside Harrods, surely a crowd would gather in no time? I would much sooner go to the police station straight away and have the thing done quietly there.
Lord Elton: It will be open to my noble friend to say, "I refuse to be searched. Get lost", and be taken to the police station.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Elton: That is not entirely a frivolous thing. If a person wishes to be searched in private, he can say that he does not wish to be searched in public.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: We are getting into rough water in telling police officers, "Get lost". If ever you are going to be in a confrontational scene, then you will get it from the average constable. I am not reassured to learn from what the noble Lord the Minister has said that these powers are also available to plain clothes railway policemen at Victoria station or wherever it may be. That gives me no comfort whatsoever.
We have traversed the arguments pretty well. We do not want to engage in this long Committee stage for the sake of extending it by any means. The submission

801
which I think has come out overwhelmingly in the discussions we have had so far is that, whatever limited value there may be in plain clothes policemen engaging in stop and search, damage is caused to the relationships between the police and the public and therefore the ability of the police to function in our society—an ability which depends to a very high degree on the willing co-operation of the public—is gravely endangered by the stop and search practice by plain clothes constables.
The overwhelming majority of those who have been searched have been wholly innocent people. We have created hostages against the police and against the public interest in maintaining law and order in our society. I hope greatly therefore that, after giving further consideration, the noble Lord may, after all, be disposed either to agree to this amendment, or even to join us in the Lobby in support of it.
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord invited me to consider further. I do not know whether in fact that was a way of putting the Question. I do not want to delay that. I merely want to say that it was perhaps an unfortunate turn of phrase when I suggested to my noble friend Baroness Vickers that she should tell a policeman to "Get lost". I regret that. What I say is that, if the noble Baroness refused to be searched, she might well put herself in a position where she would be courteously arrested and delicately taken to the police station.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I think the time has now come for the Committee to make a decision on this matter.
4.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Collison, L.

Amherst, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Ampthill, L.

David, B.[Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Attlee, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Auckland, L.

Diamond, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Banks, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Barnett, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Birdwood, L.

Ennals, L.

Birk, B.

Swart-Biggs, B.

Blyton, L.

Ezra, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bottomley, L.

Foot, L.

Bowden, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Briginshaw, L.

George-Brown, L.

Brimelow, L.

Gifford, L.

Brockway, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grey, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Grimond, L.

Caccia, L.

Hale, L.

Caradon, L.

Hampton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hemingford, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hooson, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hunt, L.

802

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Rochester, L.

Jacques, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Seear, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kaldor, L.

Simon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stallard, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stedman, B.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stone, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strauss, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swann, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mais, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mar, C.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milford, L.

Underhill, L.

Mishcon, L.

Vaizey, L.

Monson, L.

Vickers, B.

Morris, L.

Wade, L.

Mulley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Nicol, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Whaddon, L.

Oram, L.

White, B.

Phillips, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Porritt, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Reilly, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Greenway, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gridley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Halsbury, E.

Allerton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Avon, E.

Hatherton, L.

Balfour of Inchyre, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bauer, L.

Hertford, M.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Beloff, L.

Hood, V.

Berkeley, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Blake, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Inglewood, L.

Brookes, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kilmany, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cathcart, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Cockfield, L.

Long, V. [Teller ]

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lothian, M.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lovat, L.

Cox, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Daventry, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Davidson, V.

Mancroft, L.

Denning, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Effingham, E.

Avon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mersey, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Milverton, L.

Elton, L.

Molson, L.

Energlyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gainford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Newall, L.

Glanusk, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Gormanston, V.

Orkney, E.

Granville of Eye, L.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

803

Plant, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Portland, D.

Sudeley, L.

Radnor, E.

Swansea, L.

Renton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Taylor, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Terrington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Teviot, L.

Sandys, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Savile, L.

Tranmire, L.

Selkirk, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Tryon, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Ullswater, V.

Skelmersdale, L

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Somers, L.

Vivian, L.

Stamp, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("or vehicle").
The noble Lord said: In this amendment I seek some clarification of the powers which are contained in Clause 1(2) of the Bill. Clause 1(2) says that:
"a constable—

(a) may search—

(i) any person or vehicle;

(ii) anything which is in or on a vehicle, for stolen or prohibited articles; and

(b) may detain a person or vehicle for the purpose of such a search.".

As to detaining a person who may, if not detained, go in the opposite direction, one understands the reason for that to be spelt out expressly. My amendment seeks to delete the words "or vehicle" because I cannot see the relevance of the concept of detention to a vehicle. I ask myself how in fact do you detain a vehicle? Do you put upon it one of those extraordinary clamps which are now commonly seen in London? Do you stand in front of it? Do you leap into the vehicle and stop the driver from driving it or do you remove it to a police station? I know not. Surely the most adequate way of bringing about the power to search would be to detain the person who might otherwise drive away the vehicle, and that is of course part of the powers of the Bill.
To be able to detain a vehicle seems also to conflict with the provisions of Clause 2(9)(b) at the bottom of page 4 of the Bill. That clause states that nothing in the powers conferred by Clause 1 authorises a constable not in uniform to stop a vehicle, and yet here we have a power for any policeman to detain a vehicle. There seems to be some conflict. Purely on the question of clarification and simplicity, it seems to me quite adequate for a person to be subject to the power of detention. Once you get into the possibility of detaining a vehicle, I am far from clear as to how it is intended to be operated or whether it is necessary at all. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment would remove the power to detain a vehicle for the purpose of a search under Clause 1. The power to stop a vehicle for such a search is, of course, conferred by Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. I think that it is common ground that there should be a power to search a vehicle on reasonable suspicion; indeed the noble Lord has
804
not tabled an amendment to remove it and has not suggested it in his speech. Clearly there will therefore be a need for a power to detain a vehicle for the purpose of such a search, just as there will be a need to detain a person in order to search him. The police cannot search a vehicle which is being driven away from them. The only question, therefore, is whether Section 159 of the 1972 Act is sufficient on its own to permit a constable to detain a vehicle for the purpose of a search for stolen or prohibited articles or whether specific provision should be made in the Bill.
The predecessor of Section 159 of the 1972 Act was Section 223 of the 1960 Act and in Regina v. Waterfield and Lyn the Court of Appeal declined to rule on whether that section conferred a power to detain as well as a power to stop. In that case, the court decided that the circumstances surrounding the case were such that the police had no right to detain the vehicle they had stopped and that therefore, if the Act did provide a power to detain vehicles, it had been exercised invalidly. This case must, I think, cast doubt on whether the 1972 Act does, in fact, contain a power to detain a vehicle as opposed to a power to require its driver to stop only. If your Lordships accept this amendment, the Bill will clearly bestow a right to detain a person but it will still be silent as to the power to detain vehicles. I think that the Bill as drafted dispels an uncertainty and I am grateful to the noble Lord for revealing the purposes of its being drafted as it is.
Lord Gifford: I thank the Minister for his explanation. It would still seem to me to be quite sufficient to have the power to detain the driver in order to stop him from driving away the vehicle. But the noble Lord has referred to a number of provisions and cases which I shall be happy to look up and study and, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("he has") and insert ("there are specific circumstances giving him").
The noble Lord said: It seems to me that the greatest single safeguard that we could have in this part of the Bill would be a code of practice and I am very much in favour of such a code. But there is one specific safeguard which is required in the Bill itself and my noble friends and I have drafted in this amendment what we think is the simplest form of that safeguard. If I read subsection (3) with the amendment in, it immediately reveals what we have in mind. It reads:
"This section does not give a constable power to search a person or vehicle or anything in or on a vehicle unless there are specific circumstances giving him reasonable ground for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles".
Although the test "reasonable grounds for suspecting" is said to be an objective test, in fact it is extremely subjective. In the main, the problems that have arisen—and they have largely arisen in the Metropolitan London area and not outside in the provinces—have been caused by the variation in what are reasonable grounds for suspicion among different constables. I regret to say that, as the Bill is drafted at the present time, the great majority of officers would

805
interpret the subsection to mean that they are entitled to search anyone whom they regard as generically suspicious; and we all know from the statistics of those who are stopped and searched that, if you have long hair, if you wear a certain kind of clothes and if you are young, you are suspected. I remember being extremely suspicious of them until my children went away to college and university and found that most of their friends accorded with the description that I had always found suspicious. But the truth is that police officers, by their very nature, tend to be short-haired and to look with great suspicion upon the non-orthodox, the non-conforming and so on.
What this amendment seeks to do is to concentrate the mind of the officer on the fact that there must be specific circumstances giving him reasonable suspicion. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to accept this amendment because it in no way detracts from the power or the duty of the officer, and yet it concentrates the officer's mind on the fact that it is not his prejudice that matters, nor the fact that he simply does not like a man's face, his colour or the way he cuts his hair and so on. The officer must direct his mind to specific circumstances that give him reasonable grounds for suspicion. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: May I support this amendment, because once again the purpose is to try realistically to limit these extensive powers. It was very heartening to hear the noble Lord the Minister saying a few moments ago that he conceded that it was necessary to impose restrictions upon this very wide power. In the Second Reading debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, enjoined us all to put our minds to the safeguards in this Bill. He said that he was very troubled by the safeguards and on the phrase "reasonable grounds" he asked rhetorically the question: who is to judge what is reasonable? He suggested that as time went by the police view of what is reasonable would take over.
This amendment attempts to grapple with the question raised by the noble and learned Lord by limiting the grounds for suspicion to the circumstances of the stop itself. Instead of a police officer, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has just said, judging the situation by the area, the type of person, the clothes he is wearing and the fact, in certain circumstances, that he may or may not be a homosexual, and so on, he will have to find his reasonable suspicion from the circumstances of the stop and search itself. There will have to be something there which causes the reasonable suspicion.
It alarms me, and I hope that it will alarm noble Lords, that during the Committee stage in another place two different Ministers both said that a reasonable suspicion could arise, for instance, from knowledge of a person's previous criminal record. I would, with the greatest of respect, submit that that is basically against everything the criminal law stands for and the way we conduct our affairs. If a police officer sees a person whom he knows has a previous conviction for having received stolen property, or for having stolen, or for having burgled a house, that that in itself would justify the police officer going up to that person and stopping and searching him must surely be wrong. It is precisely because of that suggestion, used
806
during the Committee stage in another place, that we have put forward this amendment. It would cut out that kind of mischief—the hunch, to which the PSI report refers, which most police officers act on when they stop and search people—and would tie it into the actual circumstances of the offence.
We must, must we not, try to stop random searches, of which the great example was the swamp search in Brixton, in which no fewer than 940 people were stopped and searched, 868 of whom were totally innocent. That is an example of how, obviously, the reasonable suspicion cannot have been based on anything other than the fact that they were young, black people in a certain area who might at some time commit an offence. I submit to your Lordships that this amendment meets the concern of the Royal Commission on this point.
Your Lordships may remember that the Royal Commission report states:
"Some of us think that because of the wide range of weapons and the necessity to prove intent the power will bring with it the danger of random and discriminatory searches. If this power is allowed, it must be covered by stringent controls, otherwise it will give rise to abuse".
Your Lordships will remember that senior officers were enjoined to watch out for signs that searches were being carried out at random. If this amendment is accepted, all that will be looked after.
Lord Monson: I warmly support the amendment. It is intolerable that people wearing jeans or men wearing their hair long should be at risk of being stopped and searched merely because their outward appearance gives the police the idea that they are the kind of people who might well be up to no good.
Some years ago a relation of mine had a job which kept him in central London until quite late in the evening. On one or two nights a week he used to play bridge at a club: on those days he used not to leave London until the small hours of the morning. Every night, at about midnight or 1 a.m. on the average night or two or three hours later on his bridge-playing evenings, he would drive back to Dulwich, where he then lived. He never had any difficulties until the moment when he decided to grow a beard (I should explain to the Committee that this was in the 1960s, not in the 1970s when beards became rather more prevalent). From that moment on his problems started. He was constantly stopped by the police and asked what he was doing out at that time of the morning, and he was frequently asked to open the boot of his car.
There was another point which may interest the Committee: it is not strictly germane to this amendment, but it is germane to Part I of the Bill as a whole. Whereas the older policemen were invariably courteous and tactful, the younger constables—those of his own age or younger—were frequently rude and often clearly enjoyed throwing their weight about. This confirms stories one has heard elsewhere. If this kind of thing can happen to somebody who has demonstrably been to a public school, how much worse must it be for somebody who has demonstrably not been to a public school?
Lord Denning: I am against the amendment. Throughout the law there is the test whether the person had reasonable grounds to believe or, in this case, reasonable grounds for suspicion. If the matter eventually comes to a civil court, it is often left to the jury or to the judge. The person has to show that he had reasonable grounds, so he has to state the circumstances which show that he had reasonable grounds for suspicion. It is the police officer himself who has to make a decision on the spot. It is his reasonableness which should be judged subjectively, not objectively. This amendment would suggest specific circumstances other than his own state of mind. The Bill as it stands corresponds to quite a number of similar tests in the law. Therefore, it is quite sufficient to let the Bill stand as it is.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I have been very greatly impressed by the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I venture to suggest that it is an amendment which the Government can readily accept, for it seems to me that it achieves everything which the Government seek to bring about in this connection.
The Government wish to achieve two end products. The basic end product is a stop and search, lawfully carried out by a police officer who has genuine, specific reasons for suspecting that a person is carrying stolen goods, or an offensive weapon, or a chattel for use in connection with theft or obtaining by deception, et cetera. The second end product is dealt with in Clause 3(6)(a)(ii) of the Bill: that the officer should be able to set out genuinely the grounds for making that search. With the greatest respect for the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, it seems to me that no officer can achieve those two end products or work in such a way as genuinely to have a chance of achieving those two end products unless he has applied his mind to specific, as opposed to general, circumstances.
In the circumstances, I ask the rhetorical question: what at all would the Government lose by accepting this structure? It may well be said that in accordance with the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, a certain amount of certainty would be lost, on account of the fact that the turn of phrase "reasonable cause" is well known to our law. I can see that. Nevertheless, bear in mind that we are dealing here with what the Royal Commission called—and it is their term, not mine—"coercive powers" and that therefore there is a high onus upon this Committee to make quite certain that every adequate safeguard that it can reasonably build into the system shall be so created.
We must never forget that there is a high duty towards not just the public in general but towards the very high percentage of people who will be stopped and searched under these provisions and who will be completely innocent. It is worth remembering what the Royal Commission said in paragraph 26, in that part of the report dealing with investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in England and Wales and with the general procedure. It said this:
"Comprehensive statistics on the exercise of powers to stop and search are not collected centrally except in the case of searches for
808
controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971. Statistics on the use of this power and its results are in Appendix II. In addition, at the Royal Commission's request, the Metropolitan Police provided information from its own records of the number of stops of persons and of vehicle made under Section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. In two one-month periods in 1978 and 1979, over 40,000 and 35,000 such stops were recorded respectively. The numbers of arrests which resulted were over 5,000 and 4,000, giving arrest rates of 13 per cent. and 12 per cent.".
Those were arrest figures. We do not have the figures for the number of arrests which eventually led to prosecutions and what percentage of those were successful prosecutions.
I have read somewhere—and no doubt someone will tell me exactly where this is published—that the broad figure for the number of successful prosections arising from stop and search exercises is generally 5 per cent. So one can say that, of 100 suspects, probably 85 at the very least would be completely innocent. There would be a question mark over certain of the others but only a third of that remaining 15 per cent. would eventually be successfully prosecuted.
The last point I seek to make is one well-known to the Committee. There is no general balance as between persons who are stopped and searched. Young people are 11 times more likely to be stopped and searched than persons over the age of 23. As far as coloured people are concerned, it seems from a broad view of the available statistics that they are about five times more likely to be stopped and searched than caucasians. It is in the light of all those matters that I urge the Minister to say that nothing will be lost by accepting this amendment but that there would be a very considerable gain in so far as the necessary safeguards for this provision are concerned.
Baroness Macleod of Bone: The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to coloured people. Surely the statistics will depend on the area in which one lives and whether in that area there is a preponderance of coloured people. One cannot say, for instance, that in Hillingdon or any area such as that there will be more coloured people stopped and searched than anywhere else. Perhaps it is to do with that.
I feel that this amendment is unnecessary. The police must have a certain amount—I stress those words—of flexibility. The word "specific" is too narrow when, in Clause 3(6) as the noble Lord has stated, the reasons which a constable shall have for stopping and searching are specifically laid down. As the noble Lord observed, the term "reasonable grounds" has stood the test of time. Perhaps in the eyes of certain young people it is not quite so good, but we shall come to that point later in the Bill. I personally feel that the word "specific" is too narrow and is unnecessary.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: If one lives in an area where coloured people are, as a result of circumstances at present and in the recent past, more likely to commit offences than others, then there is a purely reasonable assumption that colour alone creates a probability and enhances the probability of an offence. That difficulty will be avoided if we use the term "specific circumstances". Reasonable suspicion alone will not do in this context.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: Subsection (3) requires a constable to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that stolen goods or prohibited articles will be found before he may exercise the power to stop and search a person or a vehicle. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord suggested that this criterion should be expanded to refer to the specific circumstances that gave rise to this reasonable suspicion.
I accept that there has been in the past misuse of the power to stop and search and that it has on occasion been used without sufficient grounds—that is to say, without reasonable grounds—for suspecting that the constable conducting the search would find stolen or prohibited items. I agree also that that calls for a change in practice, and that a change in practice is best brought about by a change in the law. Thus far, I can travel on the same road as the noble Lord. Where we differ is on what the change in the law should be. It does not seem to me as it does to him that those failures which there have been in the past have sprung from any defect in the use of the phrase "reasonable suspicion". Certainly mere suspicion of someone ought not to provide sufficient reason to search him. There must be some concrete basis for that suspicion and it must relate to the individual concerned. I presume that is what the noble Lord seeks to achieve by this amendment.
The noble Lord wants a specific reason or reasons for the suspicion that the constable feels—and reasons, moreover, which the court would accept as such. But the requirement for that specific reason is already established in the phrase "reasonable grounds for suspecting" in subsection (3). This is the phrase used and tested in the courts—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said—in such existing legal powers as Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971 and Section 47(1) of the Firearms Act, 1968; the examples are my own.
There must already be some concrete basis for the officer's belief. It must already be related to the individual peson concerned and be able to be considered and evaluated by an objective third person. That is the requirement of the law as it now stands and as it has been frequently tested in the courts. If this concrete basis is lacking, the suspicion cannot be reasonable. A mere suspicion—a hunch or instinct, or a glimpse of long hair—which cannot be articulated or offered for objective scrutiny does not suffice.
An officer who has such a hunch or instinct may well be justified in continuing to keep the person concerned under observation but additional grounds which raise mere suspicion to the level of reasonable suspicion are needed before the constable may exercise the power to stop and search. Therefore, if there is a defect, it does not lie in the definition. The words which this amendment seeks to include are not needed and we must look elsewhere for our remedy.
Such suspicion may arise from the nature of the property being carried, together with factors such as the time, the place, and the behaviour of the person concerned or of those with him. Reasonable suspicion cannot be supported on the basis simply of a higher than average chance that the person has committed or is committing an offence—I believe that that was the
810
point on which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, sought reassurance—or because that person belongs to a particular group within which offenders of a certain kind are relatively common, or because of a combination of factors such as those. It is certainly clear that young black people, for instance, should not be stopped and searched simply on the basis that they have a higher than average chance of being involved in arrests for certain types of offences. Nor is the mere fact that a person is carrying a particular kind of property, is dressed in a certain way, or has a certain hairstyle of itself sufficient grounds.
The question of course remains of how to ensure that reasonable suspicion means in practice what it says. That is what we are concerned with. There are two practical ways of doing that. The first involves a change in the law. It concerns the new requirements to give and record information contained in Clauses 2 and 3. These requirements were designed by the Royal Commission—from which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, quoted—for the purpose of seeing that the test of reasonable suspicion was not diluted in practice. They compel officers to subject their beliefs to the disciplines of articulation and transcription, and they also allow senior officers to supervise the exercise of those powers, because they will have copies of the reports as well. The PSI report on the Metropolitan Police confirms the case for these requirements, and I commend them to your Lordships.
The second way is to provide the police with better guidance about the requirement of reasonable suspicion. Your Lordships will see—and I have already mentioned—that we have given notice of an amendment to require the Home Secretary to issue a code of practice under Clause 63 for the exercise of powers of stop and search. This will provide an opportunity to make the points which I have been emphasising this afternoon and which can be driven home in the course of the full training programme on the Bill's provisions, which is now being prepared and behind which of course will stand the code of discipline.
I think that these two provisions render random searches which are provocative outwith the law. All the examples given in this debate have related to the effects of the law as its stands. I sought to describe to your Lordships how the law as we now draft it will remedy those defects. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the message that we are trying to get across about reasonable suspicion is essentially one of guidance and training. The constables have to get it right. It ought not to be necessary for it to be put right by the courts.
As I have sought to show, the words that the noble Lord proposes to use in the statutes would not achieve the effect that he desires, and nor do I believe that they are necessary to emphasise the importance of this matter, which is already well perceived. The concept of reasonable suspicion appears in other places in the Bill and in many other statutes. It would introduce an undesirable element of uncertainty if it were qualified in this context in the way proposed but not in the others and in other statutes. For all those reasons—
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Although I fully accept the general argument put forward by the Minister about reasonable suspicion, and the way that that term has been used in other Acts, does he agree that the combined effect of Clause 1 and Clause 3(6)(a)(ii) is to create a test which goes beyond reasonable suspicion? All that the amendment does is to acknowledge the totality and reality of that situation. To put it another way, does the Minister think for a moment that it would be right either for a court or a senior officer to tolerate a situation where an officer, in relation to the grounds for the making of a search, would put down, "general grounds of suspicion" or "reasonable general grounds of suspicion"? In my submission, all that the amendment does is to acknowledge the situation that has been created by the Bill.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has very ably illustrated in terms that I did not choose myself that the amendment is at most superfluous. I thought that I heard him agree that the Bill already made it unacceptable for a person to be stopped and searched on grounds of general suspicion. That is what the noble Lord tells us his amendment is intended to bring about. If he says that that is already the effect of the Bill, he is saying what I have said.
I have said in addition to that that, if you add a gloss—the noble Lord called it an acknowledgement—such as the noble Lord seeks to put in his amendment, you are saying that the use of the term in this Bill differs, by whatever degree that gloss represents, from the use of the term not only elsewhere in the Bill but elsewhere on the statute book. That would cast doubt on what hitherto has been plain. Again, I must ask your Lordships not to accept the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: There was one interesting observation that the noble Lord the Minister made, and I think that it has affected some of our minds. In regard to dealing with the fear that we have that police officers may be constrained by the wrong motives when dealing with those of a certain colour or a certain eccentric appearance, the noble Lord said that, if we looked later into the amendments, we would find that the Government had now put down an amendment which deals with a code of practice which covers the very clause that we are talking about. The noble Lord the Minister and other noble Lords will know that we have put down an amendment calling for such a code of practice, it being, I believe, Amendment No. 28. I am impressed by the fact that, following upon that amendment, and an undertaking to look at this when it came to your Lordships' House (that undertaking having been given in another place), this code of practice is to be set up.
Can the noble Lord help us further by saying that in regard to that code of practice he will undertake that there should be included provisions which will cover the very fears that we are talking about, and possibly therefore make wording unnecessary in this particular Bill, because very firm guidance will be given in the code of practice? If he could give us that assurance, I think that there are many of us who would feel happier.
Lord Elton: Yes. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courteous acknowledgement, and I might add my own courteous acknowledgement of the pressure that there has been for this from his friends. We are at one in believing that there should be a code of practice. The opportunity will be taken to clarify this matter in the text of the code.
Lord Hooson: I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division because, first, I have not had time to consider the effect of the code of practice. I hope that before the Report stage, it might be possible for us to see the code of practice.
Lord Elton: I should be less than frank if I did not tell your Lordships that I am not encouraged to expect the code to be ready by then. I am engaged in trying to expedite this work, but your Lordships will know that the undertaking was recently given; the work has started, but the drafting of the code of practice has to be as carefully done as the drafting of the Bill.
Lord Hooson: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that indication. As I said in my opening remarks, I think that the code of practice is the most important thing with regard to Part I of this Bill. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division at this stage. I reserve my position until the Report stage.
I should just like to deal very shortly with one or two points that have arisen. I have the greatest respect for the opinions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. If ever I had to be tried in this country for any offence, I should want to come before him. But I am quite certain that when this matter goes to the court, and a judge has to interpret the words "reasonable grounds", he will immediately look at the specific circumstances surrounding the stop and search. As far as a judge is concerned the words are surplusage. That I would accept. But I was not concerned with the very rare case that comes before the courts. I was concerned with the general guidance to a police officer—the young constable; what should be riveted in his mind, when he, as it were, indulges in the exercise of stop and search. I am concerned with the kind of thing which is never normally reported but of which hundreds of cases occur every week. It is that matter that I have in the back of my mind in dealing with this amendment.
Your Lordships will appreciate that I am not satisfied that the safeguards are sufficient. All I can say is that at the moment I am not certain that it is necessary to proceed with this amendment. I should like to see the safeguards at the end of our discussions with regard to Part I of this Bill. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) After seizing any such article a constable shall either—

(a) inform the person who had possession of it that he may be prosecuted for an offence relating to his possession of it; or

(b) arrest him for such an offence.

( ) Any article so seized shall be returned within 28 days to the person who had possession of it, unless within that time a prosecution has been instituted against him for an offence relating to his possession of the article.").
The noble Lord said: Happily I can tell the Committee that I can be extremely brief in regard to this Amendment No. 4. We are talking in terms of rights of the police and their duties. If the Committee will look at page 2 of the Bill, and in particular to subsection (6) of Clause 1, they will find that in reference to a search, be it of a person or of a vehicle, if a
"constable discovers an article which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be a stolen or prohibited article, he may seize it".
A little lower down "an article" is defined. I will not trouble the Committee with reading the whole definition but I will refer them only to paragraph (b) of subsection (7), at the bottom of page 2. There your Lordships will see the wide definition given to "an article":
"(i) made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence to which this sub-paragraph applies"—
if I may say this in parenthesis, that means such things, obviously, as burglary or theft—
"or
"(ii) intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person".
That sounds extremely learned but I ask the Committee merely to consider two items: a pair of scissors, and a spanner. The police officer having decided—it may be perfectly properly—that he has rights under subsection (6), under that sub-paragraph he has the right to seize them But the citizen, the person deprived of that article, has no right at all. For all one knows, it may be a very necessary article to use in the course of his employment, quite apart from one necessary in the course of his toilet, if I talk in terms of the pair of scissors. However, there the section briefly and abruptly ceases and the poor citizen has no right at all; but the police officer has the right to seize it.
I therefore now ask the Committee to look at the perfectly simple rights which are given under this amendment, Amendment No. 4:
"After seizing any such article a constable shall either—(a) inform the person who had possession of it that he may be prosecuted for an offence relating to his possession of it; or (b) arrest him for such an offence".
Then,
"Any article so seized shall be returned wthin 28 days to the person who had possession of it, unless within that time a prosecution has been instituted against him for an offence relating to his possession of the article".
Can I just cease this submission to the Committee on this particular amendment by saying that if the period is the only matter that stands between the noble Lord the Minister and myself, and he says that 28 days is not long enough and it ought to be longer, he has an accommodating—I would always hesitate to use to him the word "opponent", but I promise him an accommodating reaction on this side. What we are trying to do at the Committee stage is to get the principle of the amendment home. I beg to move.
Lord Gifford: In support of this amendment, may I seek to point out that there seems to be a gap in the provisions of the Bill at this stage. The Bill says that the article may be seized. Absolutely nothing is said thereafter as to what should be done with the article once it is seized. This stands in marked contrast to the provisions of Clause 21 of the Bill.
814
Clause 21 of the Bill contains provisions about what happens to articles which have been seized under Section 19. If one looks at Section 19 one sees that it refers to articles which have been seized after a search of premises. After a search of premises there are certain rights which the police have to retain the article and certain rights which the citizen has to get it back. That is all regulated and we can debate in due course as to whether or not it is the right regulation.
However, so far as articles seized in the street are concerned there is no such regulation. I am afraid that this will lead to confiscation without any due process of law, that articles will just be taken from the unfortunate person who is stopped or searched whether or not the articles were intended as, let us say, offensive weapons or are stolen goods. There will be no legal process to follow that up unless the person searched has the wit to go to a court and bring an action for trespass to goods or unlawful detention of goods. There should be provisions in this part of the Bill as there are in the other part of the Bill.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: May I say a word to the noble Minister about this amendment? Here is a situation where someone has been stopped and searched. Let us presume that he is in possession of an article totally innocently and the police officer seizes the article and that is the end of the incident. That person who is totally innocent will not have been told that he may be prosecuted; he will not have been warned; he will not have been cautioned; no record will have been made of any explanation which he might wish to give and so on. He will be in a worse position than the position of the people who are stopped every day, all over the country for road traffic offences, where if the officer is going to take any action about it the person committing the offence must be warned that he may be prosecuted. Surely what appears in the Road Traffic Act ought to appear here. It is a much more serious matter for someone to have property taken away fom him and then later be charged with being in possession of it knowing that it is stolen, or some similar charge.
Lord Elton: I find it very agreeable to say that the Committee is broadly right. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has asked me not to pursue the detail of this amendment but the principle. Therefore, I will not draw out the perhaps unexpected consequences if his approach was to be accepted. However, as he has suggested, Clause 1 should indeed make provision for the retention of seized articles and the return of them, but the appropriate way of achieving this is to apply to seizures under Clause 1 the provisions of Clauses 20 and 21, which apply to articles seized in other circumstances. They already make adequate provisions for the length of time articles may be retained and require the police to grant access to them on request.
These clauses were added to the Bill during Report in another place and through an oversight they do not as yet govern articles seized under Clause 1. So I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for drawing this to our attention and to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for pointing us roughly in the right direction to get what he wants.
Lord Mishcon: May the gratitude be reciprocated from this side of the Chamber to the noble Lord the Minister. He has been most gracious and I am glad that we have at an early stage succeeded, for a second time now, in improving this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out line 36.
The noble Lord said: with this amendment it may be convenient to take also Amendment No. 7 because both amendments deal with the provisions in the Bill by which offensive weapons are included as a category of article to which the stop and search powers apply.
Amendment No. 7: Page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (9).
My amendment seeks to delete offensive weapons from the Bill.
Let us first of all be quite clear that the power introduced in the Bill for the police to stop and search people on suspicion that they may be holding offensive weapons, is a new power. It does not exist at the moment. It needs to be justified. The benefits that it will bring must be balanced against the detriments which it will cause. It is that balance which I will be submitting is not weighted in favour of a change in the existing law.
Let me say at once that the carrying of weapons for aggressive purposes is wholly unacceptable. We have the Prevention of Crimes Act which makes it an offence to carry such weapons in a public place. There are some circumstances, it has to be said, where one has the greatest sympathy with those who carry a weapon for a purely defensive purpose, such as a woman walking in an area where there have been rapes or a member of a minority group in an area where there have been severe racial attacks. Not every carrying of every weapon must be viewed with the same standard of censure. But, of course, there is a problem, and it must be confronted. It is that weapons are carried as offensive weapons. That should emphatically be regarded as a crime.
At present those who carry offensive weapons commit a crime, and they are frequently arrested. There are two circumstances, in particular, when they are arrested; first, when the weapon is being carried openly and the officer therefore sees that it is being carried and can arrest the carrier; and, secondly, when weapons are used in fights and police come on the scene and arrest the users, or threatened users, and charge them with carrying an offensive weapon. All that is part of our law. There is some qualification on the right to arrest which I understand is being removed by a repeal at a later stage of the Bill.
The new power therefore is for a different purpose. It is to stop and search those whom the police believe may be carrying concealed weapons. That raises completely different considerations. It is impossible to know whether someone who is carrying a concealed weapon is carrying it because it is concealed. Therefore, the fear, or rather the certainty—here we come to the detriment side—is that this power will be used against types of people in types of situation where this fear is expressed by the police. One example given
816
to the Royal Commission was football crowds—the fear that young people going to football matches might be carrying weapons. So far as they are concerned, there is no need for this power in the Bill. Many football clubs, I understand, in co-operation with the police, do not let young people into their grounds if they are carrying offensive weapons or if they do not co-operate with the police. A football ground is a private place where the football club can exercise its own controls with the co-operation and aid of the police.
Other types of people who will be the subject of the stop and search power are likely to be those who are thought to be of a group or of a type who may carry weapons—a gang of people. For the moment, it does not matter whether they are white or black, although I fear particularly for those who are black. Therefore, a lot of people are going to be stopped. In order to consider whether we should have this power, we must look at the experience with the existing power to stop and search for other causes. That experience is very chilling. First, it tells us that the existing stop and search powers for drugs and stolen goods are used very widely. Figures were given in a parliamentary Answer on 27th July 1983 for one metropolitan district alone—E District in Camden—showing that between 1979 and 1982, between 24,000 and 32,000 people were stopped a year of whom 8 to 9 per cent. were arrested as a result of the stop. Those are the same kinds of figures that were produced by my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan.
Those percentages are reflected in nearly every study that has been made, including the Home Office's own study made by Miss Carol Willis in which it was found that, in Kensington and Peckham in London and in Watford and Luton outside London, 8 per cent. in London and 2 per cent. outside London were the subject of prosecution after being stopped. Among all the other people who are stopped without having done anything wrong and without carrying anything illegal, there will be resentment and alienation in different degrees. The study, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, made in Hillingdon shows this. That is on the detriment side. The more there are of these powers, the more young people particularly will be caught in them. In the Hillingdon study, it was found that 52 per cent. of the sample of juveniles between 14 and 16 had the experience of being stopped and questioned or searched by the police. So the first detriment is conflict and alienation.
The second detriment that I fear is a considerable amount of injustice to the innocent. So far as offensive weapons are concerned, the definition is given in Clause 1(9) of the Bill. Offensive weapons are not just weapons that are obviously made for causing injury. They are articles
"intended by the person having it with him for such use"—
that is to say, for causing injury. Once someone has been stopped and found to have something in his possession that could be an offensive weapon—the kinds of articles that have been alleged to be offensive weapons and found in the past to be offensive weapons include African combs, bunches of keys and the tools in a motor-car—the temptation of the officer who has made the stop is to assume that the article that he has

817
found was carried with the intention of its being used as a weapon. The sort of questions that will be asked are illustrated in a case recorded by the National Council for Civil Liberties where a workman carrying tools in his car was asked, "Would you use this tool to defend yourself if attacked?" That is a very difficult question to answer. Many honest people, if carrying a tool and asked if they would use it on being attacked, may answer, "Yes". They immediately lay themselves open to the possibility that they will be suspected of carrying an offensive weapon to injure someone and then have to go through a trial and seek to resist the prosecution on the grounds that they had not the intention required by law.
Finally, on the detriment side, there will be abuse. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Elton, accept that there has been misuse of the stop and search powers that exist already in the law. It is almost inevitable that there has been, and that there will be. It is so easy a power to use and therefore to misuse. It is much more serious to abuse the power of arrest because all sorts of consequences follow. The man or woman has to be taken to a police station. That has to be recorded. There is the possible danger of a false imprisonment action and that the station sergeant will get on your back if you have not got the grounds, et cetera, whereas stop and search that takes place in a matter of a few minutes in the street is so easy to abuse. That is all on the detriment side.
Let us look and see what benefits this new power will give. I shall, of course, listen with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, says. It will be said that no doubt, in some cases, even if it is only the normal 8 or 10 per cent., weapons will be detected that are being carried for an illegal purpose. One has not only to balance that as a benefit against everything that I have said. One must also consider whether there are not other means by which the use of such weapons can be prevented. If the police see a gang of youths, 10, 20 or 30-strong, going down the street and they think that they may have knives in their pockets, one way of dealing with it is to use the stop and search power, to stop and search the lot of them, and so cause a great deal of aggravation, tension and conflict and possibly use a great number of officers.
The other thing to do is to keep an eye on them, to follow them discreetly, and to alert other police officers that they are in the vicinity and if it is clear that they are going to fight, to arrest them. But if, in fact, they are just a group of young people leaving a football ground or a cinema, and quite innocently dispersing to their own homes, then there will be no cause at all to intervene. There are other ways of dealing with the danger to public order of people who are thought to be carrying weapons than going in with legal powers which require the exercise of force. This is often a very unnecessary and damaging way of exercising police powers.
For all those reasons, I submit to the Committee that this new power needs far more justification than anyone has given it; is not, in fact, necessary; will cause conflict and injustice; will be abused; and the dangers are not worth running for the sake of the benefits which can be secured in other ways. I beg to move.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I was astonished to hear some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has just been saying. I thought he was very naïve and altogether too innocent at a time when most of us would believe there is much carrying of knives and other weapons on the streets of London. I do not know how the noble Lord would feel if he and his friends were out tonight in uniform and if he saw a knife blade, or if he had had knife wounds before and was wondering what was going to happen the next time. He might also be wondering whether his wife, too, was going to be widowed.
The problem that we have to face in London is a very serious one. It is not easy to define what is an offensive weapon. Every one of us has in the kitchen of our home a good knife, and any member of the family could pick it up, put it in his pocket, and go. I believe there are a great many young men who like carrying a weapon of some sort, because it is partly smart, or partly manly, or partly self-defence. It is a problem to which, at the moment, we have not got serious answers.
I should like to see all these amendments being withdrawn, and, if necessary, looked at again. I could not think of supporting amendments like these, which would expose all constables, those supporting them, and others, to people who frequently are out on the streets with weapons and are intending to use them.
Lord Milverton: I, too, feel I could not support this amendment. It must be made clear to all people, whatever their creed, whatever their colour, whatever their group, whatever their culture, that we do not have any time for any person who carries an offensive weapon. If a person is carrying an offensive weapon, the question is, "Why?" Invariably it will be because he is prepared to use it. No, I could not go along with this amendment.
I believe that instead of helping the police we are in danger of doing the opposite. It must be made clear that there are many of us who will not stand for the sort of thing that my noble friend Lord Inglewood has been talking about—the impression among young people that because someone carries an offensive weapon he is a great big he-man. We will not stand for it. Those of us who have children, who have daughters, feel very strongly about this. No, enough is enough.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: There is not a Member in the whole of your Lordships' Committee who is not appalled by the increase in crime, particularly amongst younger people, over the last 10 years and indeed in more recent years, involving young children who can only be put into care. According to reports, they have committed brutal attacks on elderly and old people, who seem more and more to be the victims.
I cannot reconcile the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that in private premises like a football ground it is all very fine that people should be searched for offensive weapons. The majority of people who go to a football game are fit and healthy. What about the old ladies who are clobbered going into their flat in a fairly lonely street, or returning from the post office with their weekly pension? Surely to goodness our job

819
is to prevent crime and not wait until it is committed and then try to find the criminals.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The Committee has heard powerful speeches for and against this amendment. As I understand it, the issue, very shortly, is whether "offensive weapon" should, for the purposes of this Bill, be limited to weapons offensive per se, or whether it should be a wider definition and include not only weapons that are offensive as such but also anything that is adapted for use as an offensive weapon—something that in itself is inherently innocent but which, due to the motivation of the person carrying it, is automatically converted to the status of an offensive weapon.
I for one—and I am sure that in this I speak for my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and my noble friend Lord Mishcon—find that the argument is not as straightforward as, with the greatest respect, any one of the speakers who preceded me have suggested. The argument for the wider definition is a very clear one. In the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 the two limbs appear. Section 10 of the Theft Act 1968, in its definition of aggravated burglary, dealing there with a weapon of offence, employs again, by analogy with the Act of 1953, very much the same definition—either a weapon that is a weapon of offence as such or a weapon that is a weapon of offence by motivation.
Although I have not statistics to prove it, the general impression I have is that the vast majority of injuries caused by weapons of offence are caused, not by weapons that are weapons of offence per se, but by weapons of offence carried for that particular purpose. Therefore, there is a clear argument for the wider definition.
But to my mind the argument for the narrower definition is also a substantial one. It is this. Where a police officer has to decide whether or not a weapon is an offensive weapon, if the definition were the narrower one it would be a very simple task. He would use his eyes; he would use his experience; he would ask himself, "Is this"—I almost said, "a dagger that I see before me?" He would ask himself, "Is this a flick knife that I see before me?" If the answer is, "Yes", there it is; it is, per se, a weapon of offence. No value judgment is necessary.
But what if what he finds in the vehicle is not a flick knife or a dagger but a rounders bat, or a cricket bat, or a metal comb? It opens a wide vista of doubt and uncertainty. It is the very width of that area, and the depth of that area of uncertainty, that contains the further potential for fomented relationships between police and public.
Everything that I say has been said, and, in my submission, said very much better by the Royal Commission, at paragraph 3.21 of its report. We are not given the figures for the way in which the membership of the commission divided upon this matter. The words of the commission are:
"Some of us consider that because of the wide range of articles that can be classified as 'offensive weapons' and the necessity to prove intent, this extension of the stop and search power brings with it a risk of random and discriminatory searches, which can further worsen the relationship between the police and young people, particularly black youth.".
820
However, in the end, the commission, by a majority, came down in favour of the wider definition and they justified their choice in these words:
"The police have a duty to protect members of the public from violent attacks. If there is imprecision in the definition of the offence, the remedy for the difficulty perceived by our colleagues lies in removing that imprecision rather than in refusing the police the power to search".
With the greatest respect, I do not agree with the reasoning of the Royal Commission. It is not the imprecision in defining the offence that is the evil. I do not believe that we can define the offence better than it has been defined in the 1953 Act and the Theft Act 1968. The imprecision lies in the very nature of the complicated exercise that we impose upon the police officer.
It is for that reason that my colleagues and I, with a feeling of humility and of uncertainty in the matter, say that on the whole we believe that it would be better to have a narrower definition. All the powers in relation to the arrest of persons carrying offensive weapons which exist under the 1953 Act would still remain.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: On behalf of those who sit on these Benches, I should like to add that we agree with what has just been said. It was a great relief to hear the tone in which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, put forward his views, because I think that we have all agreed that we do not want to conduct this Committee stage on an emotional basis.
I should like to support the amendment from practical experience and on very much the same basis as that which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has put forward. Those of us who are involved in the criminal courts are involved on both sides. There must be innumerable occasions upon which I, personally, have prosecuted people for being in possession of offensive weapons. It is not an emotive matter. The trouble is that the definition of an offensive weapon is extremely complex. There is no way in which a police officer can have a reasonable suspicion that an article that he believes is in somebody's possession will be used with intent to injure someone unless, of course, it arises from the circumstances which he sees. Otherwise, it is really almost a contradiction in terms to ask a police officer to have an honest, reasonable belief in relation to a man who is walking along a street and is in possession of a nail file, or whatever it may be, that that man will have this intent. It is far too complicated for a police officer to be expected to do that.
I know that the noble Minister has avoided, and will continue to avoid, the point that I made on Second Reading and that I have already made again in Committee. I am referring to the question of the reasonable suspicion arising from a person's record. If one combines the possession of an article which, on the face of it, is harmless—and many lists have already been given—with the knowledge that the person in whose pocket it is contained is someone with a previous conviction, then one throws open wide the power to arrest almost anybody in certain areas. If we combine those two thoughts, then an officer could say, "I know that that fellow walking along the road" (whatever his colour may be) "has had a conviction for

821
violence of some kind", or for assault, or something more serious. "I bet", or "I have seen", or "I have reason to believe because someone else has told me"— that is, somebody who wants to get this fellow into trouble; in other words, an informant —"that he has in his pocket some scissors which he is going to use later on; and so I can go up to him because of his record and because of what I have been told". That situation will give rise to infinite trouble, infinite harassment, infinite fears and infinite problems, and that is surely what we all want to avoid, although we want to protect the public as much as anybody else.
I submit for the consideration of your Lordships that this definition is far too complicated and that, in addition, there are defences which the lawyers will appreciate and which the laymen will also appreciate because it is common sense that, if one is charged and it is suggested that one's scissors or one's nail file is an offensive weapon, one can put forward various defences. For example, one could say that one had it for a lawful reason or for a good reason, or that, as has been said, one was frightened because one had been threatened, and so on. How on earth can a police officer resolve that type of question on top of the complication of the definition? For those reasons, I would urge the Committee to support the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should like to speak for the first time on this Bill. That being so, I will do my best not to make a Second Reading speech, which I am sure Members of the Committee are relieved to hear. I should declare an interest at the outset in that I am a trustee of the Police Foundation. I do not propose to say that on every occasion as regards every amendment, but I declare it now so that it is part of the record. That being so, it did not seem to me appropriate that I should speak in any way as a party spokesman during the Committee stage of this Bill, and I speak therefore now, as I shall for the rest of the Bill, entirely for myself.
I am entirely opposed to this amendment, and I propose to vote against it. I propose to vote against it partly for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, a few moments ago. I draw on my experience, not as a Home Office Minister but as chairman of the Parole Board. I am particularly glad that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is present, because I suspect that he will have taken a similar view following his experience as Home Secretary.
What became increasingly obvious to me as chairman of the Parole Board was the increasing number of young men who went out with their friends carrying knives. When they put the knives into their pockets they did not necessarily intend to use them. But very often they went to a pub, a disco or something of that nature; they drank far too much; and later that night they became involved in an argument with somebody —somebody they had probably never met before in their lives —and at some stage they stuck their knife into the person concerned, sometimes causing his death. That is a fact. It is also a fact that there is an increasing number of young men who do just that.
I certainly do not have the benefit, like my noble friend Lord Hutchinson and others, of a substantial
822
experience at the Bar. All I can say is that in those circumstances, and given the recommendation of the majority of the Royal Commission —and unlike the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, I tend to agree with the majority of the Royal Commission on this matter —it is, in my view, wholly reasonable that this power should be on the face of the Bill.
I shall come to the argument put moderately and persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, when he proposed the amendment. He said that if we do not have this amendment there is a danger of alienation. Indeed, there is such a risk —of course there is. The police could in the future, as now, sometimes misuse their powers; that is undoubtedly true. But we also have to bear another matter in mind, and that is whether the majority of our fellow citizens, at a time when they are preoccupied with increasing levels of violence, would think that Parliament was behaving reasonably if it denied the Government the powers which are contained in this clause. I do not believe that they would regard us as behaving reasonably, given the degree of serious public anxiety which in my view is justifiably raised by this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, then came to the football ground argument. He said that there is no real problem as regards football grounds —and I hope that I do justice to his argument —because football grounds are private property and many football clubs insist on searching, or allowing the police to search, people when they arrive at the ground on a Saturday afternoon. Therefore, there is no problem because the search can take place on private property.
However, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford —and I say this as a supporter of Chelsea football club, which I fear has a particularly unenviable reputation in this regard (my noble friend, Lord Hutchinson, is rather shocked at that admission and I apologise to him and to the Committee for admitting it) —one of the problems about football ground violence is not what happens in the ground, it is what happens outside the ground. That is the problem. The scale of violence in the streets surrounding some of our largest football grounds in this country is deeply disturbing. In my view, to say that there is no problem because a search will take place at the ground, simply ignores the reality of the situation.
I could continue the argument, but I hope that I have put it as moderately and reasonably as I can. As I have indicated, for the reasons that I have put forward, I propose to vote against this amendment.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I am very pleased to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I served under him as a member of the Parole Board, but it is perhaps my experience of 30 years adjudicating as a magistrate on which I draw, and I am particularly keen that this series of three amendments should not go forward. For years and years I have wanted this part of the Bill to be enacted because, as all noble Lords know from the press if not from their own experience, more and more young people are carrying offensive weapons and more and more older people are carrying offensive weapons with

823
intent to rob post offices, with intent to burgle and with intent to injure other people. Perhaps I might draw noble Lords' attention to subsection (9) of Clause 1 on page 3 of the Bill which defines an "offensive weapon" as an article "for causing injury".
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said very eloquently, not all people go out taking an offensive weapon with them with the intent to cause injury, but injuries are caused, not only because some people lose their tempers but because they have too much to drink. The number of people who have been killed —and I am talking of children; and probably we do not know of them in your Lordships' Committee —is too many. The Home Office will know the statistics. They are the people who are being killed as a direct result of young people carrying offensive weapons. They stab and they kill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that this is a stinging nettle, but it is high time that this stinging nettle was grasped and that something was done to deter people from going out armed with offensive weapons. I think that this Bill does it.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, will not press his amendment but will give us time to think about it further. I have never heard a series of more contradictory remarks from this House, nearly all of which are difficult to refute. This is an extremely difficult situation. Clearly, we do not want young men to roam about the streets carrying knives —no one would want that. Therefore, to that extent, in so far as a knife is a recognised offensive weapon, we are all right.
However, when it comes to substitutes for offensive weapons. which are made into offensive weapons by the intention of the persons carrying them, we find ourselves in an area of the law which lawyers may understand but which I certainly do not. I hope that the noble Lord and his noble friends will withdraw this amendment now and introduce something which is clearer at a later stage. All the noble Lord has done is to take something out. I think that we must put something in as well. I very much hope that that will be the noble Lord's decision.
Lord Plant: In my view, to take out this important part of the Bill will make for confusion, and I believe that the public and the police will be very upset indeed and wonder how it is that we are getting into a position where we are not saying anything about the carrying of offensive weapons. I shall certainly vote against this amendment.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I might intervene at this stage and try to bring the debate together. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that he was grouping Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. However, I think that he has addressed himself to Amendments Nos. 5 and 7.
Lord Gifford: Yes, I have, and I should like to speak shortly but separately on the other question of articles which have to do with theft.
Lord Elton: The pleasure with which we look forward to that will be heightened by the word "shortly" in the noble Lord's remark. The debate has turned on three issues. Behind it all and I suspect behind all the debates on this clause and perhaps on many others, is the aggravation which we are anxious to avoid at the points where there is contact between the police and suspects. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a recitation of what is already in the Bill to alleviate that danger. I have spoken of it twice already on two major amendments, and some of your Lordships have been kind enough to say that one part of what we propose, which is the introduction of guidelines, is very reassuring. It is worth bearing in mind that the aggravation which causes noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to table this sort of amendment will not be the same after this Bill is implemented as it now is. I say no more on that aspect.
The second point to make about the amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken is that there are two of them and he addressed them separately. The first was to take all forms of offensive weapons out of the Bill and therefore out of the power of a constable to search for them. That was greeted with justifiable incredulity by some of my noble friends and by noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and others sitting on the other side of the Committee. On that I should say that the powers are not new and there is a very strong case for conferring them. As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said the possession of prohibited articles in a public place is already an offence; and I remind the Committee that the Royal Commission expressed its recommendation as follows:
"If Parliament has made it an offence to be in possession of a particular article in a public place the police should be able to stop and search persons suspected on reasonable grounds of committing that offence".
At present, if a police officer suspects a person in a public place of carrying a prohibited article —say, an offensive weapon —he may arrest the person for the offence of carrying an offensive weapon if the person fails to give his name and address or if the officer believes arrest is necessary to prevent the use of the weapon in an offence. That will still broadly be the position under the new arrest scheme in Part III of the Bill and that power is, as I say, not used. But it seems to us, as it seemed to the Royal Commission and as it seemed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his report on the Brixton disorders, that there should be another less drastic power, short of arrest, which can be used quickly to confirm or disprove the officer's suspicion. An officer who has reasonable suspicion of this sort must act. If he does not, he would be failing in his duty to protect the public. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree with that.
However, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to force him to fulfil that duty, either by arresting the subject or, as the noble Lord suggested (in I imagine parenthesis), following him about all night to see whether he commits the crime. What this clause, as drafted, does is to allow him to do something less intimidating than arrest and something which would normally take less time. This clause, together with Clauses 2 and 3, ensures that he does it properly regulated and supervised and that he is accountable for it.

825
The arguments for a power to search for offensive weapons are I think obvious. The carrying of such weapons is a very dangerous practice. There may be argument about the detail of the definition of the term "offensive weapons" but there can hardly be doubt that the power is needed and will be useful in deterring the carrying of weapons. I really rely on my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve rather than reciting further reasons for this.
I do not think that I ought to have too much trouble in convincing the Committee that a need for specifically offensive weapons to be in the Bill remains, and I take it that what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan Morgan, needs persuasion on is the others, where he thinks there should be a limit on the definition. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford —and that is Amendment No. 7 —has suggested that if offensive weapons must be included, the subsection should refer only to offensive weapons per se. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 creates the offence of carrying such a weapon in a public place. To limit the power in the Bill to weapons which are offensive per se would impose an artificial and I think dangerous limitation on police powers.
It would be artificial because Parliament has already decided that the offence should cover not only flick knives or bayonets, which are obviously offensive weapons per se, but also, for example, razors or bicycle chains intended to be used to cause injury by the people carrying them but intended for shaving and riding bicycles by the people who made them. The limitation would be potentially dangerous for simple reasons. In many cases where a police officer reasonably suspects that an offensive weapon is being carried he will not know whether it is offensive per se or not. He does not have X-ray vision.
He cannot see whether the bulge in the pocket is a kosh (which is offensive per se) or a stick of Brighton rock, which is the same shape and size. In such cases the limitation proposed would not in fact affect the power to search. There would still be reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offensive weapon per se was being carried. But where the police officer did have reasonable grounds to suspect that a weapon was being carried, intended for use, which was not offensive per se, the power to search would not exist.
What of the constable on a dusky night who sees a large and menacing figure emerging fairly steadily out of a public house in which brawls are common into a street which is full of people with whom he may have differences, slipping something shiny into his pocket? That is exactly the position we are putting the constable in. He cannot know whether it is going to be offensive per se or not until it has been taken out of the pocket and shown to him.
Where the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect a weapon was being carried, intended for use, which was not offensive, the power would not exist, and that could happen where it was known that a particular gang made a practice of going around with pepper pots, for instance, and throwing pepper into the eyes of ladies whose handbags they wanted to snatch, or who favoured a particular kind of razor. It does not matter to the victim of an attack whether the weapon that caused his injuries was offensive per se or not. What
826
matters to the victim is that the injuries have been caused.
It is just as important to protect the public from injury from bicycle chains as it is from blackjacks; from razors, which can do as much damage as knuckle dusters. We all know that virtually any article can be used to cause injury, but the idea that we are liable to be lawfully searched at any time is, as I sought to say earlier, fanciful. I do not believe that the risk of arbitrary or unreasonable searches under the provisions which we propose in this Bill is such as to justify confining this useful power to offensive weapons per se. I am certain that every single person who has been set about with a bicycle chain or a broken bottle, or any other adventitious weapon, carried with intent but not designed for that purpose, would be in the Lobby with me if they were entitled to vote.
Lord Gifford: This has been a serious debate conducted seriously by everyone who has spoken. I hope I made it clear —and I say this particularly in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood —when I moved this amendment that I did not do so in ignorance of the real fears that people who have been, or may be, attacked in the street live under. Nor do I move it —and I say this about any amendment that I move —in any spirit of being anti-police. I am only anti-laws which give the licence to irresponsible or bad police to abuse them unless there are safeguards.
Having said that, I am willing to respond to the appeal which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made that this amendment should be withdrawn for further consideration. I am impressed particularly by two matters. First, as my noble friend Lord Elystan Morgan indicated, there may be a middle way by which we can limit the power to stop and search for offensive weapons without altogether leaving it out of the Bill. At present I think I am right in saying that my amendment seeks to delete reference to offensive weapons from the Bill altogether. There is not before the Committee an amendment which goes along the middle way that my noble friend indicated, and that is something we can consider for another stage.
When we reconsider it —and this is my second point —I hope that we shall have available at least a first draft of the code of practice. The agreement to introduce this code of practice has been a major step forward. It will be difficult to take final decisions about matters like this on Report stage unless we have a first draft. One knows that in these matters they go through successive drafts, and it may be that this House on Report can improve on the draftsman's imagination if we have some fruits of his first labours when we come to this on Report. We can then see how it is proposed that this new power —and it is a new power —should be exercised.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is right when he says that there will be less scope for abuse under the new law than there was under the old. Before moving from this amendment, I wish to make a plea that the use of these powers to stop and search be a restrained use; be used from time to time when the circumstances warrant it, and not be used, as they seem to be at the moment, as some kind of general probe through the

827
pockets of people who happen to be about the streets in particular areas at particular hours.
Lord Elton: As this is Committee stage, and the noble Lord is kind enough to allow me to intervene, I want to emphasise with the greatest emphasis at my command that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to stop this sort of abuse of police powers, to bring it under control. Not only is there to be a code of practice; not only are there requirements in Clause 2 of the Bill which are themselves efficacious; they will not only bite on the behaviour of the constable actually on the spot when he is doing the search but they will enable his supervising officer to see what he has done in every case, to detect the different practices of different constables, and for senior officers to detect the different practices of constables at different police stations and police districts. That is why we are legislating. The noble Lord can be reassured at least on that point.
Lord Gifford: I wish I could be so reassured. What is needed is not a change in the written terms of the law, it is a change of attitude on the part of those who enforce such laws as there are. I accept that that change of attitude may be effected by a code of practice which reflects the consensus of opinion as to how these powers should be used, and that is why I am so anxious that all the codes of practice should be before us. It is not enough just to change the law and produce the paper safeguards; it needs a change of attitude. Having made that plea and that point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 36, leave out from ("weapon") to the end of line 9 on page 3.
The noble Lord said: This focuses on the definition of a different kind of prohibited article: that which is used for either burglary or theft, taking motor vehicles or obtaining property by deception. In this case this is very much a probing amendment, and one which I do not wish to press to a Division. It seems to me that we have the same problem: that this power can go too wide. I am not so much worried by articles which are designed for use in burglary or theft, for there is already an offence of going equipped to steal and various people wandering around the streets at night with jemmies in their bags are, I believe, stopped, questioned and arrested by police officers, and rightly so. But when we bring in offences of obtaining property by deception and taking motor vehicles, one fears that keys, credit cards, cheque books and all other kinds of innocent articles might easily be suspected of being prohibited articles.
This power could be overused. It may be a matter which the code of practice would clarify; but I should like to have the Minister's present thoughts about the scope of this power and how it will be used. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: There is a need for this power to search for other kinds of prohibited articles than those which
828
we discussed earlier. Housebreaking implements come first to mind, and these arguments are just as strong. A police officer on patrol sees somebody looking round one, two or three houses in a street, studying the locks or looking at the windows, perhaps. He must take steps to follow up his suspicion that the man is sizing-up the house to burgle. He can ask him questions. That requires no power, and it may resolve his doubt. But if it does not, then his only power at present is the power of arrest. Again, what we want is something less draconian. Where the person searched has on him housebreaking implements, then an arrest may follow; but if what he has in his box bears out the fact that he is a painter and decorator looking for a job, the matter is different. The man is innocent; and should the officer have had to rely on the power of arrest and been forced to exercise it prematurely, his suspicion will turn out to have been not well founded.
The power to stop and search would also be useful in cases of suspects obtaining property by deception. Suppose that a person tries to use a forged credit card in a shop. The assistant calls the police, but the person leaves the shop before they arrive. The assistant gives a description of the person, and if an officer comes across a person answering that description shortly afterwards he ought to be able to test his suspicion without resorting to arrest and discovering whether he has that sort of card. Again, that has its own deterrent effect in that the knowledge of the power in itself reduces the offence.
As to any other reassurance that the noble Lord wants, I believe I have given it almost ad nauseam already. I must ask him to read it.
Lord Gifford: I am grateful for that further clarification. This, again, seems to be a new power which needs to be justified, and I wish to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provisions relating to search under s.1 and other powers].
6.5 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("need") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: The wording of Clause 2(1) at the moment is:
"A constable who detains a person or vehicle in the exercise—

(a) of the power conferred by section I above; or

(b) of any other power—

(i)to search a person without first arresting him; or

(ii)to search a vehicle without making an arrest,"

and then there follow the words:
"need not conduct a search if it appears to him subsequently—

(i)that no search is required; or

(ii)that a search is impracticable."

The effect of the amendment, if carried, would be to substitute the word "shall" for "need" in relation to the conduct of that search.
There are two matters which come to mind, and the first is in relation to the word "subsequently". It

829
appears that what the provision is saying is that if, with the benefit of hindsight, in the light of information later received or some conclusion later arrived at, the police officer comes to the conclusion that no search is required or is practicable, then he need not search. But it appears to me that by then he will have searched. It will be too late. So it would seem that on the face of it the way in which that provision has been drafted gives rise, at the very least, to a seemingly mild absurdity.
But the amendment is directed to another point. If the officer has come to the conclusion, assuming that he still has not searched, first, that no search is required, or, secondly, that a search is impracticable, why leave it an open question whether or not he should search? Why not make it mandatory that he should not search? In other words, if it is not necessary or if it is impracticable, why not have the provision, "he shall not search"? I do not think the argument will be improved by repetition, and as far as I can see those are the basic matters at issue. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: I should like to voice my support for the amendment, to which I have put my name on the Marshalled List. The clause as drafted performs a useful function. It reminds us—I think some people need to be reminded—that stopping and searching are not an integral part of an inseparable operation. There are two stages: the stopping and then, if necessary or desirable, the searching. There is no doubt that of the two stages in that operation the greater inconvenience, the greater ill-feeling, the greater loss of dignity, is incurred by proceeding to the search. It may be obvious to say that, but it needs to be said and we need to bear in mind the events that went on prior to the riots in Brixton; the record of them made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman; and (if I may add a personal note) the evidence I have obtained from a service with which I have had long close connection and which is at the coalface of public feeling in relation to young people in particular—the probation service.
Some of your Lordships may have seen a letter signed by, among others, the chairman of the National Association of Probation Officers in The Times today. I echo the sentiments in that letter. It seems to me, therefore, that it is a valuable provision that there should be recorded in the Bill this opportunity for a constable to pause and reflect, to speak to the person or persons concerned, whether they are on foot or in a vehicle, and to satisfy himself on the range of possibilities whether it is necessary or desirable to proceed with the search.
I have very little else to say except that we need to bear in mind the statistics, which are incontrovertible, of the failure to find anything on the many stopping and searching operations that have been carried out, particularly in London. There is a 90 per cent. plus chance that nothing incriminating will be found on the person concerned. When one is trying to find a balance between the absolutely necessary support for the forces of law and order, the rights and feelings of the public and, most important of all, the relationships between the police and the public, which are extremely sensitive in this area, rather than give a sort of mild suggestion through the word "need"—that the constable "need" not proceed—it is highly desirable to put it in the negative imperative that he "shall" not,
830
unless after talking he really is, on the balance of probabilities, satisfied that he should proceed with the search. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Elton: This amendment is one of those that has considerable appeal at first blush and the case both for and against it rests on what I call lawyers' arguments. I think on closer inspection that I actually prefer the Bill as it is and I shall try to explain why.
First, there is no disagreement of substance between any of the noble Lords who have spoken on this matter and the Government. It is certainly common ground that an officer who detains someone on reasonable suspicion for the purposes of a search and then concludes, perhaps because the person has offered a satisfactory explanation, that no search is necessary, should not then search him. For example, if an officer detained someone he found leaving commercial premises at night carrying a bulging bag in order to search it, but before he did so the person was able to show to the officer's satisfaction that he was the owner of the shop he was leaving, it would be clearly unacceptable for the officer, having decided that a search was unnecessary, to conduct it anyway.
I can see why the use of the word "need" might give the impression that the officer had a discretion in this matter which he could choose not to exercise. In fact, as I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree—it was not the noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment but I hope all noble Lords will agree—in such a case the officer would cease to have the reasonable grounds necessary to justify a search and so it could not lawfully be made. Therefore, the effect of the Bill is that he shall not make the search.
Your Lordships will now ask why on earth we do not put "shall" there and I must say that I do see why your Lordships should ask that. In fact, the term "need" is the better term and it takes the trained eye to detect this. It brings out more clearly than "shall" the point underlying subsection (1), which is that a detention for the purposes of a search may be lawful and proper even though no serach in the event takes place. In other words, a search need not take place for a person to be detained for the purposes of a search. The constable need only search him if, after being stopped, his suspicions are not allayed. Looked at that way I think the present working does reflect our intentions better to the inquiring eye than what the noble Lord asked for as well as leaving the effect which all of us want in the Bill.
I hope I have transmitted to your Lordships with more enthusiasm than a mere layman would normally summon what I understand is a very valid and genuine point because it is a matter for the experts and I believe that the experts are right.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think the noble Lord is right. We need a lawyer to put a little enthusiasm into this. I do not know whether we shall get one. It seeems to me that the explanation is the lamest I have ever heard.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: This amendment, as the noble Lord the Minister divined, should have been moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who is not here but will return very shortly. In

831
moving it, I felt that there was a strong case for the substitution of the word "need" by the word "shall". But when I heard the noble Lord the Minister all such doubts as might have resided somewhere in the far corners of my mind were immediately banished and it seemed to me that what the Minister has put forward is an utterly unanswerable case for the use of the mandatory "shall". The expression "need" not do something can never be mandatory and it does not matter whether one is a lawyer or a layman in this Committee. The noble Lord, for all his massive powers of persuasion—great, noble and splendid though they are—would never, I fear, be able to persuade us on that account.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is kind to ease my path to the Dispatch Box by the use of flattery. I wonder whether, in the light of what he and other noble Lords have said, he will allow me to take this matter away so that I can go for further persuasive arguments to deliver, and possibly legal assistance in delivering them, at a later stage. It may be that the arguments are less persuasive than I think but I will consider before the next stage what he has said.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I am most willing to accede to that charming suggestion and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I take with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
Amendment No. 14: Page 5, line 8, leave out ("unless it is not practicable to do so").
Amendment No. 15: Page 5, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 36.
I think I can put the point at issue fairly concisely. The Committee will most likely remember—
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord forgive me? I was advised that Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 were grouped with Amendment No. 13. I may be wrong, but if I am right does the noble Lord intend to take Amendment No. 13 with Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 when speaking to Amendment No. 9?
Lord Mishcon: I am afraid that the noble Lord the Minister has been wrongly advised because Amendment No. 13 deals with,
"a hat…headgear or head covering, except one customarily worn for a religious purpose."
That forms no part of my argument whatever.
Lord Elton: That is my mistake.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord has admitted it graciously.
As I said, I think that I can put this point fairly concisely. The Committee will remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning (caught unusually with a wavering mind) said that, when he
832
was trying to consider the question whether a constable should be in uniform or not when carrying out the stop and search procedure, he had been persuaded in the end on just a small matter of balance to think that we should keep in that provision as it was originally drawn in the Bill because of the safeguards that were later contained.
One of the greatest safeguards is the necessity under the Bill not just to give the name of the constable, his number and his station, but to make a record of the incidence of the stop and search. The Bill goes out of its way to make life as easy as possible—and so it should—for the officer concerned, provided the safeguard is there, by saying that if it is not practicable to make a record at the time then it has to be made subsequently and as soon as possible thereafter. One imagines that it will be made at the police station.
Obviously, there are examples that one can think of, where it may not be practicable. It may be a mass stop and search. It could be—and I do not say this in any lighthearted way—that the officer suddenly finds that he does not have a pencil and therefore it would not be practicable to make a record on the spot. He would have to do it thereafter.
The next and extremely important provision—those of your Lordships who are laymen in these matters will appreciate this very much more than the lawyers—is the safeguard that the person who is stopped and searched must be told of his right to have a copy of that record if he applied for it within a period of 12 months. That is terribly important. Your Lordships who are laymen in these matters would appreciate this much more than the lawyers because your Lordships would immediately say, "How does that man who has been stopped and searched know of that right unless the police officer tells him he has got it?" He will not have studied the provisions of the Act and most likely, with the shock of the stop and search, especially if he happens to be innocent, he will not be in a fit state to call for the Act at his local library and search through its provisions to find out his rights.
I ask your Lordships, having courteously and patiently followed me up to now, to look at the provision which is contained on page 4, line 8 and which my first amendment asks should be left out. The provision in Clause 2(4) says this:
"A constable need not bring the effect of Section 3(7) or (8) below"—
Clause 3(7) is concerned with a personal search, and that is where the information has to be given that the person is entitled to a copy. Clause 3(8) applies to the owner of a vehicle, and there, too, there is a provision for a copy of the record of the search. Clause 2(4) states:
"A constable need not bring the effect of Section 3(7) or (8) below to the attention of the appropriate person if it appears to the constable that it will not be practicable to make the record in Section 3(1) below".
That is, it is permissible not only not to make the record at the time, but even not to make the record afterwards.
What I am saying by grouping these amendments together is that I can conceive of no circumstances where it would be right for no record to be made—none at all. I can well understand that it may

833
very well be that the record cannot be complete if it happens to be a mass stop and search or something of that kind. But can your Lordships conceive of a proper case where somebody has been stopped and somebody has been searched or a vehicle has been stopped and a vehicle has been searched but it is not practicable, either on the spot or at any time thereafter, to make a record of it? Do your Lordships think it is right that, in those circumstances, when the officer thinks that it is not going to be practicable, he may conduct the search without carrying out the requirements of this Act? Should he not, before doing so, say to the person who is involved in the stop and search, "I will be making a record of this and of course you will be entitled to it. I cannot necessarily make a record at the time but it will be made subsequently"?
So the burden of this amendment is as follows. There ought to be no circumstances where some record is not made. There ought to be no circumstances in which the person stopped and searched under either Clause 3(7) or (8) is not told of his rights. It may not be a right to an immediate copy but there must be a right to an eventual copy when that record is made at the police station. I beg to move.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I echo the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just made, though I did not go the whole way with him on one point. He implied that we laymen in this Chamber today who are interested in this subject were not outnumbered by the criminal lawyers and outweighed by their intellect. Perhaps some of us from time to time have tried to learn something of the practical side of policing from regular policemen. The sad thing is that among us we have not more parliamentarians in both Houses and in other parts of the country.
I wish to make one point briefly, and that again is the noble Lord's point. I ask your Lordships to consider the position of the ordinary policeman, in bad weather, who goes out to a corner of the street and finds an incident. He wonders what he has to do. He wonders whether there is anything there that will turn into an incident. Is he outnumbered? There may be a simple difficulty, as was suggested. Maybe he has lost his pencil, though that I think would be a disciplinary offence as well. It is an acutely difficult position for a junior policeman to find himself in, but it happens all the time. He has to rely tremendously on his sergeant and the supervision, if not on that evening, then on other occasions.
The standard of supervision varies tremendously. An expression which is often used in police circles and is also used in parliamentary circles is "ways and means". There is no question but that a very large amount of this record keeping about which the noble Lord has spoken is in fact a ways and means, common-sense outlook, an account of which he tries as best he can to put on paper. It is quite impossible to suppose that every constable under all conditions is able to understand what he sees in front of his eyes when none of us could possibly know until later the development that has occurred. He hopes that he will be able to play a creditable part in whatever it may be, but it is extremely difficult.
834
Some of this precise wording which we are putting into the Bill will never be able to be followed in great detail. One hopes that our belief in the integrity, the honesty and common sense of the police will allow us at the end of these several days of discussion to achieve something which will be to the advantage of all the 50 million people in this country.
Lord Plant: I wish to oppose the amendment. The amendment seeks to delete subsection (4) of Clause 2. The first question which most people will ask is: what about football crowds and what about demonstrations? Everyone should have a record if they are searched. That is reasonable and yet to take out of Clause 3,
"unless it is not practicable to do so",
is somewhat foolish because it may not be practicable, when dealing with 10,000 or 20,000 people at a demonstration, in the middle of a fracas or at a football match, to issue a record to everyone.
On the other hand, to leave out the first sentence of Clause 3(7) as Amendment No. 15 seeks to do would mean that everyone shall have a record from the constable who has stopped him or searched him. I say that it would give the police quite an impracticable job if everyone who is searched must have a record, and that the police will have no leeway whatsoever in relation to dealing with very large numbers of people. I think we shall need an increase in the establishment of the police if we have to issue records in the way in which the Act will indicate if it is amended in accordance with the present amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder if, with the patience of the Committee, I could just answer a point. I find that increasingly I welcome the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Plant, because his interventions may persuade the rest of the Committee that what I have said may be right. I say it for this reason. To quote examples of huge demonstrations at football grounds may be to deal with the question of stopping somebody; but we are dealing with the exercise of a power to stop and search. If somebody has been stopped and searched, he deserves a record whether he is in fact one of 20, 30 or 40 people, although it would be unlikely that as many as that would at any time be searched, and certainly not by one officer.
Lord Inglewood: May I ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down? Would he agree that, after he has been arrested, a man will spend something like 2½hours while the paperwork is being completed following an arrest? That demonstrates how impossible it is to stop. search and detain men at football grounds under that sort of system.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether I might put to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a practical question of policing. I am sure he has read in the papers of the invasion of Brighton, for instance, by very large numbers of young people on motor bicycles or scooters. It happens at Brighton; it happens at Skegness; it happens each year in a different place. They gather like starlings but in a much more dangerous and rapacious way. The noble Lord is not suggesting that the constabulary should always have so

835
many people there that they can contain these people long enough to give them a formal record, every one, of the fact that they have been stopped and searched, either for offensive weapons per se or for offensive weapons which are made offensive by intention. But that is the effect this amendment would have and that is what he appears to be asking the Committee to do.
If 1,700 of these people turn up and swamp a seaside town—it may not be a very big town and it may not have a very large local force and people will have to be drafted in—it really is not practicable for the form to be filled in, for example, in multiplicate, many thousands of times. I cannot therefore encourage the noble Lord to expect us to accept an amendment which would have the effect of requiring them to do so, because his amendment actually takes out the right not to give a record.
I suspect, from his expression and his general manner, that the noble Lord is actually after a different reassurance—I may be wrong—because I detected two threads in what he said. Does he want 10,000 copies of these pre formae to be completed in one stormy night, possibly in howling gales and pouring rain by an unfortunate constabulary who will otherwise have no right to stop these people unless they arrest them?—and the noble Lord knows how delicate the balance of emotion is on such occasions and how provocative an arrest can be and how provocative it is if a long time is spent holding up people from going somewhere while one by one they are processed.
What I think I can say is that of course the event will not go unrecorded. There will not be a record of every one of these motor-cyclists and therefore there will be no purpose in giving the motor-cyclist reason to expect that he can have a record of being stopped and searched. I doubt whether there would be any purpose in allowing him to have a sight of a general record. But I think I can assure the noble Lord that general searches of that sort will not pass without the knowledge of the supervising officers in a district: very far from it. Therefore, from the supervisory point, I think he can be reassured.
The other thread I thought I detected in what the noble Lord said ran off, as it were, in the opposite direction. I would express it as this: what happens if the constable cannot be bothered to make a record when in fact it is practicable to do so, though it may be boring or difficult? Clause 3(1) lays a clear statutory duty on the constable to make a record unless it is not practicable to do so. Clause 3(7) and (8) give the person searched a right to a copy of the record. If the constable does not make a record and the person felt that it would have been practicable to do so he would obviously make a complaint and this would no longer be the elaborate and difficult process that some people now find it, because when we come to the complaints procedures of the Bill we shall find there is a means of pursuing what we call trivial complaints in an easier manner.
I doubt whether he would even need to do that, because one of the purposes of the record is to permit senior officers to review the way the power is being used, and if it became clear to the supervising officer
836
that the constable habitually was not making a record, I trust he would be down on him like a ton of bricks.
Lord Mishcon: As that question has been directed to me I want to answer it, otherwise the debate may not be as tidy as it should be; and I apologise to my noble friend for insisting upon making the point now. The noble Lord the Minister, whose clarity of mind we always admire, has not shown it on this occasion. I was not making the point about being able to make a record in the midst of rain; nor was I making the point that an officer should be able to make a record, even if it was not raining, if he was trying to deal with a troublous situation in Brighton or elsewhere. What I was saying—and the Bill says it—is that it should be done some time afterwards, if he cannot make it at the time—and I know the noble Lord will bear in mind that his saving statements do not apply to the other things he has got to do, willy-nilly. He has got to identify himself and to give his number under the provisions of this Bill, whatever be the circumstances. He has to do other things. There is no exception there if it is impracticable to do so.
What I was posing to the Minister was this. What does the record consist of? All he has to do is to say to the man before he spends time in searching him, "Look, it is my duty before I search you to tell you that subsequently—I cannot do it now—I shall be making a record and you can apply to the blank police station for it". Let us see what that record has to contain. It has to contain details which are very simple indeed. There is the object of the search. He goes back and says (in the noble Lord the Minister's example), "The object of my search was because I thought this crowd of hooligans had some offensive weapons on them". The grounds for making a—
Lord Elton: The noble Lord draws me to the point. He has referred to "this crowd of hooligans". Maybe he is going on to specify individual people in the crowd. The noble Lord looks very puzzled. Perhaps I had better let him continue. But it seems to me that perhaps we are talking about two different things. I am talking about cases where one constable, with others, may be searching a large number of people under absolutely necessary circumstances, he himself dealing with 100, or 170 people. If he is going to keep a list of names and addresses so that they can be identified when their requests come in, that is an enormous increase in the amount of work he has to do. It enormously slows it up and it will make it less effective.
Lord Mishcon: I am still puzzled, and for this reason. Take the exaggerated example of one police officer who has searched 170 people in this incident. I would say he immediately deserves promotion if he has carried that out in connection with one incident unassisted. But taking for granted that is so, all he has to do is to say to each person whom he searches, before searching him, "I can't make a record now but I will subsequently". He goes back to the police station—and I was going through it. He says: "I was not able to identify all the"—can I make it 160 instead of 170?—"all the 160 people whom I did search. The object was obviously because I thought they had

837
offensive weapons and they looked like gangsters. That was my ground for making it. I made it on the blank day of blank at three o'clock. The place where it was made was Brighton. As to whether anything was found, yes; I cannot identify now the people from whom I got them, but I got four knives that I brought back. As to whether there was an injury to a person or damage to property that appears to the constable to have resulted from the search, the answer is that one man got one black eye".
Anybody who had that warning could then go to a police station and say, "I was one of the 160 people who were searched. Could you at least, please, give me such record as you have got?" I ask the Minister to tell me where, in the name of Heaven, can he cull an example out of his fertile imagination where it would be impracticable subsequently to make a short record of what took place, which is contained in Clause 3(6) of the Bill?
Lord Gifford: I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will agree to look again at the concerns which are being raised. This is one example of a characteristic of the Bill which we see in a number of places. The Bill confers a safeguard, in that a constable shall make a record of the search in writing, and then immediately the safeguard is qualified in such general terms that it leaves the door open for it to be ignored altogether in a vast number of cases.
As regards the word "practicable", an officer's view of what is practicable will vary from person to person. There may be all sorts of young officers facing overtime and wanting to get back to their families who will say to themselves, "It isn't really practicable to make these records, because I am very overworked", and who will just not do it—and no one will know except, possibly, his superior if there is a complaint; but if there is no complaint the matter will go completely unrecorded. It is not good enough to have the safeguard weakened in such a general way.
The noble Lord the Minister has mentioned one circumstance in which it may not be practicable to make an individual record on an individual piece of paper of every search; that is to say, when great numbers are involved. There seem to be two possible ways in which this can be dealt with. Either in the code of practice it can be made clear that when there is a mass of people the record can be a single record dealing with the mass, rather than having the bother of going through 160 pieces of paper in multiplicate; or, if it is necessary to spell out an exception in the Bill to deal with greater numbers, then let the exception deal with great numbers and great numbers only, because, like my noble friend, I cannot think of any circumstance where there has been a single search and it would not have been practicable to make it in the terms in which we regard the word "practicable", which may not be the same terms as those in which the constable regards it. There seems to be a very legitimate concern,and I hope the Minister will see whether there are ways of meeting it.
Lord Elton: I am on common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in one respect, and that is that I do not think that what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposes achieves what is intended, because the record
838
in the Bill is very clearly described and what the noble Lord described is something else. He has called it incomplete, but it is a record that does not have either a name or a description. I do not think you can expect a constable to remember an accurate description of all the people he might search on a night such as I have described. Nor do I think you can expect him either to remember or, indeed, to receive all the names of the people he may search on such a night. That will mean that he is not capable of fulfilling the requirements of Clause 3(2) and Clause 3(4). That means that he must have a get-out, and the get-out is what the noble Lord wishes to remove. If the noble Lord wishes to do that, he has to replace it with something else, because what he has said should be there is different from what is in the Bill. I hope that I am making myself clear.
The Bill requires the constable to make a record with very specific things in it, and they are set out in Clause 3. The noble Lord has said that the constable shall not be exempted from that requirement in any circumstances. That is in his amendment. But what was in his speech was something different, and was a sort of block description of which anybody claiming to have been in that particular town at that time and to have been searched would be entitled to a copy. That is an interesting idea which I shall think about, but it is not what is proposed in his amendment and it is new to me.
Lord Mishcon: I must not detain the Committee much longer on this, although it is a very important matter. If the noble Lord refers the Committee to subsection (4) of Clause 3 and asks, "If he does not know the name what can he do, because he will be difficult to describe?", I must point out that the subsection reads:
"If a constable does not know the name of a person whom he has searched, the record of the search shall include a note otherwise describing that person".
So that would be fulfilled by: "The best description I can give is that there were 40 youngsters on motorcycles wearing"—whatever they were wearing.
If the Minister would say to me that if, instead of the amendment I have moved, I add after the words "describing that person" the words "to the best of his ability", then that is something with which he would be perfectly satisfied, and that in those circumstances he would be happy to see that there was no exception to some record being made, then I will know where I stand at Report stage and I will know perfectly well that the Government might be bringing forward their own amendment. But what he is doing is giving complete carte blanche to those who feel that it is not practicable to make a record. The poor man who has been searched has no right at all, and he will be told, "I am awfully sorry, but it was not practicable and there isn't a note at the police station, either". Apart from that, he will not even be told of his right. That cannot be correct.
If the Minister will go some way towards me by saying that the Government will think about an amendment that will enable some record to be made, then I shall immediately ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment. But I ask him to try to help me.
Lord Elton: I can only half-help the noble Lord. He wanted to know where he would be at Report. I can tell him where he is at Committee. He is at Committee very nearly where I said he was when I last intervened, in that it seems to me that the Bill places a specific duty to produce a specific document containing specific information upon policemen in specific circumstances. It is not credible that there will not be occasions when those requirements cannot be met, but that is what the noble Lord is seeking to avoid. He is seeking to say that they must always be met. If he wishes to say that it should be possible to meet them in part, then I think that is something to which he should give his mind between now and Report stage.
He has opened up so many possibilities in my mind that I am not going to undertake that any of them will come to fruition with an amendment, because I can see more difficulties than are now apparent to him in listing in a block reference 170 different people some of whom were carrying bicycle chains, some of whom were carrying steel ballbearings, some of whom were not carrying anything offensive. The numbers will be great and the effort of recollection will be great also. I am not saying that it is impossible. I am saying that it seems fraught with difficulty, and I wish the noble Lord luck in his search between now and Report stage.
Lord Mishcon: It is obviously a matter which ought to be looked at on both sides, and not hurried. The noble Lord the Minister has been very courteous especially in his last remarks, and I would therefore ask him whether he would kindly agree to consider. I promise that I will. I think that, with the help which he has and which I do not have, he may get over more difficulties than I can and we shall then arrive at a proper solution to this problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 21, at end insert?—
("( ) stating the grounds for making the search;")
The noble Lord said: I can move this amendment very briefly in these terms. Clause 2(6) of the Bill states:
"On completing a search of an unattended vehicle or anything in or on such a vehicle in the exercise of any such power as is mentioned in subsection (2) above"—
that is the general power for searching an unattended vehicle—
"a constable shall leave a notice—
(a) stating that he has searched it".
The effect of this amendment would be to add to the duties of that officer also to state the grounds for making such a search.
The Committee is already well aware that there is a duty upon an officer to make as contemporaneous a note as he possibly can in relation to the search of a person or a vehicle, setting out the matter which are required to be documented under Clause 3(6)(a). Therefore this does not add to the general obligations of that officer. It seems to me, and to those who sit on these Benches, that the additional safeguard of writing down the reasons for the search merely mean that it
840
will not be open to the officer later if, with the benefit of hindsight, he comes to a conclusion, with some justification, which did not appear to him to be present at the material time to add it by way of good measure. I hope that the broad common sense and justification for this amendment will be recognised by the Minister and that, with the same grace as he displayed in relation to an earlier amendment which I moved, he will be able, with great magnanimity, to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Gifford: I wonder whether it would be convenient for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 at the same time as we discuss the amendment moved by my noble friend. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 serve merely to insert two further requirements into the same duty to leave a notice behind when an unattended vehicle has been searched.
Amendment No. 11: Page 4, line 21, at end insert?—
("( ) stating what articles, if any, have been seized from it;").
Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) stating the effect of section 3(8) below").
I was very worried by the provision which allows an unattended vehicle to be searched. At one point I considered whether it was necessary at all. It seemed to me that the stop and search powers were required where there are people about and that there should not be a licence for the police to go to parked vehicles and, without waiting for their owners to return, to search them if they think there is something inside. I was persuaded that there is value in having this power, but there must be concern as to how it will be exercised.
If somebody is foolish enough to leave a bag in the back of their car (which is unwise) a zealous police officer may well believe that it contains something which has been improperly obtained, or which is offensive, or which is stolen, and he will want to search it. Subsection (6) deals with the only information which the owner of the vehicle will have when he or she returns to the car. They will learn that the vehicle has been searched, which may come as rather a shock; they will learn the name of the police station to which the police officer is attached; and they will be told that an application for compensation for any damage caused may be made. That is something of a wild goose chase. If the search had been properly conducted under powers given by law, no compensation would be awarded under the law. Therefore I am not sure whether that is helpful. What is left out of the notice is a great deal of information which would be much more valuable: first, that which my noble friend has spoken to, which I support; and secondly—and perhaps more obviously—the provision in Amendment No. 11 that the owner of the vehicle should be told whether anything has been taken from it. The vehicle may contain a great number of goods. If something has been taken, this fact should be notified to the owner of the vehicle who is not there.
Finally, there should be consistency between the search of an unattended vehicle and the search of a person. The right to obtain a record should be notified in writing. Normally it would be notified orally under the other duties contained in the Bill. The object of Amendment No. 12 is to require that the notice left will mention the effect of Clause 3(8) which is the power to receive a copy of the record. I commend to

841
the Committee both of these extra provisions in the notice. It is the only notice that the owner of an unattended vehicle will ever have.
Lord Elton: I am grateful first to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for bringing to our attention the fact that the owner of an unattended vehicle which has been searched will not immediately know, on his return to the vehicle, why it has been searched. We agree that it is only reasonable that he should be entitled to information. We therefore agree with the spirit of his amendment; but we could usefully take matters one step further, as has been proposed in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. When a search takes place even of an unattended vehicle a record will have to be made, as required by Clause 3(1). That record must include a number of things, including the grounds for undertaking the search and a note of whether anything was found; and, if so, what.
It therefore occurs to me that the simplest way to meet the point identified in all three amendments would be to include in Clause 2(6) a requirement that the written notice to be left in or on an unattended vehicle should state, in addition to the matters contained in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (6), that the owner or person in charge of the vehicle is entitled to a copy of the record of the search if he applies at the police station named in the notice. Not only will this ensure that the owner can obtain the grounds for search and a note of what was found; he will also obtain the assessment by the police of any damage caused, as this, too, must be included in the record under Clause 3(6). This may assist him in any application for compensation. An amendment on the lines of the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, would dispense with the need to duplicate this information in the written notice itself. I gladly undertake to bring such an amendment forward at Report. I am only sorry that I was unable just to say that I agree and then to sit down. I always want to do so, but never seem to have the opportunity.
Earl Fortescue: Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he could explain one point to me. In view of Amendment No. 1, will a plain clothes police officer be in a position to search an unattended vehicle? It seems that a dangerous situation will arise if an officer in plain clothes is allowed to carry out such a search.
Lord Elton: I ought to have the Bill at my fingertips. The answer is probably no, whether the noble Earl likes it or not.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As I understood the noble Lord the Minister he is accepting the substance of what is proposed, both by the noble Lord on the Front Bench and by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford; but he is saying that the information will be available at the police station. As a notice has to be left in the vehicle, I should have thought there is much to be said at least for stating the grounds and certainly for stating in the notice left in the vehicle what articles have been removed. Would the noble Lord consider that point?
Lord Elton: I shall of course always happily consider anything which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggests. It seems to me there is a distinction between the first and the second pieces of information, and that the owner of a car might be happier about the first rather than the second piece of information being displayed to the passing public. However, I shall read the record of the debate before I come back to your Lordships.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The noble Lord the Minister has come a very long way and shown his usual goodwill in relation to these matters. While I accept completely the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and feel that those arguments are irrefutable, I very much welcome the general attitude of the Minister. On further reflection, he may well come to the conclusion that the noble and learned Lord is right in his logic and that the point should be conceded. For those reasons, I am very content to have the matter withdrawn, if the Committee so pleases.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Lord Plant Lord Plant moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 40, after ("gloves") insert ("or any hat or other form of headgear or headcovering, except one customarily worn for a religious purpose")
The noble Lord said: Subection (9)(a) appears to empower a constable to ask a person being searched to remove his outer coat, jacket or gloves. Many articles such as drugs or weapons are commonly carried by certain types of criminals in their headgear, or are concealed beneath their headgear. That this is not included is a glaring omission. I cannot see from any common-sense point of view that to ask a person to remove his headgear for a search could be regarded as provocative or degrading when the power to remove his jacket is included. This is patently inconsistent. It is surely useful to insert between the words "gloves" and "or" the words,
"or any hat or other form of headgear or headcovering, except one customarily worn for a religious purpose".
This would then remove any objections to this power on religious or ethnic grounds.
The Police Federation has highlighted repeatedly the dangers of the current massive problem of drug abuse and the recent trend among drug abusers towards hard drugs. The detection of traffickers in hard drugs is already difficult because of the physical size of the drugs by comparison with their street value. A hat could conceal hard drugs worth many thousands of pounds at street value, and yet a constable is not empowered by this Bill to make a person remove his hat—only his jacket or his gloves. Will this apply also when one is walking through the red channel or the green channel at customs?
The policeman pounding the pavements put the people of this country on notice that they cannot prevent the spread of hard drugs without the tools to do the job. One of the tools would be for your Lordships to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I find it somewhat difficult to follow entirely the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Plant. Certainly is so far as he speaks of the officer being inhibited in making a search for drugs, I believe he is misconceived because the officer already has those powers under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. As I understand it, anything that is done by this Bill will not change that situation at all.
The matter that most concerns us on these Benches is whether it ever was really necessary for the police to be given powers to request people to remove any parts of their clothing. I bear in mind very much what the Royal Commission, having thought very deeply about this matter. have to say in Chapter 3, paragraph 27, of their report. They say:
"We consider that searches on the street should be limited to fairly superficial examination of a person's clothing and baggage. It seems to us improper for anything very thorough to occur in a public place. We understand that in some forces it is the practice to offer to conduct even a superficial search at the police station if the person who is to be searched would prefer it (there is obviously some embarrassment involved in being searched in public). That might become a general practice".
We must never lose sight of the fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of persons searched will be totally innocent. They will not only be utterly innocent of any offence of carrying stolen goods or an offensive weapon, or anything else for which a police officer would have the power to stop and search under any legislative provision now in force, but they will not have been in any way, to use a hackneyed term, the architects of their own misfortune in being asked to stop and be searched. They will not have done anything to invite such attention by a police officer.
We wonder whether it was ever necessary to give the police power to do more than conduct a cursory search. But if the case is that there has to be a detailed search, where is the logic of confining it in the way that the Bill does? The Bill refers to
"an outer coat, jacket or gloves".
It does not allow a police officer to look into a person's boots. If one is searching for stolen property surely that is one of the most obvious places to look. If it be the case that there has to be a detailed search, then there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Plant, has said about the search including headgear—subject of course to the very proper exception of the religious groups to which his amendment refers.
The Question I raise is whether it was ever necessary to deal with the matter in this way; whether it was envisaged by the Royal Commission; and whether the power of stop and search can be exercised without prejudicing to too great an extent good relations between the police and the public on the basis of a much more cursory search than appears to be envisaged by this particular provision of Clause 1 subsections (2) and (9) of the Bill.
For that reason, we do not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Plant; indeed, not only is the amendment unnecessary but we believe that the provision itself should be thought about again, particularly in the light of the Royal Commission's recommendations.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Subsection (9)(a) uses the phraseology:"
844
"authorising a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves".
Is the implication that if the person who is stopped and searched is taken away from the public street and into a van, for instance, then a complete search will be permitted? Perhaps it will be a strip search—one does not know. What is the significance of the words "in public"? Is the suspect to be taken behind a hedge and then be allowed to be searched? If so, it seems that we are again in the area of harassment, and I would have thought that those words were not very apt.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may comment on what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan Morgan. I have not seen a search of the kind to which the noble Lord has referred occur very frequently in public. On the other hand, if any of us suddenly found ourselves in charge of one or more men who had been arrested, I believe we would be very anxious to see that they did not have any weapons in their pockets before there was any damage done to us. That kind of thing can easily happen if a search is not sufficiently effectively carried through.
Further, if a person is arrested and it is suspected that he is a drug addict, the constable will be anxious to see that the suspect does not drop everything that he might have in the way of drugs before he arrives at the police station. Surely we must not discourage the police constable from carrying through a search as early as possible if the constable believes that he or any of his colleagues is likely to be put at hazard.
Lord Elton: The Bill does not allow headgear to be removed in public because of genuine religious sensibilities. The power to stop and search has to be carefully circumscribed and carefully exercised to avoid resentment and harm to community relations. Here, I could well be standing on the other side of the Committee as I say this: I do not believe that it is desirable to allow the possibility of officers being empowered to remove in public, and by force if necessary, a turban, for example. worn by somebody who may or who equally may not—
Lord Plant: The amendment makes it quite clear that headgear for religious purposes would not be involved.
Lord Elton: I was coming to that. As I say, how is the constable to know whether the person he is talking to and whose headgear he wishes to remove is or is not a practising Sikh, because they look very much the same whether or not they are practising?
Lord Plant: This amendment is specific and clear. Obviously no policeman would ask a Sikh with a turban on to remove that turban. He would not ask, "Are you a practising Sikh?" He would not ask a Sikh with a turban on, or a Jew with a little hat on—he could not hide much under that—to remove it. I think that the noble Lord is just playing with words.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Elton: I do not wish to irritate the noble Lord. I hope that he will not think that I am being difficult with him. But how does the constable know that the

845
gentleman is a Sikh and not just somebody who looks like a Sikh? Is the noble Lord saying that no turban may be worn by anybody? The point is that his amendment places upon the constable the responsibility of deciding whether what he is looking at is a hat for keeping off the rain or a hat for other purposes, whether it be a turban or a hat worn by some other religious order.
I realise that the noble Lord has taken care to qualify his amendment by excluding hats, and so on, customarily worn for religious purposes, but the effect of the qualification is to make the police constable the arbiter in a public place of whether the article of dress that he wishes the person to remove is such a hat, turban or yashmak. How is a police officer who detains a person in the street for the purposes of a search supposed to know whether that person customarily wears that article for a religious or a secular purpose; or is it simply to be that if anybody holds onto his hat and says, "No, I am wearing that out of religious principle", the constable has to desist—in which case there is an obvious way in which every criminal can evade the necessity of removing his headgear?
It may well be the case that stolen or prohibited articles may be concealed under hats, and that, the bigger and woollier the hat, the greater the scope for concealment. But if an officer needs to search under a hat which a person is not willing to remove—and of course there is nothing to stop the person from voluntarily taking off his turban or whatever the other piece of headgear may be, if he wishes to—then he will still be able to do so, provided that the search does not take place in public view, and that is in order to avoid embarrassment. It think that I can say the same about boots and other articles of more personal attire as well.
I believe that the amendment would increase the risk of conflict between the police and the ethnic minorities. I think that, on reflection, the noble Lord will find that it would make the task of the police more difficult to perform.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My I just ask the noble Lord one question? I think that it was indeed put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Plant. It is this. What are the powers of the Customs and Excise in this matter? I think I am right in saying that this matter was put to him. I should like to know what the answer is.
Lord Wigoder: While the noble Lord the Minister is waiting for assistance to arrive on that difficult matter, may I ask him what is meant by the words, "in public", In line 39? On one occasion in the course of his reply he used the expression, "in a public place", and on another the expression, "in public view". I should be grateful for clarification. They seem to me to be totally different matters. What is meant by the words, "in public"? Is it a public place, or does it mean somewhere which is not a public place but where other members of the public are present or somewhere where other members of the public might be expected to be present?
Lord Renton: I must apologise to the Committee for not having been here at the start of this discussion, but I am very familiar with the issues which arise. I wish to pick up one point made just now by my noble friend
846
Lord Elton, when he said that he could not imagine—or words to that effect—that a police officer could tell whether headgear was worn for religious purposes. I should have thought that that is something which could be the subject of simple instruction or information to the police. I think that most of your Lordships are conscious of the fact that turbans are sometimes worn for religious purposes, and then there are those very small skull-caps which strict Jews wear and some other hats which they wear. There is nothing to prevent the Home Office from issuing an information circular to the police in order that the are made au fait with that. Once that difficulty is overcome—if it is a difficulty; I do not see it as such—I should have thought that there was a great deal to commend the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Plant.
Lord Monson: Does the noble Lord, Lord Elton, not agree that a religious Sikh is under no obligation never to remove his turban? The only obligation imposed upon him is never to cut his hair, which is a rather different matter.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has aptly shown what a difficult subject we have embarked upon; and my noble friend Lord Renton aptly said that everybody knew that turbans were sometimes worn for religious purposes. What I am trying to avoid is putting the unfortunate constable in the position of having to decide whether this is one of the times when a turban is worn for religious purposes.
If I may remind your Lordships, the background to all these discussions is how the police can get on with their job with the least friction with the public. This clause is drafted so as to prevent the police causing the sort of embarrassment or hassle that people would feel if they were obliged to do things in public which they thought were undignified or contrary to their religious belief.
I do not have for the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, a definition of the term, "in public". The phrase, if I used a different one—even a marginally different from that in the Bill—was the wrong phrase. The term in the Bill is, "in public", and I understand that that is a term understood by the courts, and that is what matters. I think that most of your Lordships have an idea of what it means, too. Whether it means, not in the middle of an empty football ground at midnight, I do not know, but basically "in public" is different from in private.
The police have a power to take the person—voluntarily, if he wishes—to any place that is not public so that he can divest himself of his hat in less embarrassing circumstances, if he wishes, and, even under Clause 110, to use such force as is necessary to do so in a difficult case. That is a matter of the last resort, because the purpose of the clause is to reduce, and not to increase, friction.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sorry, but I did ask the noble Lord a question about the Customs and Excise.
Lord Elton: I understand that the Customs and Excise is not affected by this clause.
Lord Gifford: I very much want to support what the noble Lord the Minister said about the approach of the Government on this clause, although to enter one caveat. There are other examples which come to mind. He mentioned the yashmak, which is a very interesting example. Many women wear a yashmak, a veil or a scarf, sometimes for religious reasons and sometimes for reasons which are part social and part religious. Many West Indians wear a large woolly hat out of adherence to Rastafarian beliefs. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, would not be able to tell the difference between someone who was wearing a red, green and yellow hat (for those are the colours) for those reasons and one who just liked the colours. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be supported and the noble Lord, Lord Plant, will not press the amendment.
However, one matter of concern has been raised—and it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson—which was not, I feel, adequately answered by the Minister, and that is this question of, "in public". The lawyers know very well what a public place is. A public place is any street or any other place to which the public have access. If what the Minister is indicating is that one can go out of public view into a side street and then do all the things like searching boots and hats which are not otherwise permitted, that gives me great disquiet.
It seems to me that that is exactly what will happen. What we need is a clear definition of what can be done under the powers of stop and search and what has to be done under the power of arrest. The best place for hats and other more intimate articles of clothing to be taken off and searched is the police station, and one would have to go the whole hog and arrest. We may have to come back on Report to the question of, "a public place", or. "in public".
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I can see I am batting on a difficult wicket. I think my final words should be these: that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that it would lessen friction with the public if a person was allowed to keep on his hat when the constable had made him remove his jacket and his gloves. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Duty to make records concerning searches]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I am in an awkward situation. I understand that the next amendment is going to be a very long amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: No.
7.20 p.m.
Clause 109: [Meaning of "serious arrestable offence"]:
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved amendments No. 16:
Page 95, line 36, leave out from ("the") to end of line 38 and insert ("course of justice").
The noble and learned Lord said: Unless any of my noble friends or noble Lords have some abstruce point to make, I would have thought this was a short point, more by way of seeking information than of great substance. The amendment arises in the definition of "serious arrestable offence" in Clause 109. The proof of "serious arrestable offence" is of course fundamental to a great deal of the exercise of powers in the Bill. What we are concerned with is first of all 109(4):
"An arrestable offence which consists of making a threat is serious if carrying out the threat would be likely to lead to any of the consequences specified in subsection (6) below".
The Committee will see that among the consequences listed in subsection (6) are:
"(b) serious interference with the administration of justice or with the investigation of offenders or of a particular offence".
What the amendment proposes is an attempt to simplify what is already a highly complex clause by simply reducing (b) to read:
"a serious interference with the course of justice",
and leaving the rest out. It may be that there is something in relation to the administration of justice which the noble Lord has in mind covering the whole gamut from the Lord Chancellor's office and the department down, but I would have thought that "the course of justice" would take in:
"the investigation of offences or of a particular offence",
and I would venture to think is more apt for what is sought to be arrived at; namely, to state quite clearly that serious interference with the course of justice is a serious criminal offence and ought to be covered by the arrangements for inclusion in the serious arrestable offence category. I do not think that I need add anything further to it.
If there is any special reason why there is a reference to "administration of justice", as such, it will be interesting to hear what it is. However, I see the alert eye of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is something of an expert in this field and maybe he can discover something which at the moment escapes me. However, I should have thought "course of justice" would be a convenient, brief statement to take the place of many longer words.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I have to advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call amendments Nos. 17, 18 or 19.
Lord Renton: Of course, anything which simplifies drafting in the presentation of a Bill is to be welcomed. I would have thought that the expression "the course of justice" is virtually synonymous with the administration of justice. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, also wishes to leave out, as I understand it from his amendment,
"the investigation of offences or of a particular offence".

849
It comes as something new to me that the investigation of an offence, which takes place before the judicial process ever begins, is part of the course of justice. Indeed, the investigation of the offence may not even lead to judicial proceedings. Therefore, sad though I find it not to support the noble and learned Lord, I do not think that his amendment does quite what he would wish.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: If I may interrupt briefly, the investigation of the offence—the initial steps taken—is of course a part of the course of justice. It begins with the initial investigation, from the stopping of the suspect right through to the end of the proceedings, which may be the termination of proceedings in the Court of Appeal. It covers the whole range. I should have thought it was more apt—and this is only a matter for probing—than the use of the phrase "administration of justice", which I agree certainly does not embrace the concept that follows, namely, investigation of offences. It is something quite separate from that, but I should have thought "course of justice" would cover the lot. Let us simplify if we can.
Lord Elton: I had expected the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to intervene but he is reserving his fire. I understood from the usual channels that he was speaking on this group. The noble and learned Lord's amendments strike at paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of Clause 109. The Committee will recall that subsection (2) of the clause determines, with subsection (5), the offences that are always to be serious arrestable offences. Subsection (3) of the clause provides that other arrestable offences are only serious if they cause or are meant or likely to cause any one of certain results. Subsection (4) further provides that if the arrestable offence consists of making a threat, then if the carrying out of that threat would be likely to have any of the same results, that also would be a serious arrestable offence.
The results, the cause or threat of which serve to elevate a merely arrestable into a serious arrestable offence, are listed in subsection (6), and it is at the second of these that the noble and learned Lord's amendments and indeed those of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, strike.
Subsection (b), which contains the results to which the noble Lords have taken objection, at present reads:
"serious interference with the administration of justice or with the investigation of offences or of a particular oflence".
The noble and learned Lord's first amendment would change the description of what it is that the offence must interfere with in order to become a serious arrestable offence, from
"the administration of justice or with the investigation of offences or of a particular offence"
to "the course of justice"tout court.He will forgive me for taking so long to reach that obvious point, but I think we are now agreed about what we are addressing.
The amendment has a certain charm and seems to carry, in fewer words, the same message that is now in the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am always tremulously eager to accept that sort of amendment. But the sad fact is that there is no real
850
certainty as to what the words mean. In literature and conversation, I suppose "the course of justice" means everything that happens following the commission of a crime to the receipt of his due deserts by the criminal. But case law gives us only some help. In Rex or Regina—I am not sure which, because I am uncertain of the date—v.Salvadge and Morgan, the court held that there could be no perversion of the course of justice unless a course of justice had been embarked upon in the sense that proceedings of some kind were in being or were contemplated. Even with that guidance, we do not know at what stage exactly interference would begin.
If a criminal abstracts evidence from a file after the Fraud Squad have decided that a prosecution is likely or desirable, that plainly is during the course of justice and would be caught. But suppose that he does it before they have so decided. When exactly does the justice begin to run its course? We do not know. Nor do we know precisely when it ends. Is it on conviction, on sentence, on payment of fine, on release, on parole, on completion of sentence? We do not know.
I have other observations that I could make which might make it even clearer why I am opposed to the amendment. I wonder, however, whether I have said sufficient to make the noble and learned Lord realise that even in this respect his amendment is very sadly not satisfactory.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I shall not press the amendment further now. Perhaps those advising the Government on the drafting will have a look at it. The phrase "the course of justice" is a well known, ancient expression, covering precisely what I have indicated. Perhaps it can be looked at again.
Lord Elton: Of course I shall look at it. I am grateful for the explanation of the noble and learned Lord. We shall look at it very carefully.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that the usual channels have agreed that we shall not return to the Committee stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill until the Trade Union Bill has completed its Committee stage. Proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will therefore be adjourned en principe until 8.30 p.m., but it may be that it will be a little later.

Trade Union Bill
7.32 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: 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.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 15 [Political objects]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 18, line 23, at end insert ("and in determining for the purposes of subsection (3)(e) and (f) above whether a trade union has incurred expenditure of a kind mentioned in those paragraphs of that subsection, no account shall be taken of expenditure of which the main purpose is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of section 1(2) of the 1913 Act").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' leave, I shall speak, also to Amendment No. 115, which is consequential.
Amendment No. 115: Page 19, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment takes up the issue with which your Lordships were concerned yesterday; namely, the new definition of political objects in Clause 15. The amendment puts in something that was in the old definition but not in the new definition. It is therefore very central to the Government's claim that the new definition merely updates and clarifies the old one. It concerns a proviso in the 1913 Act which related to political literature and political meetings. The old Section 3(3) stated that the political fund must be used to pay for expenditure,
"on the holding of political meetings of any kind, or on the distribution of political literature or political documents of any kind, unless the main purpose of the meetings or of the distribution of the literature or documents is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of this Act".
The statutory objects were defined in Section 1(2) as being,
"the regulation of the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business, and also the provision of benefits to members".
Although the language is somewhat ancient, the meaning is clear; namely, industrial matters in which trade unions and employers would be concerned.
The book to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred earlier in our discussions in Committee,Citrine on Trade Union Law, had this to say about this most imporant provisio; namely, the proviso that the distribution of literature and the holding of meetings which had as their main purpose the furtherance of those statutory industrial objects could come out of the general fund. Citrine wrote on page 440:
"This proviso was intended to cover a situation in which political and industrial activities or purposes overlap".
I pause to say that that will normally be the real situation. Citrine goes on:
852
"If the main purpose is statutory it is excluded from this paragraph even if it happens to be taken up by a political party as part of its programme".
A little later, he says:
"If the object is purely political without any admixture of statutory objects it falls within this paragraph. If the object is both political and statutory, the test is whether the main object is statutory".
That is really the nub of the matter. Where the purposes are mixed, the old definition included the extremely sensible provision that the court had to test it by way of the main purpose, and if the main purpose was industrial, then the admixture of an element of party political matter did not require that the trade union pay for the whole of this matter out of its political fund.
The case of McCarroll v.National Union of Mineworkers, Scottish Area, decided in the Scottish courts in 1965, is an excellent illustration and somewhat topical. In that case, the Scottish area of the union had organised members in a lobby of Parliament. They interviewed Members of Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Fuel to protest about threatened pit closures. It was alleged later that the expenditure should have come from the policitcal fund. Lord Kilbrandon, in the Court of Session, dismissing the action, said:
"It is plain as can be that although an expedition to London to lobby MPs and Ministers can be described in one breath as having a political objective, at the same time it is clearly an industrial objective in the context in which the lobby took place. In one sense any dispute between employer and employee in a nationalised industry takes on the complexion of a political dispute since the employer is in some sense the State, which is a political body. Nevertheless I have no doubt whatever that the mainspring of the lobby was the fear that miners were in danger of losing their employment in consequence of an industrial policy of closing pits, and it is against this policy that the demonstrations were being mounted. This, in my view, is fundamentally an industrial demonstration".
Therefore, they could pay for it from the general fund.
One thing that the Government cannot say is that the proviso has a place in their new definition. Indeed, it goes further. Not only does the proviso have no place in the new definition, but the way in which the definition clause is now structured means that even if the main purpose of, say, leaflets (let us take leaflets in paragraph (f), although this matter relates both to new paragraph (e) and new paragraph (f)) is industrial, nevertheless if they include an admixture that is other than something that can be dismissed as de minimis, if they include a substantial but minor element of what falls within the definition of political—my noble friend Lord Underhill spoke about this on previous amendments—then that now has to come from the political fund. There is no discretion for the court; the court cannot weigh up the amount that is industrial and the amount that is political.
If one thinks of some of the examples discussed in another place to which the Government's response was almost negligible, one realises the seriousness of the situation. The example was taken of a Civil Service union that placed an advertisement in the paper to allege that the Government were going back on agreements and pursuing an unfair policy overall. Civil Service unions do not have political funds. No doubt that would be said to be in a great degree an

853
industrial advertisement. But can anyone doubt that a court could say, quite properly, that to some extent it was likely to persuade people to vote or not to vote for the political party in office? If it does that, it is within the new definition.
Similarly, the example was taken that if there were a Government proposal to privatise work in a Royal Ordnance factory in a particular town, the town council could spend its money to explain and to express views on the proposal; the local chamber of commerce could do so; local bodies of all kinds could do so. But the trade union, because this would clearly immediately involve it in something that might be said to be likely to persuade people not to vote for the party with this policy, would have to use its political fund.
That is a major change in the definition. This amendment asks one thing only of the Government; it asks them to keep to their word not to make a major change in the definition, to restore the proviso, which means restoring the statutory objects which are the subject of Amendment No. 115. It is the very fact that the Government have seen fit, in subsection (3) of the clause, to delete the statutory objects which proves the case that a major change is being made. We think that is unfair. It is the opposite of what the Government say they are doing, and, on that basis, I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: The Government believe that it is one of the benefits of the Bill's more easily understandable definition of political objects that the reference to statutory objects has been removed. In any event, as your Lordships know from last night's debates on Amendments Nos. 106 and 107, the new definition adopts an entirely fresh approach to meetings and communications, which avoids the need for a statutory object type of qualification.
Nevertheless, we have undertaken to look again at the two paragraphs of the definition which these amendments seek to qualify, and although I have to say that we are not very inclined towards the formula contained in the amendments, we shall certainly bear in mind the noble Lord's comments. I hope that on this basis—that I undertake to look at it again—the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very happy that we have made such a good start. I am sure that, as he says, the noble Earl will look carefully at it, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
7.42 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 18, leave out line 42.
The noble Lord said: This amendment bears a great similarity to some of the amendments that were moved last night and were the subject of debates. The effect of the Bill, if not amended, would be far-reaching, and this provision would make it more involved than anything we have discussed so far. We are in a situation where, if we do not look again at these clauses or amendments, unless one knows the
854
situation and the people involved it is almost like driving into a minefield without the benefit of having a flail tank in front of one.
This amendment is similar to Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108, to which the noble Earl has just referred. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Gray, gave an assurance that he would look at them again, bearing in mind the points raised in the debate. What does this clause mean when it refers to,
"any position within a political party"?
I do not know how far this would stretch out into the political sphere of my own party. As noble Lords are aware, the main political functions in this Palace of Westminster are carried out in another place at the end of the corridor. I believe that if we pass this clause without alteration we may very well be transgressing on some of the accepted procedures and practices that have gone on for years in another place. It is a very dangerous road to go down.
For instance, there can be an election by the Labour Opposition, as the main party, for the Leader of the Opposition. How does that fit into it? There can be a number of other votes in what can be deemed to be political meetings within this Palace, where the members of the Opposition Party elect the Opposition Chief Whip; where they elect the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip; where they elect the parliamentary committee which largely becomes the Shadow Cabinet, depending upon the choice of the official Leader of the Opposition.
If a member of my party wants to elect a leader, while he may nominate in this place, in order to cast his vote—he does not have a postal ballot—he has got to attend the Labour Party conference, where he cannot vote. How does that fit into the scheme of things? Nobody can tell us, but this is the sort of thing that can happen. There are also other elections which take place here and which are important to my party. What about the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Labour Party? That is another post that is balloted for by Members of Parliament. Where does this fit into the scheme of things?
How are Members of Parliament who are sponsored by trade unions covered by these clauses? The Bill, as drafted, does not say so clearly. There are a number of functions which, over the years, have been accepted by governments of various colours and minority parties of various colours. It may well be—I say, "may" because I am not legally qualified to pass a judgment—that, through taking part in those functions, which, with the probable exception of the election of the leader of the Labour Party and his deputy, go on annually—Members of another place could be ensnared by this Bill.
I do not want to delay the Committee any longer because we are on a pretty tight schedule. I hope the noble Lord will be able to respond in the spirit shown a few minutes ago by the noble Earl, and which he himself showed last night. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): This amendment seeks to modify the definition of political office in subsection (3)(c). That term has a bearing on a number of aspects of the

855
definition of political objects, not only in relation to the maintenance of office holders but also in relation to their candidature, including publicity designed to persuade people to vote for or against them in an election; and its effect would be to exclude positions within a political party from the scope of the definition.
We have been more than prepared to reconsider the new definition where it has been demonstrated to us that it goes too far. Amendments which were accepted in another place were designed to deal with concern where the definition had gone too far in relation to conferences and meetings, and we have agreed in your Lordships' Committee to give some further consideration to this aspect and also to re-examine the paragraph dealing with communications.
But in this instance we are not persuaded of the need to reconsider the aspect raised by this amendment. The Government readily accept that party office holders are not covered in the existing 1913 Act definition. No reasonable person can seriously suggest, however, that that is anything other than an anomaly. Why should a trade union be able to spend its members' general subscriptions on, for example, meetings in support of one of the candidates in a Labour Party leadership election? What is less party political about this than the election of candidates to Parliament or to local councils?
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord had to say on this, and while I found his argument last night one with which I had great sympathy—that is why I agreed to look again at the matter we were discussing—on this occasion I really cannot see that he has such a strong point. I hope that he may respond in the harmonious spirit which I offered last night, and perhaps withdraw this amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is the Minister saying that the political positions are related solely to another place as a legislative assembly? Are they related solely to that and not included in the provisions of this Bill? If that is the case, I will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: What I was suggesting to the noble Lord was that I did not really see why it should be necessary, or, indeed, why it would be right, for a union to use union funds for the purpose of furthering an election of that sort, and using those funds without necessarily having the full authority of its membership. That was what I suggested to the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I do not wish to delay your Lordships any longer. If the noble Minister is saying that the present procedures are accepted and that there will only be a violation of those if meetings are held specifically or funds are used specifically, for candidatures of those particular types of positions that I have highlighted in my amendment, I shall obviously beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My colleagues and I have given notice that we wish to oppose the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill. It would be quite spurious to refer to the amendments that have been debated as regards this clause because I want to debate the main thrust of the clause. While we would say that Part I and Part II of the Bill are motivated against the trade union movement, we think that this clause is a total attack upon the main Opposition Party. We do not see it as anything else, however it is presented.
So far as I am concerned, politics are about power or they are about nothing. We consider that this clause is the Government's declaration of war on their main political opponents. One could argue about the difficulty of people opting out of political affiliation, but there are thousands of people every year who opt out of paying political levies to trade unions. I understand that thousands have already done so. I also understand that the Conservative Party itself runs an annual campaign among trade unionsts in order to achieve that object. It is no good the Government saying that they have suddenly discovered something to which union members are being subjected and that union members may not be aware of their rights. They are aware of their rights and they take advantage of opting out when it suits them. I contend that this particular clause of the Bill is a dagger aimed at the heart of the party which the Government see as their main threat.
It is well known in any kind of warfare—and I consider that this is political warfare —that if you wish to defeat your enemy, you should destroy his logistical support because then he cannot even begin to fight the battle. I suspect and suggest that that is the main motive behind this particular clause.
The provisions of the Bill are tantamount to a future Labour Government saying to the Conservative Party, "We will not interfere with company donations to the Conservative Party so long as the cheque is accompanied by an individual affidavit signed by every shareholder of the party approving the donation". If the Government are saying that that is not the case, then perhaps whoever replies to this debate on clause stand part will prove it to be so. But I can say that the Government in steamrollering this particular provision through this House are doing themselves for the future no service whatever.
As the political pendulum swings, one day the people on the Government Benches or their successors will be sitting on this side of the House and I or my successor and my colleagues or their successors will be sitting on the other side of the House. The Government have set a very dangerous precedent indeed by what they have done. I can give them this undertaking. People like Sir Terence Beckett and Mr. Walter Goldsmith who donate huge sums of money through their companies to the Conservative Party without recourse to the shareholders of those companies, will be stopped from taking part in that type of exercise. We will make sure that the retribution or the punishment or the retardation that the Government are inflicting on trade unionsts in order to support the party that they actually spawned as an embryo years ago, will be visited on such people, and history will show that they are making an appalling mistake today.
The Earl of Gowrie: It really is rather difficult to understand the bloodcurdling threats of the noble Lord because he is not comparing like with like at all. As I understand it, there is no objection from a political party such as the Conservative Party—and I am well aware that I am not talking for the Conservative Party at this Box—that is opposed to state funding of political parties, that there should be donations to the Labour Party, any more than there is objection that there should be donations to the Conservative Party. The difference of view between the noble Lord and ourselves is a difference conditioned not by our party allegiances but by very large sociological changes in this society whereby trade union members are not necessarily any longer affiliated to the party which, in the noble Lord's words, they spawned. Things have changed. The fact of the matter is that at the last General Election a clear majority of trade unionists voted for parties which were not the Labour Party. This therefore is a misplaced criticism on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick.
The clause which we have been debating stemmed from a need identified in the Green Paper to bring the definition of "political objects" up to date in a number of respects. Particular omissions from the original 1913 Act definition to which the Green Paper drew attention related to elections to the European Parliament; to film and sound recordings; and to the preparation and production—as opposed to the distribution—of political literature.
However, when it came to updating the definition in these simple respects, it became apparent that the existing definition was less than satisfactory in a number of ways. This is hardly surprising in view of the comments of the noble and learned Lord the then Lord Chancellor who, when asked in 1913 whether everything necessary had been covered in the definition, replied that:
"one cannot be quite certain in a matter of this kind … every effort was made to sweep in the things to which objection is taken, and there has been a sort of general assent that rough justice has been done in the matter. That it is more than rough justice I will not pretend but as far as we can see the ground has been covered".
It was also clear that the existing definition had given rise to a number of misunderstandings and uncertainties over the years. Such is often the fate of rough justice. It is, moreover, full of anachronisms—not least its failure to recognise explicitly that most expenditure on "political objects" represents payments to political parties. Nowhere in the old definition are political parties mentioned, presumably in view of the fiction that political parties have no connection with the electoral process.
It therefore seemed to the Government that the opportunity should not be missed to bring forward a more up to date, readily understandable and recognisably relevant definition. I must re-emphasise however that—despite what noble Lords opposite have alleged—it was not our intention to tighten the constraints on trade unions. What the new definition does is simply to make much clearer what these constraints actually are. That the old definition did not make these clear is apparent from two notable examples—which I shall delay the Committee only
858
very briefly by giving—of expenditure on party political matters which trade unions have recently made from their general funds. That is the point at issue here. I repeat: from their general funds, not from their political funds.
The first example was the decision by a number of trade unions to incur expenditure on the Labour Party's Walworth Road Headquarters from their general funds. The sums concerned were hardly trifling. Altogether some £1·3 million was handed over. No doubt many of these unions made these payments from their general funds in the genuine belief that this was allowed by the existing definition of "political objects". Both the certification officer and the Employment Appeal Tribunal have however ruled that this expenditure did come within the existing definition of "political objects". We have taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to make clear in the new definition that payments of this kind are covered. To be precise the definition includes expenditure:
"on the provision of any service or property for use by or on behalf of any political party".
The second example of party political expenditure made from union general funds occurred during a campaign by NALGO last year in the run up to the general election. NALGO ran a campaign against expenditure cuts or, rather, to translate the phrase into its proper form, it ran a campaign against expenditure not rising as fast as NALGO would have liked. We are not necessarily suggesting that the provisions of the 1913 Act required this campaign as a whole to be financed from a political fund. But when it came to advertisements like those which appeared in national newspapers, which depicted, under the tragic word "farewell", prams, buses, wheelchairs and hospitals falling over a cliff; which went on to say:
"They've got welfare the wrong way round",
and:
"the Government says that we can't afford to spend more money on the Welfare State";
and which ended up by saying, alongside a box containing an "X",
"Put people first—if this gets your vote make sure you use it"—
when it comes to a particular advertisement like that, what objective person could doubt that, however effective or ineffective such an advertisement might be, it certainly belongs firmly within the realm of party politics?
However, NALGO did doubt this. Under the terms of the existing definition it felt able to go ahead and finance the advertisement—necessarily out of its general funds, as NALGO has been wholly unable to persuade its own members to set up a political fund. The lawfulness of this action has not been tested in the courts but, had it been, there is little doubt in our minds that the advertisement in question would have been held to be "political" under the present definition of "political objects". Therefore, noble Lords opposite should hardly be surprised that in the new definition we have felt it necessary to spell out that communications which seek to persuade people to vote for or against a political party must be paid for from political funds.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: May I interrupt the noble Earl?
The Earl of Gowrie: Perhaps I could just finish the point. I am saying this as a man who not only works for a Government formed under our system from a political party, but from the point of view of a citizen—albeit a disenfranchised one—very passionately of the view that there should not be state-funding of political parties. Therefore. I am very keen on political parties being funded by political funds.
Therefore, I would invite your Lordships to look behind the smokescreen which noble Lords opposite have tried to create. Are they really attempting to argue that it is right that trade unions should be able to finance contributions to the Labour Party's headquarters from their general funds; or that it is right that they should be able to finance advertisements urging people to vote against a political party from their general funds? If the principles established in the 1913 Act are to have any meaning at all, one has only to pose these questions to see that the answer must be, "of course not". And, if that is the answer, we would be failing in our duty if we did not take this opportunity to devise a definition which is clearer, as well as more up-to-date. On that basis, I would urge the Committee to support the proposition that this clause stands part of the Bill.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble Earl sits down, I do not wish to question him about the two particular cases which he cited, because he may well be right on the particular facts of those cases. But I want to ask him this. If the Government knew all along that, quite apart from updating—which they have always said right from the beginning was the purpose of the exercise of this sort of clause—there were all these anachronisms that required major changes, why did not they put those anachronisms in the Green Paper in the one and a half pages that they devoted to this matter? Why did not they consult on the matter? Why did not they, even in the subsequent typescript paper that put forward their positive proposals for legislation, put forward these anachronisms? Why have they kept them back until they have put the Bill through Parliament when the trade unions no longer have a chance to consult upon them?
Baroness Seear: If the noble Earl—
The Earl of Gowrie: Perhaps I could just deal with this point and then I shall willingly give way to the noble Baroness. As I said in opening my remarks, the clause which we have been debating stemmed from a need identified in the Green Paper to bring the definition of "political objects" up to date in a number of respects. I seem to remember that I was still in the department when this Green Paper was being designed, and consultations were constantly called for and very few came forward.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Not on anachronisms.
Baroness Seear: Surely the noble Earl is on rather dangerous ground in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was wrong in drawing attention to
860
company contributions. If a company, out of its funds, gives money to a political party, it is giving away its shareholders' money. Whatever justification is there for assuming that all those shareholders wish that money to go to the Conservative Party? Personally, speaking for a party which does not benefit either from a political levy or from company contributions, we should like the whole matter examined in a different way. But at least shareholders ought to have the same right to have some control over the way in which the company's money is handled as trade union members have over the way in which the political levy is handled.
The Earl of Gowrie: The Government simply do not accept collectively, and again I say that I do not accept personally, that the noble Baroness is comparing like with like. Companies do not control the lives of those who have shares in them.
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of Gowrie: This is a classic instance of why the closed shop is so venal.
Lord McCarthy: Will the noble Earl not admit that companies can sack people and not take on people? The employment relationship is a dependent relationship. To suggest that companies do not control people is nonsense.
The Earl of Gowrie: I was referring to their shareholders. Their shareholders are free beings who can buy or sell the shares at whim. Indeed, the Labour Party quite sensibly owns large numbers of shares in companies that make contributions to the Conservative Party. I cannot understand what the noble Lord is fussed about.
Baroness Seear: The noble Earl surely is not saying that because shareholders disapprove very strongly of their money being given to the Conservative Party, they should get rid of those shares? They have put their money into that company for the development of that company, of which promoting the Conservative Party is in no way a proper part.
The Earl of Gowrie: It is very seldom that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and I have such sharp disagreements, but, may I respectfully say to her on this issue that she is wholly wrong. The fact of the matter is, as I have said at this Dispatch Box this evening several times, that I make no objection whatever, either as an individual or as a Minister, to trade unions making contributions to the Labour Party or, indeed, to the party which the noble Baroness so ably leads. I am objecting to their doing so out of their general funds.
Lord Dean of Beswick: To be brief, there may be a difference on some of the points of argument between my own party and the Liberal Party, but at least there is some measure of agreement on the question of how the noble Earl interprets the way in which companies act. He has probably conveniently forgotten the large sums of money expended by the cement lobby, the building trades lobby and the sugar lobby in order to

861
influence people on how to vote. As I believe that the noble Earl is completely immovable on this subject—he thinks that he is holier than thou, totally right on the issue, and that what I and my party believe is wholly wrong—I wish to divide the Committee on the issue.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord moves on to that point, may I ask whether the noble Earl is suggesting that companies should set up a political fund which should be susceptible to the votes of shareholders—that seems to be the logic of his argument—and that unless and until that is done companies should not give money to political parties from their general funds? That seems to be the logic of his position.
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: A company is perfectly free to give money to the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the SDP or the Labour Party. Noble Lords who have been involved in this territory of political organisations, as many of us have, will be aware that companies give money to all of these parties. Indeed, the Labour Party has consistently had good contributions from companies until in recent years it went off its onion. As a result, the noble Lord and the Benches on which he sits have been the beneficiaries. That is why so many Members of a previous Government have joined them.
Leaving aside that point, we know that the issue where unions are concerned is quite different because the union can tick off with the employer contributions from its employees, and we have tried to meet the anxiety of the TUC and the Labour Party on this issue in the concession that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made. That amendment itself absolutely gives the lie to the idea that this is an attack on the financing of the Labour Party.
Lord Howie of Troon: I find the noble Earl's attitude this evening unusually sharp. In my experience of him he has been, if not benign, at least half reasonable. I find him very sharp tonight and I wonder why. Is it perhaps that he is embarrassed?
The Earl of Gowrie: No.
Lord Howie of Troon: If he will listen, he will find that he ought to be. We shall perhaps find out in a moment or two. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I had hoped that he was embarrassed. I am a little disappointed that he is not. He is arguing here strongly in favour of measures which have peculiar side-effects.
I have spoken for certain trade unions on several occasions during these debates and I shall not go on about that. What is important about them is—and this relates, I think, to Amendment No. 111 moved by my noble friends on the Front Bench—that these unions do not have political funds, nor do they want political funds. But under the changes proposed in this legislation they will be obliged to want political funds. That is to politicise these unions in a way which they do not want. That, if I may say so to the noble Earl, is a political mistake. I do not make the kind of threats
862
which my noble friend made, but it is a political mistake, and it is a serious mistake for the Government to make.
The Minister asks us to look behind the smoke screen, and I think we should do so. Behind the smoke screen, regardless of some of the individual points which he has made tonight, which are made in the legislation and with which I agree—there are individual reforms which I accept—the reality is different. It is not the sum of these individual reforms at all. Behind the smoke screen there is a unilateral attempt by a political party, which happens to be in power, to diminish the power of one at least of its opponents. That might be a proper way to use power if you think that power is its own justification. I do not happen to think that, and I do not think it in relation to my own party either. I do not think that power should be used in that way.
Had the Government come before us with a body of measures which were the result of wide-ranging independent inquiry by a commission, or committee, or something of that nature, the proposals put forward in this clause would have carried weight and might have carried some of us into the Lobby with the noble Earl. But he has not done that. The political party gained power at an election in which, as he rightly says, a majority of trade unionists voted for parties other than the Labour Party. However, it is quite likely that a majority of trade unionists voted for parties other than the Conservative Party as well. I do not actually know, but that is quite likely, and that is no argument at all of any significance. Behind the smoke screen we see a party utilising its power for party advantage, and that is shabby. Because it is shabby, this clause should be opposed.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am sorry to delay the Committee on this, but we again are not, in my judgment, making the proper comparisons. If the Committee were politically cynical it might say that the interests of the Conservative Party—and certainly many commentators have made this point—would be served by reinforcing the electoral rump of the Labour Party at the expense of that interesting new phenomenon on the political scene—the Alliance. The idea that it is in the interests of the Conservative Party to clobber the Labour Party's funding is grotesque.
As we know, political funding into the Labour Party comes through, as it were, a subscription method on union funds ticked off by employers. We are not proposing to change that, for the reasons I gave. That enormously helps the Labour Party, and I would hope that it would grow through political funding to help all parties, because there are many Tories, many SDP, and many Liberal members of trade unions. All we say is that these political purposes should not be funded out of the general funds.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: May I utter a cautionary word here? To bring companies into any kind of relationship with the trade unions in regard to contributions to party funds will not help matters in the least. It may give a feeling of superficial fairness, but I warn the Committee that if shareholders were required to vote money to political parties through company meetings, company donations would

863
increase enormously. It is because the companies do not get shareholders' approval, or need not get shareholders' approval, for their political donations that they are so modest. When once they get shareholders' approval they will become much bolder.
Experience in Europe was not that the union contributions to political parties were causing any trouble, because no trade union movement in Europe was affiliated to the Social Democratic Parties there as the unions are affiliated to the Labour Party here. No, it was company donations which were the trouble. It was company donations which had to be stopped from becoming too great in relation to all other funding of political parties, especially when tax concessions went along with them. That is why the changeover to state aid came about in order to cleanse the whole system. Our system needs cleansing, and one day it will have to be done. I hope the Labour Party is not going to talk about tit-for-tat with the Conservatives on doing something to the companies that the Conservatives do to Labour. There is a much bigger and better remedy waiting to be accomplished than that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I indicated when I started to speak on clause stand part that we were opposed to the clause standing part of the Bill. Therefore, we divide the House on this matter.
8.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 37.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Gowrie, E.

Allerton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Avon, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bauer, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beloff, L.

Hatherton, L.

Brookes, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Caithness, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Inglewood, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kilmany, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Chelmer, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Colwyn, L.

Long, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Crathorne, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Davidson, V.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Effingham, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Elles, B.

Elton, L.

Mersey, V.

Faithfull, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Mottistone, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mountevans, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Orkney, E.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Glanusk, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

864

Rochdale, V.

Tranmire, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Savile, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Ullswater, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Stamp, L.

Windlesham, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wise, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller. ]

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Barnett, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bowden, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brockway, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mar, C.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Rhodes, L.

Ennals, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 15 agreed to accordingly.
8.28 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 115A:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
"(Collection of union dues by employers.
.—(1) Where any person who is a member of a trade union which has a political fund has certified in writing to his emloyer that, or to the effect that, he—

(a) is exempt from the obligation to contribute to that fund; or

(b) has, in accordance with the 1913 Act, notified the union in writing of his objection to contributing to it;

the employer to whom the certificate was given shall ensure that no amount representing a contribution to the political fund of the union is deducted by him from emoluments payable to the member.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply—

(a) before the first day, following the giving of the certificate, on which it is reasonably practicable for the employer to comply with it; or

(b) after the certificate is withdrawn.

(3) Where an employer—

(a) refuses (otherwise than to the extent required by subsection (1) above) to deduct any union dues from emoluments payable to any person who has given a certificate to him under this section; but

(b) continues to deduct union dues from emoluments payable to other members of the union;

he shall be taken to have failed to comply with this section unless he satisfies the court that his refusal is not attributble to the giving of that certificate or otherwise connected with the duty imposed by subsection (1) above.
(4) Where, on an application made by a person who claims that his employer has failed to comply with this section in deducting or refusing to deduct any amount from emoluments payable to him, the court is satisfied that there has been such a failure it shall make a declaration to that effect.
(5) Where the court makes such a declaration it may, if it considers it appropriate to do so in order to secure that the failure is not repeated, make an order requiring the employer to take, within such time as may be specified in the order, such steps in relation to emoluments payable by him to the applicant as may be so specified.
(6)The court having jurisdiction for the purposes of this section shall be the county court or, in Scotland, the sheriff court.
(7)This section has effect (with the omission of subsection (5)) in relation to employment under or for the purposes of a government department or any officer or body exercising on behalf of the Crown any functions conferred by any enactment as it has effect in relation to other employment.").
The noble Lord said: We now come to a new clause which I believe should command the overwhelming support of your Lordships' Committee. We can forget recent minor altercations about money. This concerns the system whereby employers undertake to collect trade union subscriptions from their employees' pay packets on a trade union's behalf—the so-called check off system.
It is not my purpose—nor does it come within the scope of this Bill—to deal with the merits or otherwise of the check off system in general. But the operation of this system has proved to be the cause of difficulty and considerable concern to many trade unionists in the context of the political levy. This concern was reflected in amendments put forward by a number of honourable friends and honourable Members on the Alliance Benches during Report stage in another place.
The problems associated with the check off in the context of the political levy were of course in the Government's mind well before the debate on the amendments to which I have just referred. The Green Paper indeed referred directly to the cause of concern with which this new clause is intended to deal. Suffice it to say that when the matter was raised at Report stage in another place my right honourable friend was glad to give an undertaking to bring forward a provision to deal with the problem. It is that provision which is now before your Lordships' Committee.
The problem is quite simply that, even when he has contracted out, a trade union member whose subscriptions are collected through the check off can find that he is still paying the political levy and that he is unable to require his employer to stop the deduction of the political levy element from his pay cheque. Some employers are prepared to operate lower rates of deduction for contracted-out members voluntarily; but I regret to say that this is not always the case. Where the employer is not prepared to vary the level of his deduction, the member concerned is faced with the task of obtaining refunds from his trade union on a continuing basis.
I would quite understand if your Lordships were to find this question of refunds rather odd. I did myself. It is based on a provision in Section 6 of the 1913 Act. This provision is pretty obscure stuff, but what it boils down to is that, where the political levy is collected as part of the general union subscription, the trade union member should be relieved of paying it and, so far as possible, this should happen at the time the subscription is collected. But this was before the days of the employer check-off; and what it has since been interpreted to mean in that context is that, where the levy is collected as part of the general subscription by the employer, it is sufficient for the union to make a refund of the amount involved. This refund should normally be made in advance,but—according to a judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Reeves v. Transport and General Workers Union in 1980—where a refund in advance is for some
866
reason impossible, it may even be made after the political levy has been collected.
Many trade unionists find this need to obtain refunds of a levy which they are contracted out of paying quite unacceptable in principle, even if—as is supposed to happen—they receive the refunds in advance and without having to ask the trade union for them. What they find even more unacceptable is when they have to badger their trade union to provide refunds, when they do not receive them until months or years after the levy was collected, or—as sometimes happens—where they are required to attend a trade union office, or even a trade union branch meeting, to ask for their money back. The sums of money are not large. It is hardly surprising that some trade union members, when they are faced with such difficulties, simply decide not to bother. But just because some union members are prepared to put up with this situation, it does not mean that we should ignore the very genuine and entirely justified sense of grievance that many feel. It is just this sort of thing that has given contracting out a bad name.
I shall now quickly describe what is contained in the new clause. The key provision is subsection (1). This places a duty on an employer not to collect the political levy where an employee notifies him in writing that he is exempt from paying it or has notified his union of his wish to be exempt. Subsection (2) makes clear that the employer must comply as soon as is reasonably practicable. Subsection (3) makes clear that he will not be in compliance if he simply refuses to deduct any money at all from the member in question. Subsections (4) to (6) set out the remedies for failures to comply, and subsection (7) extends the provision to Crown employees, subject to the usual convention that enforceable orders of a court may not be made against the Crown. I commend the proposed new clause to the Committee.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Earl is starting as he began. His argument on this new clause is the same as all the arguments that he has used throughout the passage of this Bill. It is what I call the "exclusion principle". One simply says that trade unions are different. You do not have to say how they are different—they are different. You exclude them from all principles of similar treatment, equity, fairness and, now, even evidence. You do not have to have evidence if you want to do things to trade unions because they are different. They can be excluded from all evidence and all rationality. So, the noble Earl tells us that there is overwhelming support for the amendment. We are not given any evidence of that overwhelming support. His attitude is, "What I say three times is true".
The noble Earl tells us that a considerable number of trade unionists are concerned and that many find the present arrangements unacceptable. He tells us that people have badgered for months and for years and have had to go to their trade union branch meetings to get their money. He talks as though there are thousands and thousands and thousands of them all banging on the door of Transport House. No evidence is required because we are talking about trade unions. They have been excluded from the rules of evidence.

867
So we come to a detailed examination of what this is. It is suggested that a perfectly reasonable and, in an overwhelming number of cases, workable arrangement shall be changed. Why should it be changed? It is quite true that in another place the Secretary of State said that it was to be changed because of the considerable number of trade unionists who had been banging on his door. But more recently, in an exchange which he had with the TUC, as was widely reported in the Press, the Secretary of State gave somewhat different reasons. He said that he had to move in this direction because he was already under pressure to abolish the check-off altogether. He acknowledged the difficulties put to him by the TUC representatives in previous discussions on this matter, but the amendment he was proposing was the minimum he considered could be offered in response to considerable parliamentary pressure for much more far-reaching changes. Once again, this Bill ends as this Bill began.
We have had the Secretary of State in the other place and the noble Earl in this place justifying what they have done to their own Bill and what they have proposed during the course of their own Bill—none of which, of course, was envisaged in their own Green Paper—and justifying it by saying, "Look at the wild men behind us". But the noble Earl said, if I understand him—and I shall read Hansard with great care tomorrow to see if I do—that the Government do not plan to change the check-off and that they have no plans to do so. Perhaps he said they had no "present" plans; we shall see. Therefore, if there are no plans to change the check-off, I do not see why we need this provision.
Let us look at the problem which the noble Earl mentioned. Let us suppose that the block is the employer. Let us suppose that the problem is that the trade unionist who wants to stop paying the political levy cannot get the employer to give back the money. In the first place, of course, the trade unionist might be able to establish a case in a small claims court or, under Reeves v. Transport and General Workers Union, he can go to the union and obtain redress from the union if the employer refuses to cancel the checkoff and prays in aid the fact that he has an agreement with the union. If the block is the union, then, if you take into account not only Reeves v. Transport and General Workers Union but also Williams v. Butler, it is quite clear that the union is responsible if the union was informed.
The problem with the Williams v. Butler case is that there is no evidence that the complainant actually complained to the union. The problem was that he wanted to go to the employer without going to the union. Reasonably enough the court said, "If you have an understanding and an agreement with the union then the union is the one to cancel it". I say, therefore, that there is no substantial problem. I know of no significant numbers of cases where unions have refused to cancel check-off arrangements. Of course, it may be difficult to cancel them immediately. The certification officer says that in those circumstances the union must give the money back in advance. That is what the certification officer says and what the Employment Appeal Tribunal says. So the law is quite
868
clear. The number of cases where there are problems is extremely small.
Finally, of course, all this was gone through and is the reason why the TUC was so annoyed when the General Council saw the Secretary of State somewhat earlier in the day and discussed with him the general question of what to do about what the Government were thinking of doing about the political levy and the issue of contracting out. The TUC reached an agreement. At least, they thought they had reached an agreement. They thought that they reached an agreement with the Secretary of State that there would be no legislation dealing with contracting-in or contracting-out if the TUC agreed to issue a statement of guidance and circulate information sheets based upon that guidance. The Secretary of State said to the representatives of the TUC on that occasion that he would reserve his right to legislate if and when it appeared that the operation of the TUC statement of guidance was ineffective. Yet before the ink was dry, and before the passage of the Bill through the House, as a result of the madmen from behind, the Government bring in this amendment.
Lord Rochester: I cannot be expected to take responsibility for what may or may not have been agreed between the TUC and the Government; but I have to say that I support this amendment so far as it goes. My doubt is whether, if there is to be this basic change in the check off system, it goes quite far enough. As a matter of principle, why should not the levy be deducted from an employee's pay only if, as in the case of other deductions, the individual concerned has indicated positively that that is his wish? I hope that the Committee will not construe this as being an anti-trade union attitude on my part and that that has been sufficiently demonstrated by what I said on Part II of the Bill. It must also be apparent from the terms of Amendment No. 118 to which we shall soon be coming.
The fact is that my noble friends and I are opposed to all forms of corporate political funding; either by trade unions of the Labour Party or by business interests of the Conservative Party. But for so long as such arrangements continue they should in my view be based on considerations that are positive and voluntary and which enable the individual to disclose his political views to as small a number of people as is necessary in the circumstances. I shall not be pressing this point any further now. I simply wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to the principle involved here, for at a later stage I might wish to return to it.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—who could hardly be described as either mad or behind me—for the support that he has given me on this amendment. It seems to me extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, should defend the present state of the law. I must ask him why people should have to ask for refunds, and why should not contracting out mean what people think it means?
A number of examples were given in another place. There was the celebrated case of Mr. Cleminson who in 1977 discovered that he had being paying the political levy through the check off system without

869
receiving refunds for the previous 11 years. More recently there has been the quite extraordinary situation where 160 members of the National Association of Theatrical, Television and Kine Employees (all-important good men and women and true in my world of the arts) were unable to obtain refunds from their union up to three years after they had contracted out. I do not think the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about my antiunionism—which is far from being the case—should be allowed to conceal that this is the correction of a small but very irritating anomaly to quite a significant number of people.
8.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 115A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 34.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hatherton, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Allerton, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Attlee, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Auckland, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Avon, E.

Inglewood, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilmany, L.

Bauer, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bellwin, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birdwood, L.

Long, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookes, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Caithness, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mar, C.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mersey, V.

Cockfield, L.

Meston, L.

Colwyn, L.

Minto, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Crathorne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pender, L.

Effingham, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rochdale, V.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Fortescue, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Savile, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Simon, V.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Tranmire, L.

Gridley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Halsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hampton, L.

Vickers, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

870

Whaddon, L.

Wise, L.

Wigoder, L.

Young, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Barnett, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bowden, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brockway, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Collison, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ennals, L.

Stone, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gifford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 18 [Short Title, commencement and extent]:
8.53 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 20, line 2, after ("Part I") insert ("and Part II").
The noble Lord said: In my submission this is, if not the most important amendment that we have put down, one of the most important; and I would argue that it is one of the most reasonable because the Government have given us the case—at least they have given us the case so far as Part I of the Bill is concerned and also to some extent so far as Part III is concerned. Yet they have not given us the case so far as Part II is concerned; and to give us the case is what we ask for in this amendment. I want to take with Amendment No. 116, Amendment No. 117, which is essential for its effect.
Amendment No. 117: Page 20, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
The object of the amendment is to change the position whereby Part II—that is to say, that part of the Bill which deals with the strike ballot—comes into effect in the same way as Part I. Part I, as the Bill is now printed,
"shall come into effect on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint".
We suggest that should be the case for Part II of the Bill. The Government do not explain, and in another place have never explained, why they make a distinction in this respect between Part I and Part II. They have said, and indeed we can see in many of the arguments in the Green Paper, why a discretion has been given to the Secretary of State so far as Part I is concerned. It is normally accepted—and, as I say, this is there in the Green Paper—that Part I of the Bill will only work, and can only be expected to work, if time is given for trade unions to change their rule books.
The Government are often telling us that there is nothing in Part I of the Bill which does not exist already in some unions. We challenge that, but certainly there is no one union which does everything that is required in Part I of the Bill. Therefore, the Government presumably accept that the unions must

871
be given time for rule book changes. They must be given time to use their constitutional machinery. Whether they have biannual delegate conferences or special rules revision conferences, however they set out it, their executive has to compose (and they will be complicated rules) new rules to bring into effect a system of direct elections under Part I of the Bill. Then the decision-making body of the union has to accept or reject them.
I hope it is the case that one of the reasons why the Government have said from time to time that several years may elapse before all unions will be expected to come into line on Part I of the Bill, is that they realise that it may be the case that a general secretary, an executive of a union, could quite honestly and sincerely use best endeavours to persuade the rule revision conference to take a particular point of view, and the rule revision conference could throw them out. Then the Government, I would have thought, would be reasonable enough to allow that union to call another conference and try again—at least maybe once again—before they brought the Act into effect in general terms, so far as they are concerned.
In all these ways the Government, in talking to the TUC and in their statements in another place, have been quite reasonable from the time point of view in terms of what they have expected to happen in relation to Part I of the Bill. And yet the Bill says:
"Part II shall come into force on the expiry of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed".
In other words, if this Act were to come out of Parliament some time in July, August or September, before the end of the year, all trade unions in this country would be bound by Part II of the Bill.
Some of my more suspicious friends believe that this is so because the Government still want a little bit more law in reserve to use in the miners' dispute and if Part II of the Bill is effective then this might be some way in which they could force a ballot on the miners. I do not believe it. As I have said before, I subscribe to the "cock-up" and not to the "conspiracy" theory of history. I do not believe that this part of the schedule reads as it does because the Government think they are going to get this in for the miners' dispute. As I have said, there is plenty of law of all kinds lying about the place unused, both civil and criminal, which can be picked up any time anybody thinks it will help in the miners' dispute. I think it is a cock-up.
I do not believe they have thought through the consequences, and I think that is because where it is quite obvious that if you want to rule how somebody shall be elected or how a national executive shall be decided, you have to go to the rule book. And whereas the Government are very much aware that there are rules now, for example, in the GMBATU (and they will have to make vast changes as to how their executive is elected) they have not really cottoned on to the fact that there are rules about strikes; that all unions have something in the rule books about strikes.
If they did not have something in the rule book about strikes, they could not control the expenditure of strike funds and they would not be able to say whether a particular industrial action was authorised or unauthorised, which is essential for the financial
872
viability of the union. So the rules of the union are every bit as important in governing the use of the strike weapon as the rules of the union are in the election of the executive committe.
Fortunately, the work on union rules in relation to strikes has been done for us, and done recently, by Undy and Martin. They have looked at 103 rule books, including all the rule books in the TUC. What comes out of their study is that. if anything, the existing rule books of British unions are further from the model which the Government wish to impose upon them under Part II of the Bill than they are from the model which the Government wish to impose upon them under Part I of the Bill.
After all, 60 per cent. of the unions directly elect their executive and 60 per cent. of the unions do not make provision for ballots on strikes. Most of those who do make such provision do not have mandatory ballots at all, they have discretionary ballots. They say that you may use a ballot but you do not have to use a ballot. You may use it or you may use one or another of the ways of sanctioning industrial action. I am not seeking to argue at this time whether that is right or wrong. I believe it is perfectly reasonable, but it will not be the law after this Bill is passed.
Therefore, if the Government are not in a position—and, again, some of my friends say that this is what they are trying to do—where they want to make it impossible for British trade unions to be lawful because they cannot change their rules in time, then they must give them time. I do not wish to say that the Government want to drive the trade union movement into illegality. The fact is—and the Government must try to make an imaginative leap and understand this—that unions cannot operate outside rules.
You cannot create a great constitutional legal system and then say, "Operate that in the way that the Bill says, irrespective of rules". That is not the way that things work. People authorised by the unions to take decisions are elected and appointed to take those decisions. If you want to bring them into conformity with another set of provisions, you must give them time to bring the rules into conformity with the law. That the Government appreciate in the case of constitutions and in the case of executives. Why do they not appreciate it in the case of strikes?
Think of the complications for a union which wants to abide by this Bill. Authorised strikes must have ballots. Only those who are affected by the strike must vote in the ballot. This is much more difficult to ensure in the case of strikes than it is in the case of constituencies in elections, because it is sometimes a multi-union question; and sometimes part of the branch is involved in the strike and part of the branch is not. Conventional union registers will not fit the frontiers of collective bargaining and new registers have to be compiled to fit the frontiers of collective bargaining. Time has to be given for this.
We are told that the voters must vote nil cost—at no cost to themselves. There must be an equal opportunity for all to vote. I believe that this will require considerable changes in the structure of unions, if they are to conform. Some branches may have to be merged. In some cases, postal ballots will have to be used, and if they are the ballots will be

873
expensive and unions will need to have money in order to carry out the ballots.
It is very easy for the Government to say—I have mentioned this before, but this is my last opportunity—"Go to the certification scheme under the 1980 Act". The Government know as well as I do that the formal position at the moment at the Trades Union Congress is that unions do not use the scheme. The Government may say that they must change. All right; but they must have time to change. They must have time to apply, and when they apply, if the future resembles the past, we know that that will take time.
Undy and Martin show that there have so far been 31 applications for ballot money for elections from non-TUC unions over a two-year period. Less than half have been successful, and most of them have been defeated on complex technical grounds. It is difficult enough to solve those complex technical objections when you are dealing with permanent constituencies: when you are dealing with shifting constituencies for strike ballots it is almost impossible. But whether it is impossible or possible you need time, and I beg the Government to give the trade union movement time by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Before I put this amendment, may I apologise to the Committee. In my hurry to get on with things I forgot to put the Question. Whether Clauses 16 and 17 shall stand part of the Bill? I shall put it now.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
The Earl of Gowrie: If I may, in the interests of getting on I shall not deal with the issues of Part I, because the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has very fairly said that the Government recognise that it would be unrealistic to expect unions to make changes overnight. That, in a nutshell, is why, subject to any further considerations which may be occasioned by our response to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Beloff, it is our intention to introduce Part I by a commencement order, so that it takes effect a little over a year after Royal Assent. That will provide the necessary time for unions to bring their arrangements into line with what Part I of the Bill requires.
I do not see, however that these concerns apply in any real sense to Part II of the Bill, because Part II faces trade unions with what is essentially a very simple proposition. If they intend to organise industrial action and wish to avoid liability under the civil law for doing so, they will need to hold a proper ballot first. The practical implications of holding a ballot will vary considerably, according to the scale and other circumstances of the industrial action which they may be contemplating.
Where this is on a small scale, there should be no difficulty in setting up the necessary arrangements in a short space of time. If, however they wish to call a large-scale strike soon after the commencement of this Part of the Bill, and they fail to prepare themselves properly to comply with the Bill's requirements, then I am afraid they will have only themselves to blame. The essential features of the balloting requirements will have been known to them for very many months. The exact requirements will have been known for two
874
months and more. They should therefore have no good reason for not being able to comply with these requirements. And even if they do not bother to exercise a modicum of foresight and planning, which is unlikely—trade unions have many able people either directly involved with them or assisting them professionally—all is still not lost.
The Government are far from requiring trade unions to organise strikes, still less strikes within a fixed time after commencement. If trade unions are not sufficiently organised to comply with Part II of the Bill, the solution is obvious. They should postpone the strike call until they are properly prepared. If they choose not to do so and thereby deprive themselves of immunity, it would be fair to say: on their own heads be it. They cannot blame the Government for the effects of having exercised their own freedom of choice.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, raised the issue of the miners' strike. Even if one were to share his pessimism about the length of the miners' strike, the Bill does not apply retrospectively. It will apply only to new industrial action organised after commencement, not to industrial action already taking place. But certainly it is the case that if new groups of strikers were called on to take action in sympathy with the miners after commencement, their unions would need to take account of the provisions of the Bill. I should have thought that in those circumstances, most of their members would certainly want that to be the case. I can therefore see no grounds for departing from the standard minimum period between Royal Assent and commencement in relation to Part II of the Bill. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lords opposite will agree to withdraw their amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I am extremely disappointed by what the noble Earl has said. Perhaps it is my fault. Perhaps we should have found some way to introduce the amendment earlier. It points to a question which was not raised in another place. I readily accept that it was overlooked in another place. The noble Earl has his prepared brief and he answers in the prepared way; but the answers he has given will not do.
In the first half of his answer he seemed to be arguing for fragmented bargaining and suggesting that there are very few problems if you want to bring small pockets of workers out on strike—that that is all right and is easy—but that very difficult problems arise if you want large strikes; perhaps, therefore, trade unions should draw the conclusion and break up collective bargaining and company-wide, plant-wide, bargaining, and go back to shop floor bargaining in small groups, because anybody can run a ballot for 30 people.
That is not a responsible way in which to reply to a serious suggestion. The bargaining structure is a matter for the parties. A Government that constantly tell us they do not want to interfere should not interfere with the bargaining structure, especially when they do not know what they are doing. This was not done to fragment the bargaining structure. The Government are just digging up, an excuse which implies fragmentation of the bargaining structure and they are stuck with it.

875
The noble Earl also suggested that if you cannot get a proper ballot of your members you should hang about and not do anything; you should not strike until you can. This relates to something which is quite fundamental to the Government's philosophy and to which we are always drawing attention. The Government do not believe in trade unionism; they do not want trade unions to have effective sanctions; they do not want trade unions to have strike power, because if they do not have effective, lawful strike sanctions they will not strike. We believe that the trade unions have a role to play and a place in society, and their need to take effective industrial action must not be made unlawful. The trade unions must be given a little time. We shall come back to this matter on Report.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
9.13 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 20, line 6, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line and insert ("not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; but the Secretary of State shall not appoint a day for this purpose until there shall have come into force legislation requiring gifts or other dispositions by a company for political purposes (within the meaning of subsection (3) of section 3 of the 1913 Act) to be made only from property which is available for distribution and which is kept in a separate political fund approved by ordinary resolution of the company, and giving members the right in respect of their shareholding in the company to contract out of their contribution to such gifts or dispositions.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 117A, which I beg to move, proposes that Part III of the Bill should not come into force until there is parallel legislation for companies. There has been some debate in Committee on another clause about this matter but it is necessary to put shortly the specific case for this amendment, now that it arises. It is particularly necessary since the specific clauses which my noble friends and I put on the Marshalled List to deal with the matter in detail were found to be out of order and not relevant to the rules of procedure. A Bill dealing with the political funds of trade unions and employers' associations does not, it seems, allow for debate in detail on the political funds of companies. Until 1967, there was no provision in our law for political gifts and donations made by companies. As the noble Earl rightly said, companies are free to give on political objects. The reason that is so is, the courts never having held that because the definition of a company in our law does not expressly include mention of political objects, that therefore it was unlawful and ultra vires for companies to make political donations. It was precisely that finding—making the necessary change from company to trade union—that the Osborne case in 1910 made on trade unions. It is now seen, of course, as a totally erroneous interpretation of the doctrine of ultra vires and there is no book in the land that would uphold it. For trade unions there was the error of Osborne but for companies there was never any son of Osborne. Companies were free, as were other associations, to draw up their own rules and to act by majority—and
876
I stress, to act by majority—or according to such Articles of Association as they chose to adopt.
In 1967, companies were for the first time required to disclose gifts for political and charitable purposes by the Companies Act of that year. Section 19 of the Companies Act 1967 required that companies disclose the amount they gave for those purposes. That is still true, with a cut-off point of £200 below which disclosure is not required. The only requirement for companies is disclosure of the donation.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has more than once said in your Lordships' Committee that to compare trade unions with companies in this matter is not comparing like with like. The answer to that argument is twofold. First, were I free to do so, I would wish to extend the debate beyond companies and trade unions. It seems to me to be an issue of the law of associations; and all associations should be looked at and the law should be even-handed among them. We take the case of companies because, as a matter of practical affairs, companies are the most straightforward and directly relevant issue.
Secondly, there was the point made by the Jenkins Committee on company law in 1962, to which evidence was given in a company law investigation that the political donations of companies should be both disclosed (as, five years later, they were) and controlled. The Jenkins Committee presented in paragraph 51 a sentence which so expresses the curious establishment view of the matter that it needs to be stated in contrast to the way in which people sometimes see trade unions. The committee said this:
"We do not comment on the substance of these suggestions because we are quite clear that they are not primarily a matter of company law and that they raise constitutional issues which are outside our competence and which would affect other organisations besides companies".
The Jenkins Committee responded—as do most other committees—by stating that discussions of donations for political objects involve constitutional issues. That always goes for companies. It always goes for other associations. But it never goes for trade unions. As soon as a trade union comes along, the trade union is not allowed to decide the matter by a majority or in accordance with its rules but must have a special law because Osborne required a special law to be passed. We enter into a very curious, special debate in which, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy has suggested, different rules of logic are used.
This amendment does not try to go back on that history—as perhaps we should. I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Houghton in thinking it is time that the whole issue of the financing of political parties was examined in a sensible and overall manner. If that were the case, this particular issue would be subsumed within a much greater and more sensible inquiry. But that personal view of my own cannot avoid the need to confront reality as it is now. We are very unlikely to have any such investigation, let alone agreement, in the near future. Therefore, we ask: what is the fair way to proceed in the near future?
It is true that trade unions give money mainly to the Labour Party—it is not true that that is wholly so—and support Labour Party candidates. It is true that companies give money mainly either to the Conservative Party or to its front organisations, such

877
as British United Industrialists, which changed its corporate status in 1967 in order not to have to disclose its affairs as a company to the light of day.
In moving this amendment, I would suggest in the light of the reality we have now that the political donations of companies, to whichever party they are given, and of trade unions, to whichever party they are given, should be governed by parallel principles. I cannot understand at all why the position of companies involves constitutional issues, or merely issues relating to the shareholders, who can sell their shares, or some other curious position of that kind which does not apply to trade unions, while trade unions have a special need for regulation.
The only reason that we have the 1913 Act is the Osborne judgment and what followed. If noble Lords want to prove that point, let them look at the development of the political fund problem in relation to trade unions in every other country in the world. Each country has its own specialities; each country falls into its own historical curiosities. But none of them has encountered the development that ours has, because none of them had Osborne, son of Osborne, or anything in the Osborne family. The amendment is therefore asking the Committeee to say that, having had that, and, given that we cannot change it until we can have an overall inquiry into the matter of the financing of political parties, is it not fair that the same rule should apply to trade unions and at any rate companies?
I would say this to noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. I perfectly appreciate that it is a difference between us that they want contracting in and we believe quite sincerely that contracting out is fairer. It also brings greater benefit to the Labour Party, that is true. but it is not impossible to have a point of principle coincide with a point of expediency. That difference between us, however, one might have thought was smaller on this particular amendment and in relation to the noble Lords' own amendment, Amendment No. 118, albeit there are small drafting differences between them. But the point of principle is surely that trade unions and companies should be dealt with even-handedly, and it is on that basis of broad principle that I move this amendment in your Lordships' Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: This amendment seems to have come from behind in a late run, so to speak, to overtake Amendment No. 118 in the names of my noble friend Lord Aylestone and myself. My noble friend spoke to Amendment 118 briefly last night in introducing Amendment No. 90. The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has just moved, covers much the same ground as our amendments, but it goes further, as the noble Lord has acknowledged, in requiring political donations by companies to be made only from a separate political fund and that shareholders should have the right to contract out of that fund.
I do not want to enter again into the fairly heated exchanges that we had in that area a little time ago. All I think I need say for the purposes of responding to this amendment is that the basic purpose of Amendment No. 90, which my noble friend withdrew late last
878
night, but to some form of which, as we gave notice we shall return on Report, was to provide for contracting in to the political fund of a trade union rather than contracting out.
I am afraid that I have to resist the blandishments of the noble Lord. There could hardly be a more basic difference than that between the two amendments, and I cannot support this one.
Lord Gray of Contin: The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has as always given us a very interesting account of his reasons for supporting Amendment No. 117A, but I think that many of your Lordships would agree that everything he said merely confirmed that it is based on an entirely false analogy between trade unions and companies. The proper analogy is not with companies but with unincorporated employers' associations, and they are correctly covered by Clause 16(4) of the present Bill.
Companies are quite different. Their conduct is regulated by statute and by European directives in quite enormous detail, bearing no relation to trade union law. There are half-a-dozen Companies Acts in force, comprisng close to 1,000 sections and many detailed schedules. They are enforced by extensive and, where appropriate, severe criminal penalties, including imprisonment. One would therefore expect noble Lords opposite to be the first to say that company and trade union law are not in any way analogous.
On the particular subject of the amendment, there is no comparison between the position of an employee in a trade union with a political fund and the position of an investor deciding whether to buy shares in a particular company. There is a free market in company shares. You can choose to put your money in any of the many thousands of companies that make no political donations or in one of the smaller number that do. You can buy and sell as you please. No doubt this helps to explain why there has been so much public concern about the political funds of trade unions but scarcely any complaints from shareholders about political donations by companies.
Another reason is that there is no comparison between the amounts of money involved for the individual. Political expenditure by trade unions adds up to a significant sum by comparison with expenditure on members' benefits. On 1982 figures, if unions' political expenditure could have been used instead for members' benefits, benefits would have been 13 per cent. higher. The amendment would have something like this for companies, with contracting-out shareholders being paid an extra dividend representing their share of political expenditure. But how much would this be? Our latest figures, for 1,000 large companies in 1980, show political contributions coming on average to 0.046 per cent. of the total dividends—less than one two-thousandth part. A contracting-out shareholder would need a shareholding worth many thousands of pounds to win the price of a cup of tea.
This calculation strongly suggests that the relative minute amounts of companies' donations, all much smaller than those of the big unions, do not in practice affect the totals of dividend distributions at all. This

879
amendment erects a false analogy based on a false premise.
Now let me come for a moment to the similar amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester—Amendment No. 118.
Lord Rochester: If I may intervene, I did not move Amendment No. 118. I was certainly contrasting it with the amendment which is now before us.
Lord Gray of Contin: I accept that the noble Lord did not move the amendment; but if he did not move it he certainly spoke to it. I think he would agree that he did—as did his noble friend last night when speaking to Amendment No. 90—make reference to the subject. I think I have got the messsage and the point he was making in any case, and I shall do him the courtesy of trying to answer it.
I accept that the amendment is more moderate than that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn; but the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Aylestone, have made the same mistake in my view, drawing a false analogy between trade union law and company law. The Government do not propose to amend the existing law on political donations by companies. It was passed by a Labour Government in 1967. It requires the public dsclosure of all political donations exceeding £200. Investors can then judge for themselves whether the company has made a wise decision. If they wish, they can buy or sell shares in it accordingly.
Trade unionists have seen that the 1913 Act is not working as it should to protect their interests. That is why the present Bill has been introduced. Shareholders, on the other hand, are in general entirely satisfied with the Companies Act as it stands. They do not seek new rights or further protection. This Bill is not about the financing of political parties. It is about the conduct of trade unions. There is therefore no place in it for either of these amendments. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who moved his amendment will therefore consider withdrawing it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: It is necessary to say just three things in response to the noble Lord, Lord Gray. First, one really cannot have one's blood made to run cold in this matter by being told that there are severe criminal penalties in the Companies Act for hundreds of offences. There is nothing in the Companies Act whatever about political funds or the like for companies. That is the point. There is about disclosure—that is common ground—but nothing more.
Secondly, the noble Lord suggests that really these amounts of political gifts by companies are not very large. They run to some £2 million a year, so far as can be seen. It is, of course, very difficult to establish how large they are, because not all of the amounts given to the front organisations, like British United Industrialists and the Economic League, are always put into
880
the accounts. It is a matter of dispute exactly as to what the Act means in that respect. As a matter of fact, although we are not debating it, the noble Lord suggests that Amendment No. 118 is more moderate than Amendment No. 117A. In fact, its definition of political purposes is rather wider than ours, and I would have thought rather more radical in that respect.
Coming back to the amounts involved, the noble Lord suggests that the amount for each shareholder on his dividend would be very small if you use the contracting out mechanism that we suggested in our specific clauses that unhappily could not be debated because they could not come into play. It may be very small. But does the noble Lord realise that in the leading case of Reeves v. Transport and General Workers Union, one of the major areas for the Government to move an entire new clause, the member was claiming an amount of 32/52 of a penny per week? I agree that it may be a matter of principle to claim that amount. You cannot say that it is a large amount. There may be a shareholder who says in just the same way, "I don't want to sell my shares. I want the equivalent amount that I am entitled to". It seems to me precisely parallel, and it may be that there are small amounts involved in both cases.
The last point surely gives the whole game away. It is appropriate that we should come to it last. The noble Lord says that there is no analogy between trade unions and companies. The analogy is between unincorporated associations of employers' associations and trade unions. Unincorporated employers' associations! Imagine an unincorporated association of chief whips, our Chief Whip and the Chief Whip on the other side. They are unincorporated and they operate as an association of employers, employing us all. Then, suddenly, they incorporate themselves as a company. The noble Lord says that now they are totally different. Whereas the association before was analogous to a trade union, now, because it has undergone through the Companies Act that metaphysical transformation that, under the decision in Salomon v. Salomon, gave it in 1897 a separate identify from the members, it has become something quite different and is not analogous to a trade union.
Just how much sillier can this debate get than to say that an unincorporated employers' association is analogous to a trade union and is therefore in the Bill but that, if the employers' association incorporates, it has to come out of the Bill because it is a different entity and cannot have any control made over it because a grave constitutional issue is raised and following its incorporation it cannot possibly be discussed along with trade unions?
The final proof that trade unions are dealt with differently is contained, in my submission, in that wrong-headed suggestion of analogies. We shall not divide on the amendment. We shall, however leave it on the Order Paper. It will doubtless be negatived. However, it will remain there as a clear guide to the view that we take on this side of the Committee of the way in which the injustice of the law should in reality, in the short term at any rate, be put right.
On Question, amendment negatived.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 20, line 6, leave out ("31st March 1985") and insert—
("such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint; and the Secretary of State may not appoint a day for this purpose until there shall have come into force legislation requiring that any gift of money by a company for political purposes (as that expression is defined in section 19 of the Companies Act 1967) shall have first been approved by an ordinary resolution of that company.").
The noble Lord said: Late last night, or perhaps early this morning, I mentioned in passing, when we were dealing with the question of contracting in as against contracting out, that Amendment No. 118 had to be taken into consideration with it. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, seems to have replied to the debate on Amendment No. 118 at the same time as he replied to the debate on the previous amendment. It may be that the answer is the same.
But there are one or two points that I think we should make at this stage. First of all, this party, unlike the Government, unlike the Official Opposition, does not represent any particular section of the people of this country. We represent neither the trade unions nor big business. Our purpose is to endeavour to be fair-minded, to see that there is equity in every respect. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, referred to what he called the small amount of money received from gifts from companies—presumably to the Conservative Party, because I think most of us accept that that is where it goes. I should like to make the point that we are not concerned with amounts of money; we are concerned with principle. It is the principle of the thing that concerns us mainly.
The trade union contributions to the Labour Party are approved in one way or another, sometimes by block votes, sometimes by ballot. But it is equally true that the charitable and the political donations of the companies are approved by resolution at annual meetings, very often by massive proxy votes. But massive proxy votes can be equated with massive block votes in the trade union movement, so in that respect there is equity. What we would wish to see, if it is at all possible, is Her Majesty's Government accepting the idea that it is the principle that matters and looking again at the 1967 Companies Act to see what can he done with it to make the position rather more even than it is at the moment.
If I were asked, standing on my feet, as it were, what sort of change could be made—and I appreciate that it is difficult—I should say that one simple change would be that a company which, by resolution passed at its annual meeting, decides to make a donation of—shall we say?—£5,000 to a political party, should state which political party that money is going to. That is not the position at the moment under the 1967 Act. On the other hand, one knows full well that, while all the money from the trade unions' political fund does not go to the Labour Party, the great majority of it does.
Our amendment seeks simply to delay the operation of Part III of the Bill, which is due to become operative on 31st March next year, until such time as the Secretary of State has been given an opportunity to look at the 1967 Companies Act and make an amendment or amendments which will bring rather more fairness between the two. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: I apologise to the noble Lord if I answered most of the points in my earlier remarks when I was dealing with the previous amendment. But I was somewhat misled by his noble friend when he referred to this amendment, and I had not appreciated that it was the noble Lord's intention to move it later. I apologise to him. I shall not weary the Committee by once again going through my brief with my answers to him. But he raised some additional points, and of course we shall look at them very carefully and read what he said. Indeed, I suspect that it would be more appropriate for me to draw much of what he said to the attention of colleagues, because it does not directly relate to the Bill.
As I explained, this Bill is not about the financing of political parties; it is about the conduct of trade unions. The points which the noble Lord made regarding what might happen with changes to company law would also, of course, be for another department rather than for the Department of Employment. No doubt those points will be carefully read by others and—who knows?—they may be taken into account, indeed, I am sure that they will be taken into account, if and when any future legislation is being considered. It is always useful for us to read what all sides of the House think on these matters if we are considering at any time any future legislation.
But in the meantime I shall conclude by saying that, while the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lords for the Alliance Benches is in our view—although not obviously in the view of the principal Opposition—slightly more acceptable than the last amendment with which we dealt, I am afraid that we still believe that it suffers from the mistake of having the wrong analogy. We do not believe that the trade union movement and the funding of political activities can be compared directly with company law which we see in a totally different light. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is smiling as I say that. What I mean is that we see it in a different set of laws and regulations altogether. To compare the two is erroneous. For that reason I hope that the noble Lords might be prepared to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Aylestone: In view of the fact that the noble Lord has given an undertaking that the government will look at and will consider what we have had to say, I think that perhaps we can return to this matter at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
In the Title:
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 120:
Line 5, after ("unions") insert ("and unincorporated employers' associations").
The noble Earl said: This amendment to the Long Title of the Bill is necessary because the provisions of Part III relating to expenditure on political objects apply both to trade unions and to employers' associations. This follows the precedent set by the existing provisions of the 1913 Act. The amendment is necessary to ensure that this aspect is covered in the Long Title and I commend it to the Committee on that basis. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

London Transport Bill
Brought from the Commons: read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
London Regional Transport Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Rates Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords. I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Somerset House Act,

Public Health (Control of' Disease) Act.

Registered Homes Act,

Dentists Act,

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act,

Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act,

Road Traffic Regulation Act,

County Courts Act,

Housing and Building Control Act,

Food Act,

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act, London Regional Transport Act,

Rates Act.

Barclays Bank Act.

Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
9.46 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 109.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 95, line 37, after first ("or) insert ("serious arrestable").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, and with the leave of the Committee at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 19, which is consequential.
Amendment No. 19: Page 95, line 37, at end insert ("serious arrestable").
These are rather more important amendments than might be apparent at first sight. Their purpose is to correct a glaring anomaly. Whereas Schedule 5 lists a short number of offences that are automatically classified as serious arrestable ones, Clause 109 defines the phrase "serious arrestable offence" in terms of the grave consequences to the state or to individuals that
884
might in practice result from certain actions which in themselves are not invariably serious. For example, these include serious harm to state security, death or serious injury to any person, or serious financial loss to any person. We can all agree on the grave nature of these consequences and that therefore the action which caused them ought rightly to be a serious arrestable offence.
However, that is not the case with the latter part of subsection (6)(b). As that subsection stands, serious interference with the investigation of even a trivial offence becomes itself a serious arrestable offence. For example. if a man steals a bottle of milk from a doorstep because he happens to be hungry or thirsty, he would commit a theft—an offence for which he can be arrested. It would be the duty of a policeman who witnessed the act so to arrest him. But surely nobody would argue that the thief's act should be classified as a serious arrestable offence.
Yet if a friend or neighbour of the thief who witnessed the theft tried to cover up for him by asserting to the police, for example, that the culprit was several hundred miles away on the morning in question or gave some other alibi which was untrue, he or she—that is to say the friend or neighbour—would, as the subsection stands, be guilty of a serious arrestable offence, with all the grave consequences that flow therefrom. This amendment is designed to ensure that it is only serious interference with the investigation of offences which are themselves serious—if that is not complicating matters too much for the Committee—that is classified as serious. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord. Lord Monson, has pointed out that certain offences are serious arrestable offences in any case. They are set out in Schedule 5, and that is dependent on subsection (2) of Clause 109, which is the clause we are looking at. I do not think he intended to infer that there was an inconsistency there. What he seeks to change is the basis on which a person may be considered as committing a serious arrestable offence if he interferes in what we call the administration of justice, and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, would like us to call the course of justice.
The noble Lord argues that what should be the touchstone in this matter should be the seriousness of the offence to which the course of justice refers. We feel rather strongly that what matters is the seriousness of the interference with justice. If a constable investigates, for instance, a case of illegal entry into this country. or the assisting of an illegal entry into this country, those are two different things. Assisting an illegal entry into this country is a serious offence punishable by seven years' imprisonment, whereas the offence of illegal entry itself is not an arrestable offence in the first place. so it can never be a serious arrestable offence. But the interference with the course of justice, the suborning of policemen, the attempt to divert the justice of the courts, can be very serious or minimal in either case. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will leave the Bill as it is.
Lord Monson: I had hoped to get the opinion of one or two noble and learned Lords on this, but no one

885
seems to have leapt to my defence on it. I take Lord Elton's point about the difference between illegal entry and facilitating, or covering up, illegal entry. Naturally, he has chosen an example favourable to his own case. I still maintain that nobody can seriously argue that it is much more heinous to cover up the theft of a bottle of milk than actually to steal that bottle of milk.
The noble Lord's answer partially satisfies me, but only partially. I should like to think about it again and possibly come back to it at the next stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 95, line 41, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether I may be permitted to remind the Committee shortly in regard to serious arrestable offences that the powers of the police can be exercised only if it is reasonably suspected that such an offence has been committed.
The way in which "serious arrestable offence" governs this Bill can best be summarised in the following way: it affects and governs Clause 4, the setting up of a road check; it governs Clauses 8 and 9, powers to enter and search for evidence of a serious arrestable offence; it governs Clause 40, detention beyond 24 hours for the investigation of a serious arrestable offence; it governs Clause 54, the delay in exercise of the right to have someone informed on arrest; it governs Clause 56, the delay in access to legal advice; and it governs Clause 59, the power to take intimate body samples. When we reach the definition of a "serious arrestable offence" we are obviously dealing with one of the most important, if not the most important, definitions in the Bill.
Amendment No. 20 considers one of those aspects in subsection (6)(e):
"The consequences mentioned in subsection (3) and (4) above are…(e) substantial financial gain to any person".
It is obviously important when a police officer is endeavouring to see whether a serious arrestable offence has been committed that there is a clear objective test by which he can be guided. That applies to any superior officer who may be giving him directions. I cannot think of a more subjective test, instead of what ought to be an objective test, than paragraph (e) which is,
"substantial financial gain to any person".
Many of us might discuss what a substantial financial gain might be. In a fraud case "substantial financial gain" may only be measured in the City, for example, if it reaches £500,000. A substantial financial gain in one of the streets of Brixton may be—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: A pony!
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, always helps me. I am grateful. He was not thinking in terms of a small horse, either! But in Brixton in one of the back-streets a "substantial financial gain" from a subjective point of view, not an objective one, may be the fact that one person has managed to rob another by some deception of the sum of £10. This, therefore, is
886
a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with a "serious arrestable offence".
There is no point in my embellishing the argument any further. I have made the point and in those circumstances we are asking that paragraph (e) be omitted. I should say that both with this amendment and the next amendment, I am speaking to Amendment No. 24 which seeks to leave out subsection (7).
Amendment No. 24: Page 96, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
In that subsection the definition is as follows—one cannot imagine anything aiding more a subjective view than:
"Loss is serious for the purposes of this section if, having regard to all the circumstances, it is serious for the person who suffers it".
In exactly the same way a financial gain, presumably, is also to be interpreted in some such way if it amounts to a substantial gain from the point of view of the person receiving it or the person who is suffering it. I would not know which it was or whether it is both. On any view this is an unsatisfactory clause in the Bill, dealing as it does—I repeat this for the last time—with the definition of "serious arrestable offence" which governs all the major parts of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: From these Benches we entirely support what the noble Lord has said. These definitions are trying to give clear instructions to police officers who have to make up their minds in difficult and rather intense circumstances. Paragraph (e)—we shall come to paragraph (f) shortly—seems to be the sort of thing that no police officer in a position of this kind could possibly be expected to take into account because it is entirely unclear. It has no specific meaning of any kind. It might be £1 million or it might be 7s. 6d. But it is beneath contempt as an attempt to give a really accurate simple criterion to the policeman on what he can legitimately take action. We support the motion to reject this.
10 p.m.
Lord Gifford: When we come to consider serious arrestable offences, we are going to the heart of one of the Government's justifications for their Bill; which is that it contains safeguards in the case of the powers—often very extreme ones—which are given to the police. In due course we shall come to debate those powers and I do not want to trespass upon that debate; but we know it is going to be said again and again when we come to the powers which my noble friend has enumerated, "Do not worry that these clauses give the police considerable power. There are safeguards. The powers can only be exercised in the case of serious arrestable offences".
When one looks at this compendious definition of a serious arrestable offence it is ludicrous to talk about an effective safeguard being built into the Bill. My noble friend has spoken eloquently about the concept of substantial financial gain. Remember, that it does not have to be proved that there has been substantial financial gain. The supposed safeguard is that the constable must have reasonable cause to believe—that is subjective—that the commission of the offence is intended to, or is likely to lead—that, again, is

887
subjective—to substantial financial gain. Again, that is subjective. Almost any set of circumstances above the merely trivial for which people are in custody can be classed as a serious arrestable offence under these criteria. The Government really have to do better with their definition of serious arrestable offences if they are to persuade us that there is any effective safeguard against some of the very serious powers granted in later parts of the Bill.
Lord Monson: I, too, have an amendment, Amendment No. 23, the object of which is to try to clarify the definition of "substantial financial gain" contained in subsection (6)(e). Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I would rather the word "substantial" was not deleted altogether but merely defined more precisely. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke to my amendment now because it ties in with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said.
Amendment No. 23: Page 95. line 42, at end insert—
("( ) A gain is substantial for the purposes of this section if it exceeds an amount equivalent to twenty-eight weekly payments of the state retirement pension for a single person at the rate currently in force.").
I agree with the noble Lord, and with all the other speakers so far, that the definition in the Bill as it stands is much too subjective. What is a substantial gain? Is it £50. £100, £ 1.000, £5,000 or £20,000?
My amendment is a probing amendment. Its rather convoluted wording is designed to set the threshold of what is classified as "substantial" at £1,000 in real terms: that is, inflation-adjusted terms. That is on the assumption that the Government have £1,000 in mind as the figure which we should be looking at. Twenty-eight weekly payments of the retirement pension for a single person as from November this year will come to £1.00240 and obviously this sum will be adjusted annually in line with inflation. Of course, if what the Government have in mind is £10,000, or £500, or whatever, the definition could be altered: but clearly it is desirable to keep the sum constant in real terms. As I said, it may be that the Government have in mind something very much larger or smaller; but, one way or another, there ought to be a precise, or almost totally precise, definition of what "substantial" means.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: May I add one practical point about this, looking at it as a practitioner? What is to happen in court when one wishes to take the point that in fact the officer behaved unlawfully because permission was given, quite wrongly, to keep a man in custody for an extra 36 or 96 hours although it was not a serious arrestable offence? Why not? Well, because there was no substantial financial gain to any person. The judge will have to decide whether in his view it was a substantial financial gain or a serious financial loss. I would suggest that all experience would indicate that one judge would consider a certain sum of money was serious; another judge would decide that it was not. It would be a quite impossible situation. One could not have a precedent about it: one could not have anything to which to refer about it. It would be as long as the arm of the particular judge who was sitting. I would suggest that that
888
highlights the hopelessness of paragraphs (e) and (f) and the sooner they go the better.
Lord Elton: The first amendment of this group, Amendment No. 20, would remove paragraph (e) from subsection (6). Paragraph (e) provides that an arrestable offence is serious if one of its consequences is or is intended to be
"substantial financial gain to any person".
It may be that it lurks at the back of your Lordships' minds that we are in any case addressing ourselves to substantial financial loss and there is a degree of definition there, and maybe every loss has its reciprocal gain. But of course that is not the case because I have only to cite the example of the owner of a chain of brothels, for instance, who would be in receipt of very considerable financial gain with nobody identifiable as suffering substantial financial loss. Whereas it would be perhaps quite easy to discover the people running those establishments, the difficult thing would be to discover the person in the background who is raking in the real money. I think your Lordships would agree that the powers in Part II of the Bill could appropriately be used for that purpose. It is clear that we need some indication of the magnitude of the financial gain involved.
We are dealing with what is termed "substantial gain". Noble Lords are concerned to define what is meant by "substantial". The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has taken an amount in excess of 28 times the weekly state pension for a single person. He has seen the need for the yardstick and he has sought to define something which is precise, and I accept to a certain degree flexible, because it is the Government's business to keep that rate of pension moving in line with inflation. Even that meritorious approach has its difficulty. I have only to say that at present the yardstick he has devised would give a watershed—if that is the right term—of £953.40 and from, I think, 5th November, if Parliament agrees, that yardstick will go up to £1002.40. If the amendment were accepted. one would have the A. P. Herbert difficulty that something that was a serious arrestable offence in November had not been one in October. So there is a difficulty here.
Although there are various other difficulties about the pension. I take the point that the noble Lord is advancing. One problem is that it is difficult to find a yardstick which either moves or does not move which does not get one into difficulties on the margin. I think that this would actually lead to an increase in the difficulty of the work of the police without introducing any great safeguard. Under the Bill as drafted, if the police exercise a reserve power in the case of the offence which does not on a common-sense basis involve a substantial gain, they can be called to account for that in the courts.
The other amendments in this group attack subsections (6)(f) and (7) of the clause. What the Bill as drafted is saying is, in effect, that an assessment of the seriousness of an offence cannot be made in the abstract where the offence concerns financial loss to a victim. The assessment has to take account of the circumstances of the individual case. That will be true, of course, of substantial financial gain as well.

889
This is not a new idea and it is a requirement in the Bill that it should be taken into account in the case of serious financial loss. It has been for long a principle of sentencing in the courts that a sentence may properly reflect the effect of the offence on the victim, taking into account his financial circumstances and income. And of course the precedent is a good deal older than that, because the incorporating of that element in the judgment of an offence and the value of money to individuals goes back, as is well illustrated in the parable of the widow's mite, for nearly 2,000 years. That lady parted with her money voluntarily, but, had it been taken from her by theft, the loss would have been serious to her but not to many others.
Subsection (7) does not introduce the subjective element into the definition to the extent that your Lordships might perhaps think. It states that loss is serious if—
Lord Mishcon: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord the Minister, but I am sure he would want me to. I have merely moved to delete paragraph (e), and I made that abundantly clear, or, if I did not make it clear enough to the noble Lord the Minister, I apologise. I have moved only Amendment No. 20 and I referred to Amendment No. 24. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, trying to make one debate of it, also dealt with the question of substantial gain.
Lord Elton: I have been caught a little unawares because I saw a list of groupings which in fact included Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, and I understood that those had been accepted through the usual channels. But, as the noble Lord ought to have been at the end of the usual channels, obviously something has gone wrong.
Lord Mishcon: Can I help? I will do so with the greatest of pleasure, because this will help to abbreviate the proceedings and we are all anxious to do that. If the noble Lord the Minister, in his kindness, will go on to deal with the question of financial loss as well as gain, I will then answer him. But I hope he will realise that there are two separate points. One may fail on one, one may win on both. but one may also lose on both; and maybe this will be dealt with at another time in the Bill. But, if the noble Lord wants to make one debate of it. I am not going to stop him.
Lord Elton: I am quite content to stop at that point in dealing with this. I do not know what the military analogy is for converting a counter-attack into an attack so that one can counter-attack it oneself—but I shall not be led into that. We come back to this question of the test of what is substantial. I return again to the question: what sort of yardstick can we provide? I think the Committee will agree that we cannot manage without this test. I chose only one example for brevity, but I think it is quite clear that we do need the test for the use of these powers. What is in the Bill is a common-sense approach which can be tested in the courts if it is in doubt and it does not lead to the difficulties that we find in every alternative; but I do not think we can just take it out, and at the moment that seems to be all that is offered to us.
Lord Wigoder: Having listened to this argument with, as always, a completely open mind, I really find myself inclined to sympathise with the views put forward by the noble Lord the Minister. May I take a particular example and invite the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to deal with it? Let us suppose that there is an armed robbery in which the arms carried are pickaxe handles and not firearms. That, as I understand the Bill, would not be a serious arrestable offence under Part I of Schedule 5: nor would it he a serious arrestable offence under Part II of Schedule 5, unless in fact firearms were carried. Therefore, in order to make it a serious arrestable offence, which I rather assume that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would agree that it was, one would have to bring it somehow under the provisions of subsection (6). I suppose one might argue that such an armed robbery was likely to have the consequence of causing serious injury to any person, but it is a slightly artificial approach to the problem. The common-sense approach, surely, is that a robbery of that sort is something of which the likely consequence is to cause substantial financial gain.
Having said that, and therefore indicating that I sympathise with the way in which the noble Lord the Minister has put his case, may I say that I also agree with much that has been said about the looseness of the wording of this proviso in paragraph (e)? I venture to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that if he and those who have spoken alongside him wish to criticise the wording, I would agree with that. But I think there is a point of substance there and that those of us who criticise the wording ought somehow to find some better alternative to deal with the same point.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It seems to me that one needs something on the lines of paragraphs (e) and (f), but there is great force in what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, have said by way of criticism of the word "substantial". I wonder whether the key does not rest in subsection (7), which could be rephrased to take in the word "substantial" and loss and gain as well.
Lord Mishcon: I have no doubt at all, if I may say so in all humility, that the words in paragraph (e), and possibly I ought to embrace paragraph (f) as well, cannot stand. Quite obviously, it may very well be that the thing to do—and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—between Committee stage and Report stage is to see whether the combined wisdom, which, of course, is exceeding great. of the Government Front Bench and those who are interested in this amendment can lead to a practical solution. Paragraph (e) cannot stand for this reason and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for his balanced arguments, in the sense that he could see arguments for and arguments against.
But he gave the example of some people armed with pickaxes and committing some sort of robbery. The extraordinary thing here, unless I am very wrong, is that this relates only to the consequences of the act, so you may have all the seriousness of the pickaxes and all the villainy of the people concerned, but if when they got into the premises they found only £5 in the petty cash box and that is all they took out, you would get a situation where this would not apply, because

891
they had not got, on any view at all, a substantial financial gain, whereas if they managed to find £500,000 there they would have done—
Lord Wigoder: It might be said to have been intended to lead to the consequence of financial gain, even if there was only £5 there.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: That, too, is a matter of guesswork and that is why it cannot stand. The noble Lord the Minister dealt with the fact that there is a precedent and that judges have to look at this sort of thing when sentencing and so on. This is an entirely different matter. This is a police officer having to make a judgment. I do not even know, since there is no guidance on financial gain such as there is in subsection (7) on financial loss, whether the substantial gain has to relate to the means of the person who got it, or whether it has to relate to the person who loses what the other person has gained. I just do not know. In other words, are we saying that if you happen to be a millionaire in the City and there is a gain of only £ ¼ million it cannot possibly be deemed to be substantial because of your other wealth? And does it mean, in regard to some poor man who is on a weekly salary of, let us say, £40 or £50 a week that if he gets the equivalent of one week's salary as a result of his evildoing it is not substantial from his point of view? What is the yardstick? What is the guide?
Therefore. the constructive thing to do, following the noble and learned Lord's helpful intervention, is to take the following course of action. There is no point in trying to divide the Committee on paragraph (e). The sensible course for me to take is to withdraw my amendment: for the noble Lord the Minister, with his usual broadmindedness, to admit that there is some cogency in the speeches which he has heard tonight from various parts of your Lordships' Committee: and for us to see whether there is a way, either by means of a new Government approach or by our own approach, to find a constructive solution.
While I am on my feet, and only to save the time of the Committee since the noble Lord the Minister dealt with paragraph (f), may I say again that here there is guidance, in the sense that subsection (7) tells one quite frankly that the loss is serious for the purposes of the section if. having regard to all the circumstances—and the poor police officer has to have in mind all the circumstances—it is serious for the person who suffers it. This may depend upon the miserliness of the person who is asking for the police officer's assistance because a crime has been committed. He may have tears running down his face when he says he has been robbed of £5 which means the world to him, in spite of the fact that the police officer may know he is rather a wealthy man. On the other hand, there may well be a poor man who, not wanting to make a terrible fuss, says, "If I've lost £2, officer. I suppose I've lost it". What is the poor police officer to do in trying to make a judgment in these circumstances?
Again, I shall repeat my favourite phrase today: I do not embellish the argument by repeating it. However, all of us must think seriously about it. I hope that if I withdraw the amendment the noble Lord the Minister
892
will give an assurance that he and his advisers will give Thought to clearing up what at the moment is an unholy mess in paragraphs (e) and (f).
Lord Elton: I would not subscribe to the phrase "an unholy mess". I see that the noble Lord has aptly put his finger on some difficulties. We are concerned not merely with the wisdom which comes from the reflections of judges but also with the decisions which have to be taken by policemen in the field. and I would wish to be satisfied that what is provided is workmanlike. But I have shown to your Lordships some of the difficulties which are set around the path which has been suggested. If we are to relate the substantialness of the financial gain to the criminal, I would not want to think that rich criminals would get away with more than poor criminals.
In other words, there are traps all around us. We are aware of them, and I shall not weary your Lordships by talking further about them. Much thought will be given between now and the next stage to the matter. I cannot guarantee that I shall come forward with anything, though I think I can guarantee that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will if I fail to do so.
Lord Mishcon: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. I shall waste no further time. I beg leave to withdraw in regard to both paragraph (e) and paragraph (f). At the same time. having dealt with Amendment No. 24, may I give notice now that I do not intend to move it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 22:
Page 95, line 42, leave out ("serious") and insert ("substantial").
The noble Lord said: This was a long stop in case the arguments relating to Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 failed. Then one at least wanted to insert the word "substantial" instead of the word "serious", although that was not thought to be a solution to the problem. In view of the exchange between the noble Lord the Minister and myself, the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 23: [Printed earlier: col 887.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23. I have already spoken to this amendment to some extent, but perhaps I may have another small bite at the same cherry. The noble Lord. Lord Elton, pointed out the definition in my amendment of what is substantial would lead at the present time to a borderline figure of around £950. I had assumed, perhaps pessimistically, that this Bill would not receive its Royal Assent until October. That is why I specified the period of 28 weeks, which would have made for a payment of about £1.000 by mid-November. That is the reason I worded the amendment in the manner I did.
I do not intend to press this amendment but I should like to have some indication from the Minister of the kind of figure the Government have in mind. Is it a two

893
digit sum, or a three digit sum, or a five digit sum, or what?
A remark that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, led me to think of something else. The subsection states that any action intended to lead to
"substantial financial gain to any person"
is caught. When a pickpocket goes into an Underground train and tries to size up a potential victim, he hopes to make a very substantial gain. If he is lucky and finds someone from the Middle East who is about to embark on a shoplifting spree (because invariably such people seem to have several thousand pounds in their wallets when they are apprehended and taken before the courts) he may make a "substantial financial gain". But he may be unlucky and he ma., find somebody who has only £5 and a couple of credit cards. In any event, the pickpocket's intention is to secure "substantial financial gain". On this basis, it would seem that every pickpocket, and every burglar, too, would find their offences treated as serious arrestable offences unless some definition is made. Can the Minister give some indication, however approximate, of the kind of figure the Government have in mind? Is it £100, £1,000, £10,000, or what?
Lord Elton: I cannot usefully speak very long to the noble Lord's amendment. I will merely say that I believe the amount will vary with the circumstances. I do not think that aspect concerns noble Lords. I think that what does concern noble Lords is that the circumstances may be interpreted differently when seen by different people. Therefore, I would hesitate to put a figure at this stage but I have noted what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Monson: I am pleased to know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others intend to return to this point at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
10.28 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 96, line 4, leave out ("any disease and").
The noble and learned Lord said: One of the consequences of crime for the purposes of the definition of a serious arrestable offence is serious injury to any person. As your Lordships will see from line 4 on page 96 of the Bill, injury is defined as including "any disease". The point on which we should like to be enlightened is this: how does disease creep into this sombre picture? How does it happen? Is it the infliction of a nefarious umbrella, with some horrid object at the end of it, to reduce the victim to a condition of decline and decay? Does it have any sexual implications? What is it about? That is all we want to know.
Lord Elton: It is about poisoning. Need I say more? I will say more.
It is clear that an offence which leads to serious disease, or is likely or intended so to do, could be a serious arrestable offence. One has only to think of a
894
case of intentional poisoning, or the recent case in Mexico in which scrap metal of no great intrinsic value was stolen but which, unknown to the thieves who proceeded to cut it up, contained radioactive pellets. If such a case happened here, it might well be expedient for the police to set up a road check following the theft so that those responsible could be apprehended before they released the radioactivity. That is why the trigger is in the Bill at that point.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It certainly deserves a trigger, if those are the circumstances. On my circuit we were not unfamiliar with arsenic, if I may say so. It is an old-fashioned custom now, of course. It no longer happens. It is no longer said of a certain town known as Talsarnau that it is better known as "Tals-arsenic", after a famous case in which I had the privilege of appearing for a lady who was honourably acquitted. I shall not press the Minister further in the circumstances.
Lord Wigoder: Not only was it not unknown on the circuit of the noble and learned Lord: it was almost a monopoly on that circuit.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: While rejecting that abuse, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 109 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Serious arrestable offences]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Wells-Pestell): Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are printed in the wrong order, so I call Amendment No. 27.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 108, line 20, at end insert—
("2A. Causing death by reckless or dangerous driving.")
The noble Lord said: A week ago today, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice declared, according to The Times, that:
"Courts were regarding the offence of causing death by driving recklessly as less serious than in fact it was—less serious than Parliament intended it to be and less serious than the public in general regarded it".
I am sure that a mighty chorus of "Hear, hear!" went up from throats all over the land. It certainly went up from mine. The purpose of this amendment is to mark parliamentary and public disapproval of this heinous offence by classifying it as a serious arrestable offence in the same way as murder and manslaughter are already so classified.
It could be argued, and probably will be argued by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that this offence is already accidentally included, as it were, by the catch-all provisions of Clause 109(6)(c), which defines any offence resulting in,
"the death of any person".
as a serious arrestable offence. That is true. But precisely the same arguments could be used to justify excluding murder and manslaughter from Schedule 5, yet I cannot believe that any member of the Committee would wish to do that. Logically, if you include murder and manslaughter, you must also include causing death by reckless or dangerous

895
driving. As far as the victim is concerned the result is exactly the same. and, incidentally, far more unpleasant. I would imagine, than being the victim of gross indecency—a crime already included in the list. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We on these Benches have the fullest sympathy with the sentiments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in support of this amendment. In our judgment, quite clearly some of the worst cases of causing death by reckless driving are not only indistinguishable from the old motor manslaughter cases but could well have been prosecuted as manslaughter cases, and undoubtedly would have resulted in a conviction for that offence.
As a matter of technical drafting, the wording of the amendment,
"Causing death by reckless or dangerous driving",
probably is not correct, because since 1977 there has been no such offence as causing death by dangerous driving, as opposed to causing death by reckless driving. But that is a very small matter. We certainly think, judged by the general tenor of the list of offences created in this general provision, that this offence has a proper place in the list.
Lord Gisborough: Before my noble friend answers, can he say why this list is so short and in particular why arson is not included in it?
Lord Elton: The list is short for the sake of simplicity. Arson is not included in it because it is already caught. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has accurately anticipated what I was going to say in this respect. This is a topical matter. If I am right in thinking that the Committee are like minded with the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I have regrettably to say that, as drafted, the amendment will not quite do. This always seems to be the case. However, if the members of the Committee were to nod at me in numbers, then I should think we may as well have the amendment that the noble Lord wants drafted by the Government. That being so, I am happy to ask him to withdraw the proposed amendment on those terms.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the Minister leaves this point, I hope the Government will, before the next stage of the Bill, look into the point made by the noble Lord opposite. That is that it seems to me very strange that the offence of arson is excluded from this provision. On conviction of arson you can be sentenced to life imprisonment. It seems to me rather strange that, that being so, it is not a serious offence.
Lord Elton: My only hesitation, which perhaps I should have expressed, was that I hoped we would not have an ever growing list of offences to add to the schedule. Arson can be very serious but I am reminded it can also be very minor. So it is appropriately covered by the tests in Clause 109, rather than constituting an offence—arson has different results in different places. However, if the Committee are content to leave it with me, I am prepared to come back with an amendment to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Lord Monson: I am extremely grateful to noble Lords in all quarters of the Committee for their support. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. I accept that the amendment is not correctly drafted at the moment. I lifted the definition from the 1972 Road Traffic Act and I had not realised that the description of the offence had been modified in 1977. Most of all, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, speaking for the Government, in agreeing to put forward the correctly drafted amendment at the next stage. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 108, line 27, leave out paragraph 7.
The noble Lord said: The list in Part I of Schedule 5 is intended to be a list of grave and serious offences. Undoubtedly that is so in relation to the first six of those offences, running from murder to buggery with a boy under the age of 16, or a person who has not consented to that act.
However, the seventh category is the category which reads,
"indecent assault which constitutes an act of gross indecency".
Undoubtedly gross indecency can be a quite serious offence but in most cases it is an act of social nuisance. However revolting one finds it, I think that most people would say that it falls into the category of social nuisance rather than the category of serious crime. I believe I am right in saving that its maximum penalty is still two years' imprisonment. What is not included here is indecent assault with a female. At its higher end, that can be a very, very serious offence, in some cases almost as serious as rape.
May I say, in passing, that it is still strange that the maximum penalty that that offence carries for a woman is two years' imprisonment whereas there is a maximum of five years' imprisonment for the same offence committed with a girl under the age of 16? Be that as it may, in the judgment of those on these Benches, the seventh category has not been thought out properly. I would ask the Government, in considering the sort of offences that they have in mind, to give greater prominence to assaults against women and to think very anxiously whether it is necessary to include the offence of gross indecency between men, which, as I say, is more of the nature of a social nuisance than a grave offence. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich:I do not want to persist with this point to a wearisome degree, but I must say to the noble Lord that I fear that the list has not been carefully thought through. It makes absolutely no sense to include item 7 to which the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has referred and to exclude the offence of arson. Let me put this point directly to the noble Lord. Parliament has thought fit to make the maximum penalty for arson, life imprisonment. That is a fact. It seems astonishing to me—I would find it surprising if any of my former colleagues on the Parole Board take a contrary view in the light of the sort of offences that we regularly reviewed in terms of their degree of seriousness—to exclude arson and to include

897
indecent assault that constitutes an act of gross indecency. It seems to me a very surprising judgment.
Speaking for myself, I give notice that I certainly propose to raise this on Report stage, because, until the noble Lord pointed it out, it had not occurred to me. I hope very much that the list will be thought through far more carefully before the next stage of the Bill so that we have a far more rational list before us when we make a judgment on Report stage.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Would he agree, forceful though his arguments undoubtedly are in relation to simple arson, that they are even more forceful in relation to arson with intent to endanger life?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree entirely.
Lord Wigoder: Can the noble Lord the Minister help with a simple statistic in relation to the last figure for the year ending December 1982? Can he say how many offences within paragraph 7 were committed in that year? What proportion of offenders were sent to prison? That would enable us to judge whether or not they are serious offences.
Lord Gisborough: I hope that I do not stir things up further by asking whether, following arson, one can also mention treason. Treason is not only a matter of an offence against royalty or whatever, but it also concerns people who may carry away state secrets and whose arrest may be required in a short time before they flee the country?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: May I suggest that the Government do not enter into a long auction on these serious offences? There is no end to one's views about them. You could have arson. You could have drugs offences, which are appalling in their results. You could have huge frauds which have appalling results on people's financial situation. You could have, as the noble Lord has just mentioned, Official Secrets Act offences that do not appear in the list. I think I am right. am I not, in saying that the list originally contained only the first four headings, and that at Report stage in another place, 5, 6 and 7 were added. I would strongly suggest that we go back to the four original offences and do not indulge in a long auction of what are serious and what are not serious offences.
The effect of adding to the list may be far more far-reaching than one appreciates at the moment. If offences get into the list, it will affect sentencing policy. It is quite extraordinary. It must have been a very emotional debate in the other place for gross indecency to be included. Whether it came at the time of "The Romans in Britain" or something like that, I do not know. There must have been some emotional background.
Most gross indecency offences are now matched with a substantial or small fine. It is very rare now that people are sent to prison for gross indecency. It has absolutely no place here. Speaking for myself, I am surprised also that the Bill specifies buggery with a boy under the age of 16. Why is that worse than the same offence with a girl? There is no end to the possible additions to and subtractions from this list.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like to associate myself entirely with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. From the schedule to the Extradition Act one has seen how comparatively insubstantial offences get added in a moment of excitement. I must say that Part I of Schedule 5 reads extremely oddly, not least paragraph 7.
With regard to the point about treason made by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, one would expect to find it in a schedule containing a list of offences which were automatically serious, though, of course, it would be caught by subsection (6) (a) of Clause 109. I should be sorry, too, to see arson added, because arson can vary very greatly in seriousness, from setting a tyre on fire to burning down a haystack or a house. Personally, I have grave doubts about the efficacy of the whole of Part I. There seems to me to be much to be said for limiting it to the first four items, and possibly adding treason.
Lord Renton: As my noble friend is being asked to reconsider this schedule, may I make the suggestion that there does not seem to be any underlying principle which separates the items in the schedule from some of the items in the clause. I should have thought that, for the sake of public understanding of what will become quite an important piece of the law, it would be better to have the whole thing either in the schedule, with a reference from the clause, or else all set out in the clause. As it is, I think that it is very muddled and unsatisfactory.
Lord Elton: The purpose of the schedule is to try to set out those offences of which really there cannot be relatively harmless examples. I will come in a moment to No. 7, the indecent assault one; but one cannot have a minor case of murder, an insignificant case of manslaughter, or a trivial case of rape. Incest with a girl under the age of 13 is always serious.
Lord Gisborough: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Elton: No. It is late. I should like to develop my theme, and the noble Lord can puncture it when it is complete. The purpose of the clause is to catch those offences which are not in that stark condition.
The amendment we are discussing seeks to delete from Schedule 5 the entry relating to indecent assault which constitutes an act of gross indecency. It may help your Lordships if I explain that this will not include the offence of gross indecency between men, under Section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Such offences are not indecent assaults, and so will not be covered by paragraph 7 of the schedule.
The offences of indecent assault are dealt with in Sections 14 and 15 of the 1956 Act, and, as might be expected, an essential element of the offence is that there must be an assault. Thus, for example, the touching of a person at his invitation, in an indecent or a grossly indecent manner, is not an indecent assault if the person is above the age of consent, which is 16 for indecent assault.
I think that it is clear that some indecent assaults are always serious offences. Bad indecent assaults can be at least as bad as a rape. Equally some indecent assaults

899
are not so serious as to merit inclusion in this schedule— for example, the friendly heterosexual pat.
To overcome the difficulty of ensuring that only serious offences were covered in the schedule, we have added a qualifying phrase. Only indecent assaults which constitute acts of gross indecency will always count as serious arrestable offences. The concept of gross indecency, which was endorsed in the recent report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, is a well-established one in the law on sexual offences, and will exclude the less serious cases of this offence.
Indecent assault in circumstances of gross indecency is the way in which one can, in legal terms, describe indecent assaults that will at the very least involve genital contact and they can be very bad indeed. They are not in the least trivial and the Criminal Law Revision Committee were satisfied that this description would attract the most serious indecent assaults, but not others—and that was after long years of debate.
As I have explained, the concept of gross indecency is descriptive of the character of the act constituting the assault. The concept is not limited to homosexual conduct. It has been applied for over 20 years in the case of conduct involving children of either sex under the Indecency with Children Act 1960. And, as I have said, there must be an assault—which means either that there was no consent or that the victim was too young to give a consent valid in law. These can be serious cases where the powers in the Bill may be called for. I hope that it is clear from what I have said that paragraph 7 of Schedule 5, Part I, does not cover anything but the most serious cases where the powers that they will attract ought to be attracted.
Lord Wigoder: Before the noble Lord sits down, has he by any chance the figures for which I asked him?
Lord Elton: No; the answer is that the figures are not broken down in a way which makes it possible to relate them to the items in Part I of Schedule 5, and I regret that.
Lord Wigoder: Is the noble Lord really saying that he has no idea how many offences of this type are committed every year?
Lord Elton: Not without notice. I see the force of the noble Lord's interest and I will write to him.
Lord Gifford: Do I understand that the Minister is closing his mind to any reconsideration of the inclusion of paragraph 7? It is a matter which has caused the greatest concern among homosexual men and the organisations which represent them. They fear—and it would seem with substance—that their lot (which is already an unenviable one because there are many police forces which pay a disproportionate amount of attention to crimes involving homosexuals) will be to be classified in the category of suspected serious offenders. Let us remember that it is not a question of proving the offence, but a question of whether someone is suspected of a serious offence, and then all these provisions bite. We will have persons suspected of having committed or attempting to
900
commit assaults involving gross indecency—which will normally be, as I understand it, homosexual men—with all the consequences that follow. It does seem to me to be out of context with the other provisions of the schedule, and I ask the Minister to look at it again.
Lord Elton: I do not see how, where there is both assault—which means that there is either resistance or else the victim is too young to give consent—and genital contact, it can be thought of as trivial. And I do not see how people can be thought of as being at risk in the normal pursuit of life if this particular activity should attract the attentions of the police and they should have the powers available to them—which are not draconian—of the serious arrestable offence.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before we leave this subject—which we shall soon—I have been worrying from the beginning about paragraph 5. Anybody who has studied the problem of incest knows that it is a most peculiar crime, not suitable in any way to the police. but suitable in almost every case to a doctor or someone of that kind. The idea that the police should have special powers in relation to all the different things that arise regarding incest seems to me very odd and rather an ignorant approach. I shall not say more at this stage, but I hope that the noble Lord will look at this.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord will be relieved to know that this is the last time that I shall intervene on this particular point. I suspect the noble Lord realises that the Committee would be grateful for some assurance that the department will look at the whole of this schedule again between now and the Report stage. I rather agree with my noble friend Lord Hutchinson: I understand paragraphs 1 to 4 inclusive. After that, quite frankly, it does not make much sense. I do not propose to rehearse the argument on arson; I still find it odd. if we go beyond paragraph 4, that we do not include arson. I find it strange that we include incest and leave out armed robbery.
Quite bluntly, I do not believe that this is a sensible schedule and I very much hope that the noble Lord will agree at least to look at this matter rather carefully between now and the Report stage to see whether he is prepared to introduce some amendments at that stage.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In view of what the noble Lord has said, as I understand "assault" it merely involves a contact without consent. It is not necessarily anything violent. The mere placing of a hand, for example, on the outside of the trousers would be an assault, unless it were by consent, which in this context it would not be. Perhaps the noble Lord would investigate that with the legal department. That is what I have always understood to be the law relating to assault.
Lord Elton: That was what I intended to convey by a "friendly heterosexual pat". The assault need not be serious and that is why it is coupled with the phrase "gross indecency", which then may combine to give the effect which a moment ago I described and which the Criminal Law Revision Committee was satisfied

901
only attracted the most serious indecent assaults and not others.
I am no lawyer; I rest on the wisdom, after years of consideration, of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. It is late and I think that that contributes a little to my willingness to say that we shall look at this. I think that, because that contributes so much to my willingness, I should tell your Lordships more forcefully than I usually do not to expect too much from it, because frankly I find myself more convinced after reading my speech than I was at the beginning of it, and that is a good test.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: If this amendment has achieved nothing else, it has certainly brought the spotlight to the concentration of this Committee upon Part I of the Fifth Schedule. I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he is prepared to look at the Schedule again. I urge upon him this consideration. The first four items undoubtedly belong to any list of serious offences. although there can be instances of, for example, manslaughter, where, although the consequences are anything but trivial—certainly nobody could ever say that of the loss of a human life—nevertheless there are cases which call for a non-imprisonment disposal: for example, a common assault—it leads, by the fact of a person having an egg-shell skull, to death. Very few judges would say that it is necessary to deprive a person of his liberty on that account.
Again, if one looks at the totality of the list, one can think of many grave offences—for example, the possession of heroin with intent to supply or arson with intent to endanger life. With the greatest respect to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, we doubt—and I say this with great sincerity—whether the Government have got it right. It may well be that perhaps the best way of reconsidering it would be to think in terms of a threshold of penalty, and to say that all offences carrying a penalty above x years' imprisonment should be included. I know not. It is a thought at a late hour. We are grateful to the Minister for the undertaking of reconsideration, and shall be happy to withdraw the amendment with the consent of the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Lord Denham: We have now reached the part of the Bill where I think it is generally agreed that we should break for the night. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  PRISONER D 15398: PAROLE
  PRISONER D 15398: PAROLE
  PRISON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS: ADJOURNMENTS
  PRISON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS: ADJOURNMENTS
  POLICE CAUTIONING
  POLICE CAUTIONING
  BUILDING SOCIETY LAW REFORM
  BUILDING SOCIETY LAW REFORM
  INDUSTRIAL PREMISES: RATES
  INDUSTRIAL PREMISES: RATES
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: SECTION 137 POWERS
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: SECTION 137 POWERS
  ENTRY REFUSALS AND EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS
  ENTRY REFUSALS AND EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS
  HOUSE PRICE INCREASES
  HOUSE PRICE INCREASES
  AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN DWELLING PRICES: 1978 to 1983
  AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN DWELLING PRICES: 1978 to 1983