Sitting of 28 June 1984

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 5 July.
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 5 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    New Ireland Forum
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will report on his discussions to date on the report of the New Ireland Forum with representatives of the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on discussions held so far with representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the report of the New Ireland Forum and related matters.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Mr. Peter Barry, in London on 25 May. We had a wide-ranging discussion, during which Mr. Barry referred to the New Ireland Forum report. I expect to meet him and other Irish Ministers from time to time to discuss matters of mutual concern within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council.
    Mr. Flannery: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but is it not a fact that the political situation in Northern Ireland, which seems to go on without changing much, is the reason why the New Ireland Forum was established? Is it not time that some new political initiative was at least thought about and dwelt on by the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman look through the subsequent questions today so that he can see that, although we are all worried about security, the fixing of so many minds upon that one issue, instead of thinking politically, is no help in solving the fundamental problems that we face together?
    Mr. Prior: We have to make slow and steady progress, and the people of Northern Ireland themselves must play the most important part Other matters will be relevant during Monday's debate
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the three proposals in the New Ireland Forum report are totally unacceptable to the majority of people in Northern Ireland? Does he agree also that if there is to be a solution in Northern Ireland it must be found within Northern Ireland by the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: It is absolutely clear that there can be no change in Northern Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I am certain that the consent of the people would not be forthcoming for any of the three suggestions mentioned in the report.
    Mr. John David Taylor: Since the New Ireland Forum report was effectively demolished last night by the decision of the largest political party in the Republic of Ireland to rule out all options other than that of a unitary state, will the Secretary of State confirm that he will not meet Fianna Fail to discuss the future of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: I should not want to be so sweeping as the right hon. Gentleman about what happened last night. I have no plans to meet Fianna Fail. The report suggests that there are ways and means which should be examined other than the matters which I believe require further investigation and consultation.
    Mr. Latham: Will may right hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) of the words of Prime Minister Clement Attlee, who said that no change should be made in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the Province's free agreement?
    Mr. Prior: That appears to have been the consistent theme for a number of years.
    Mr. Winnick: Do not the events of the past 10 years show that, on the basis of the status quo, there is no possibility of finding a solution to the problem or of ending the bloodshed and misery in Northern Ireland? Does not the New Ireland Forum report at least provide a framework for negotiations and discussions between the British Government and the main parties in the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: To have any success, the report must also form an agenda for discussion between the political parties in Northern Ireland. It would be no good the British Government and the Government of the Republic discussing these matters unless there was a degree of consultation and acceptance by the political parties within Northern Ireland itself. That is where any solution must come from. I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman about the future.
    Mr. Porter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he insists on discussing, as we shall on Monday, the Forum report, it will be sensible to discuss also the reasonable document put out by the Official Unionist party, which appears to me to provide a chink of light and the possibility of making progress?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, I think that "The Way Forward" is well worthy of discussion. I understand that other documents will be relevant to the debate on Monday.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that careful examination of the results of the recent elections for the European Assembly do not convey the euphoria which either the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) or the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) might seek to read into the figures? Will not the real threat for all concerned come with the local government elections next year? To what extent will the right hon. Gentleman give constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, especially the minorities, an effective voice and an interest in fighting those elections?
    Mr. Prior: It is essential that we give absolute support to the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland, both Unionist and Nationalist. That is the whole aim of the Government's policy, and one that we shall seek to carry out.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will my right hon. Friend build on some of the constructive proposals from the Unionist parties and persuade the SDLP to participate in the Assembly? Does he agree that unless Northern Ireland politicians can make a success of the Assembly, the patience of the British taxpayer in subsidising Northern Ireland may become exhausted?
    Mr. Prior: The Assembly is of great importance. I hope that the good work being done there will be generally recognised, both in this House and in Northern Ireland. I hope that the leaders and Members of the parties will discuss matters with one another because there is a better chance of success and greater stability in Northern Ireland now than there has been for some time.
    Mr. Archer: Reverting to "The Way Forward", does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most significant factor about that document is not the precise detail of its proposals, but the fact that it shows serious thought about the issues and recognises that mature constitutional politics are about resolving conflicts? Does he further agree that it is an encouraging and commendable sign by the Loyalists of a willingness to enter into discussions?
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, as the Unionist parties will be. In both the Forum document and "The Way Forward," the language is rather more important than some of the more specific recommendations.

    Security
    Sir John Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.
    Mr. Peter Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Ian Paisleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bellinghamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a fresh statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 24 May there have been six deaths in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. Three of those killed were civilians, one was a soldier, one a police officer and one a part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
    So far this year, 277 people have been charged with serious offences, including 29 with murder and 37 with attempted murder. In the same period, 119 weapons, 15,940 rounds of ammunition and 7,342 lb of explosives have been recovered.
    Sir John Farr: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the relative stability that he has achieved in the Province. In particular, I congratulate the security forces on the wonderful efforts that they have made. Will he assure the House that he does not intend to relax his pursuit of the terrorists? Will he use every legitimate means, including the successful super-grass system, which has put so many men behind bars, where they belong?
    Mr. Prior: We shall use every method under the law, and that includes converted terrorists.
    Mr. Robinson: Does the Secretary of State accept that, far from there being relative stability, the figures which he has recited show that for the first six months of this year there was more violence than in the comparative periods of the previous two years? Does he believe that the stinging rebuke given to Sinn Fein at the polls may force it into a more overt military stance? What steps does he intend to take to have a security policy which will effectively deal with that?
    Mr. Prior: The security statistics on deaths are worse this year than they have been for the last two years, but the general overall statistics are considerably better. One must, of course, bear in mind the activities of the IRA, connected as they are with Provisional Sinn Fein. I should have thought that one of the good things to come out of the European election results was the strong vote for constitutional politics on the part of the minority community and some check at least on the vote which Provisional Sinn Fein obtained.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that more people were murdered by the IRA in the first six months of this year than in the comparable periods of the previous two years. Does he not feel that the time has come for a change in the security policy that he has been pursuing? Is he not alarmed by the fact that the people of Enniskillen are concerned about the announcement, just made by the police authority, of the closing of the police training centre in Enniskillen? Is he aware that this looks like a retreat and that the people in the border areas feel sore about it?
    Mr. Prior: So far this year, of the 39 deaths, 31 may have been the responsibility of Republican terrorists. That is a serious situation. I do not think that it calls for any changes which would be helpful in security policy, but if changes were needed, I assure the House that they would be made. The answer to the second part of the hon.

    1145
    Gentleman's supplementary question is that the police authority considers that the facilities for training recruits at Enniskillen are no longer adequate, but it has not yet put a proposal to me, and not until one comes to me can I say whether it will be satisfactory.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State share my concern and alarm over the fact that the flow of explosives from the Republic of Ireland has more than doubled compared with last year? Will he take urgent and effective steps to reduce this flow?
    Mr. Prior: We have captured a great deal more explosives this year than for some years past. The figure for the whole of last year was 3,762 lb and we are already double that this year. There have been some of the biggest finds for a number of years. The place from where the explosive comes is hard to define—there is evidence that on a number of occasions it has come from the Republic, and I am in contact with the Republic on the matter—bearing in mind the ease with which explosives appear to be able to travel and the ease with which they can be made.
    Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that of late there has been a welcome improvement in the level of security along the frontier? May we have an assurance that that improvement will not be temporary, but will be maintained?
    Mr. Prior: There is always room for improvement, and I would not be satisfied with security along the border or anywhere else in the Province. There has been good cooperation at junior level in recent months along the border, and I hope that we can improve it further.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right and proper, when it comes to the criminal law, that members of the security forces are treated in the same way as other citizens in Northern Ireland? Does he agree also that, regardless of the merits, it is intolerable when a Foreign Minister of another country publicly criticises members of our judiciary?
    Mr. Prior: The present system of cases being referred to the independent DPP and then brought before criminal courts sitting in public where appropriate is the best method of ensuring that justice is seen to be done. As for interference from other countries, I cannot stop what others may say, although I think that on many occasions it would be more helpful if they did not comment.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding any slight increase in the number of lives lost in the first half of the year, the general stability of the Province is much greater than many on mainland Britain might believe from what they read in the press? This reflects the work of the security forces, which I was lucky enough to witness at first hand recently, and the political efforts of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Prior: I am delighted that so many Members on both sides of the House are making visits to Northern Ireland to see for themselves the much greater degree of stability and co-operation within the Province. I hope that they will do all that they can to help us attract more industry and thus to get more employment in the Province. I agree strongly that Northern Ireland requires its own political dimension and democratic institutions, and the more that we can do to encourage people to take part in these activities, the better.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is the Secretary of State able to assure me that should a site be identified for the police training depot which meets the criteria laid down by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in his report to the police authority for Northern Ireland last July, he will not rule out locating the new depot in County Fermanagh?
    Mr. Prior: I give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. He will understand that it will be a difficult matter to decide. We must recognise that the size of the police force has trebled in the past 10 years and that there is a need for a much more up-to-date training centre than the present one. At the end of the day I must give every consideration to the best interests of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Ms. Clare Short: Will the Secretary of State comment on the security implications of a large part of the community in Northern Ireland losing faith in the impartiality of the criminal justice system? Will he comment especially on he contents of a letter which I received today from a man called Jimmy Brown, who is on trial in the Kirkpatrick super-grass case? He tells me that three of the accused have been in gaol for 29 months and are now facing charges arising from their fifth super-grass. He recently applied for bail and his application was refused on the ground that he might not answer for trial—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will bear in mind the sub judice principle.
    Ms. Short: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I will. Although Jimmy Brown tells me that he produced evidence that at least 12 Loyalist prisoners accused of murder had been given bail, no Nationalist prisoner has ever been granted bail.
    Mr. Prior: I have always felt that one of the best things in Northern Ireland is the utter impartiality of the judiciary. In some cases suspected criminals, or alleged criminals, who have been remanded in custody on one charge have subsequently been further remanded on other charges. To some extent, that is the cause of considerable periods on remand. In his report, Sir George Baker made further recommendations on the subject of bail. One problem is that a number of people who have been let out on bail have absconded, and we cannot afford to the let that happen.
    Mr. McCusker: Bearing in mind that the hallmark of the most recent murders of security forces would appear to be that the murderers have had access to detailed personal information about the people whom they were about to kill, will the Secretary of State assure us that known members or supporters of Sinn Fein do not have access to sensitive information in either the Civil Service or the public service generally in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Prior: I am certainly not aware of any members of Sinn Fein having access to the kind of information to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If he has any evidence to that effect, perhaps he will let me know.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: In considering the security situation in Northern Ireland, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to maintain the high morale of British forces serving there? It is a matter of great worry, therefore, that the danger money allowance of £2·15 per day may be done away with. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that that allowance will continue?
    Mr. Prior: Those are matters not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. A report in a newspaper about my views should not be attributed to me, because those were not my views.
    Mr. Skinner: In view of the fact that for more than 15 years a massive number of shootings and killings have occurred in Northern Ireland, has the Secretary of State seen the statement by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Democratic candidate in America, suggesting that it is now time, because of the United States presence in Lebanon and Vietnam, to discuss withdrawing British troops from what he described as a colony? Is it the case that this particular Secretary of State has only a one-way ticket now that he has declared himself fed up with Northern Ireland and is not interested in a long-term solution?
    Mr. Prior: When I was at school, a schoolmaster used to say to his class that it was better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. I should have thought that the remarks attributed to the United States presidential candidate and the remarks of the hon. Gentleman fall into that category.
    Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman should put the dunce's cap on his head.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked his question. He must not persist.
    Mr. Nicholson: I hope that I shall not induce a similar answer from the Secretary of State. Will he confirm that the security measures which were introduced after the Mountain Lodge murders in my constituency have been drastically reduced?
    Mr. Prior: I had better write to the hon. Gentleman about that matter, because I should have to check the position to give him a proper and accurate answer.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the British service men in Northern Ireland, both now and in the past, have been and are Northern Ireland citizens, because the British Army is just that—the British Army?
    Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Archer: To revert to the serious question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), may I ask whether the Secretary of State has been made aware of the deep alienation among communities in both traditions arising from what they perceive as the erosion of traditional legal standards, for example, with the use in multiple trials of uncorroborated super-grass evidence? Leaving aside the merits of the argument, which we may have an opportunity to debate in the near future, has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether, in the interests of law and order, that alienation may be at such a price that it outweighs any possible benefits?
    Mr. Prior: Of course, I consider these matters extremely carefully. In all the circumstances, I believe that the use of converted terrorists to give evidence is perfectly in line with accepted practice in the United Kingdom. As for other statements that have recently been made, of course I am aware of the anxiety that they have caused, but it is not for me to comment on the judgment of the courts or on statements by members of the judiciary. I must maintain that position.

    Political Initiative
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any new proposals to tackle the political difficulties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the future of local government in the Province.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his further plans for giving the people of Northern Ireland more say in their own affairs.
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of local government in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Prior: The Government remain of the view that the restoration of powers to elected representatives in Northern Ireland offers the best hope of progress. We shall consider carefully constructive proposals for achieving greater stability. I have read with interest recent proposals that have been put forward, which the House will have the opportunity of debating shortly, and which I hope to discuss further with the Northern Ireland parties.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State aware that the continuation of his present policies, combined with his lukewarm approach to the report of the New Ireland Forum, hardly creates confidence that he is determined to do anything about the tragic problems of Northern Ireland? Is not a new initiative called for if the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to put more weight than he has today on the report of the New Ireland Forum?
    Mr. Prior: I think that we had better leave most of this matter until our discussions on Monday, but the fact is that the New Ireland Forum is based on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman must know, as the House must know, that consent would not be forthcoming for any of the suggested solutions in that report. That is why we have to go on looking for solutions within Northern Ireland which take into account the legitimate interests of both the majority and minority populations. We shall continue to do that.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: If we are supposed to believe in more positive and realistic political participation in the Province, is it not time that we considered giving more powers to local government there?
    Mr. Prior: We could do that only in the context of other arrangements. However, I do not rule it out as part of a suggested move forward that would have to contain other elements at the same time.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Has not the New Ireland Forum produced nothing new except three old, unacceptable options which have been around since de Valera? However, could not all responsible parties in the Province unite in support of the way forward, set out in the document of that name?
    Mr. Prior: I do not think that that is a fair view of the report of the New Ireland Forum, which goes considerably further than ever before to recognise the Britishness of the Unionists and their right, in a Northern Ireland context, to remain part of the United Kingdom. One must look at the report not only for what is written in it, but for what is not

    1149
    written in it, which was previously part of the policy of the Southern Government. Therefore, a combination of what it is now saying and what the Unionist document says gives a chance, at any rate, for progress to be made.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Secretary of State be careful not to take too much comfort from the recent small drop in electoral support for Sinn Fein, because over the past 35 or 40 years the vote of Sinn Fein and other extreme Republican parties in Northern Ireland has varied from about 75,000 to about 155,000? Therefore, there is nothing unusual in the result that we have just seen. Will the Secretary of State accept that the politics of protest and complaint are particularly apt in Northern Ireland when the gap between the ruled and the rulers, even in local government matters, is as wide as it is now, and people have great difficulty in identifying who is responsible for what?
    Mr. Prior: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. McNamara: Does the Secretary of State agree that the major political difficulty facing the Government in Northern Ireland is the refusal of many sections of the community, both Nationalist and Unionist, to accept the present system of administration of justice there? In explaining the reasons for the length of remand, he has now changed his ground from the original claim that it was because the counsel of choice could not be obtained to the argument that it is because the nature of the charges is changed from day to day. After two years and five informers, is it not clear that the Government's basic policy is for internment without trial under another name—that of remand from day to day?
    Mr. Prior: That is a travesty of what we seek to achieve. In no way do we seek through the remand system to have detention without trial. Every effort is being made to reduce the time spent on remand and we are having some success in that. We are studying a number of aspects of the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. All these matters will be relevant to next week's debate and perhaps to a discussion of the Baker report in due course.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Was it not part of the original intention that the Northern Ireland Assembly should progressively assume local government functions? Does the Secretary of State retain any optimism at all about that?
    Mr. Prior: The Assembly was not necessarily intended to take over local government functions, but if suggestions come forward to that end we shall, of course, consider them carefully, together with other suggestions which would have to be made at the same time.

    Magilligan Prison
    Mr. A. Cecil Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with conditions at present prevailing in Magilligan prison.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): My right hon. Friend and I are satisfied with the conditions available to prisoners in Magilligan prison. We are, of course, aware of the continuing campaign for the segregation of Loyalist and Republican prisoners, and we are keeping all aspects of the situation under review, in consultation with the governor.
    Mr. Walker: Will the Minister comment on disquieting reports that conforming Loyalist prisoners are being physically abused by Republican prisoners and have lost privileges and freedom as a result? Will he also comment on the fact that prison officers seem unable to keep the situation under control, with the result that further privileges and freedoms have been lost? In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that some form of separation should be introduced, similar to that being instituted in the Maze, in an effort to control the situation?
    Mr. Scott: I am not prepared to accept a situation in the prisons of Northern Inland in which the prisoners can decide where and how they are to be accommodated. That would have the gravest implications for the influence of paramilitary groups within the prisons. Certain aspects of the situation at Magilligan give cause for concern, but the governor and his staff are alert to ensure that any disturbances are speedily quelled and those responsible punished.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that a Protestant prisoner in Magilligan—I can give his name and number — who is not a member of a paramilitary organisation has stated that he has broken no prison rules but that when he attempt ed to use the canteen facilities within the last week he was attacked and beaten up by Republican prisoners, and that he was then found guilty of fighting and lost 28 days' remission? Does the Minister agree that if that prisoner's statement is proved correct, the position is entirely unacceptable? Will the Minister undertake to investigate the case in detail so as to ensure that prisoners who wish to serve their sentences in safety have the protection of prison officers while in prison?
    Mr. Scott: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. We are concerned to ensure that prisoners can serve their sentences in safety in the prisons to which they are sent. It is not for me to comment from the Dispatch Box on the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as I suspect that he has only one side of the story, but if he writes to me about it I stall certainly investigate.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister express in this House his great concern about the prison officers who from time to time have highlighted the security situation in Magilligan prison? Does lie agree that the governor should be able to exercise his prerogative and institute separation for the good of the prisoners, so that there will not be confrontations and attacks, given that many Protestants have been injured at that prison?
    Mr. Scott: Half the wings at Magilligan are fully integrated and prisoners are conforming and working very satisfactorily. In the others, in at least two of the blocks, there is active paramilitary involvement in some of the disturbances and certainly collusion on some occasions between paramilitaries of the two sides. The governor and staff do their best to ensure that prisoners can serve their sentences in safety.
    Mr. Soley: The problems faced by the staff in Magilligan highlight the problems facing the whole Northern Ireland prison system, many of which were discussed in the Hennessy report. What progress is being made to implement those general recommendations, particularly those concerning the training of prison officers?
    Mr. Scott: The majority of the recommendations in Sir James Hennessy's report have now been implemented. The others will take longer to implement. There has been some advance on the training front, but discussions with the Prison Officers Association and others are still continuing on some aspects of the matter.

    EEC Election Results
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the light of the European Economic Community election results in Northern Ireland, how he is now seeking to learn and assimilate the political views of the minority community.
    Mr. Prior: I recognise the importance of maintaining close contact with political and other community leaders of the minority who reject violence, especially the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his party, who plainly speak for most people on that side of the community. Proper account needs to be taken of the minority's views and the issues that are of concern to it.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the votes cast for the political face of violence in the recent election represented deep alienation? If he accepts that, will he impress upon the Irish Government the fact that if they are concerned about alienation and the threat of it spreading into the Republic, it is time for them to join him in making it clear that, whatever the political aspirations may be, the reality is that there is no way forward through a united Ireland and that people must come to terms with that if progress is to be made?
    Mr. Prior: During Monday's debate I hope to set out a number of realities which one must bear in mind in assessing the New Ireland Forum's report and other documents. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is not just a matter of the learning and assimilation of minority views, but also of majority views? Does not the lack of coherence of British Government policy lead to gross uncertainty in both the minority and majority communities in Northern Ireland, with the result that people turn to authoritarian candidates and authoritarian parties on both sides of the political divide?
    Mr. Prior: Nothing is as incoherent as saying that one is in favour of a united Ireland, and working towards that end, while knowing that the people of Northern Ireland would not be prepared to accept it.

    Gas Industry
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the the Northern Ireland gas industry.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): The future of Northern Ireland gas industry is bound up with the planned supply of natural gas from Kinsale in the Republic of Ireland. Factors involving price and potential market have recently emerged which could adversely affect the prospects for the natural gas project. These factors are now being assessed to determine their long-term significance.
    Mr. McCusker: Will the Minister accept that that reply will cause disappointment in the gas industry in
    1152
    Northern Ireland and further afield? Will he also accept that it may well accelerate the drift away from the gas industry, which is at present running at 1 per cent. a month, and that that will further jeopardise any prospect of success? Can he scotch the rumour that the reason for the reconsideration is the unwillingness of the Republic to supply gas, caused by the fact that it has overestimated the supply of gas in Kinsale?
    Mr. Butler: I am happy to scotch that rumour. Secondly, I agree that we must take a decision as quickly as possible, for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and also because, if we do not, we shall not be able to implement plans for getting gas to Belfast in the latter part of 1985.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In retrospect, is it not clear that it was a tragedy that the advice of this party in 1979 to create a gas link with the mainland was not taken?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It is quite clear from the analysis that has been done that such a link would have been much more expensive.

    Chief Constable
    Rev. William McCreaasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Chief Constable and police representatives of Northern Ireland; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend and I met the Chief Constable and representatives of the Police Federation on 20 June to discuss the development of social and recreational facilities for the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Rev. William McCrea: In his discussions with the Chief Constable and representatives of the Police Federation, did the Secretary of State pledge total support for the federation in fulfilling its obligations to provide adequate recreational facilities for its members? Does the Minister agree that it is a shame that the Chief Constable should interfere in the provision of recreational facilities, especially when the money came out of federation finances?
    Mr. Scott: The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the police authority have developed a plan for the provision of recreational facilities for the RUC. The Police Federation asked my right hon. Friend for a decision on the future of the Kilroot facilities and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make that decision in the next few days.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Yeoasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming most warmly the speech that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made yesterday, underlining the importance of improved East-West

    1153
    relations and of multilateral disarmament? Will she ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to take the opportunity of his forthcoming visit to the Soviet Union to develop that theme by increasing pressure on the Soviet Union in regard to human rights issues?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend's remarks confirm what was said at the London economic summit on this matter. They confirm the approach of unity, resolve, dialogue and co-operation. We must also never forget that some human rights are not upheld in the Soviet Union and we must make representations about them, especially in regard to the plight of Sakharov, Mrs. Bonner, Shcharansky and many others whose names we do not know. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will do that.
    Mr. Mason: After 17 weeks of an overtime ban and 16 weeks of a strike, and with no end in sight to the dispute, will the Prime Minister now become a promoter of conciliation between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers, instead of standing by and allowing the coal industry to fall into disrepair and gradual destruction?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that there will be conciliation between the miners who work, the miners who are on strike—they are by no means all—and the National Coal Board. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, two out of the three trade unions involved in the coal industry are prepared to sit down and discuss the future "Plan for Coal". We shall never get the industry going again successfully until work force and management are prepared to sit down together. The Government have done their part by saying that money is available for an excellent pay settlement, which puts miners' pay some 25 per cent. above the rest of industry, by showing that investment plans in "Plan for Coal" have been more than carried out, by saying that there is no need for compulsory redundancies and by providing excellent money for voluntary redundancies.
    Mr. Nelsonasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement which has just been made by STC and ITT of a £900 million investment and the creation of some 5,000 jobs over the next five years is good news for Britain, a reflection of the technological skills that are available in Britain and the clearest possible further evidence of confidence in the Government's economic and industrial policies?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that the news from both of those great companies was good for jobs, and shows that they think there is a great future for jobs in the new electronics and technological industries.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister note that in St. James's hospital in Leeds no fewer than 2,142 appointments for inpatients were cancelled because of the shortage of beds? One of my constituents has had four appointments cancelled. When the Prime Minister states that the Health Service is safe in her hands, will she
    1154
    remember that there is a shortage of beds, and will she do something to rectify that anomaly and provide more facilities to accomodate people in need?
    The Prime Minister: The Government's record on the National Health Service is shown by the fact that far greater numbers of patients have been treated than previously, whether day patients or people who must stay in hospital for longer, and the waiting lists are shorter. The hon. Gentleman cannot criticise our record when it is compared with that of any other Government.
    Mr. Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House is being used too much for the convenience of the Government and not sufficiently for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen? Why can we not consider the Budget proposals and the public expenditure proposals together at the beginning of the year, the Finance Bill by the end of May and rise at the end of June to return in September? Why must we continue to do things in the same way as Mr. Gladstone?
    The Prime Minister: I doubt whether Mr. Gladstone's Government stayed so long on some subjects as we do. However, some of my hon. Friend's proposals are very attractive.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister will recall that last Saturday at the Welsh Conservative party conference she said, of the harrowing experience of the Aberfan disaster, that she hoped it would be possible
    "to make things better—better equipment, better pits, safer and healthier conditions."
    Is she aware that, as a consequence of cuts in Government grants to the Medical Research Council, the unique pneumoconiosis research unit at Llandough hospital in south Wales is to be closed, together with research programmes into cot deaths and the horrific disease of Huntington's chorea, which are being undertaken in laboratories and hospitals in Cambridge? In the name of plain humanity, and following those instincts which moved her at the time of the disaster, will she ensure that those cuts do not occur?
    The Prime Minister: The full budget of the Medical Research Council for 1984–85 is £117·2 million. In 1983–84 it was £113 million, in 1982–83 it was £104 million, in 1981–82 it was £101 million, in 1980–81 it was £71 million and in 1979–80 it was £54·4 million. The right hon. Gentleman can see that the Medical Reaseach Council has £117·2 million for this year. How it disburses that expenditure and how it chooses its priority is, and always has been, a matter for the Medical Research Council under each and every Government.
    With regard to cot deaths, I understand that the current grant to the team at Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge, which is developing and testing an artificial lung coating for premaure babies, will end in August. Its research is not into cot deaths, as the press has reported. The Medical Research Council is supporting work on cot deaths at Brompton hospital and at Sheffield university.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that not even the Medical Research Council can distribute money that it does not have? There are real cuts of £3 million this year and £2 million next year in the money which the Government propose to allocate to the Medical Research Council. Despite her claims, is she aware that last year's Medical Research Council's report said,

    1155
    "There has been no significant growth in real terms over the last four years."
    Will she now answer the question? Will she ensure that the Medical Research Council, in those essential areas of inquiry and research, is provided with adequate funds so that further suffering and deaths can be prevented, or will she go further in justifying the criticism made by Portsmouth Tories, who called her intractable and uncaring?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman linked his question to what I said about the coal industry. May I respond in exactly the same way? The worst 12 per cent. of coal production in Britain costs £275 million in subsidies. Perhaps if we could spend less on subsidies to nationalised industries we would have more to spend on medical research.
    Mr. Kinnock: That was one of the most infamous and callous dodges that even the right hon. Lady has made. If she was investing properly in the pits of south Wales, many fewer men would have pneumoconiosis. That is the way to reduce the need for research.
    The Prime Minister: Will the right hon. Gentleman release some of the £275 million?
    Mr. Freudasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Freud: While the Prime Minister pursues her policy of imposing equal misery on all sectors, will she especially examine the Open University, which has had a 10 per cent. increase in its population, a 5 per cent. cut in its grant allocation, which does not have buildings that it can sell nor staff to which it can give early retirement, and which does not even have a University Grants Committee to which it can appeal? Will she ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to consider carefully its application for further funds?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot agree that there should be any increases in overall expenditure. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in education, expenditure per pupil has increased, pupil-teacher ratios have fallen and are the best ever, more children are receiving nursery education and more 18-year-olds are entering higher education. That is our record on education as a whole. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues constantly ask for further public expenditure, but then constantly complain about the level of taxation necessary to meet such expenditure.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend help Arthur Scargill to estimate the job losses in the steel industry if he continues his arrogant, incompetent actions?
    The Prime Minister: If the coal strike continues and is able to shut some steel plants there will be enormous job losses in the steel industry, because customers will go away and will never return, even if those plants reopen.
    1156
    If the plants close, there will be even greater job losses in the coal industry, because the National Coal Board supplies 4 million tonnes of coal to the industry. There will be further job losses on the railways, which convey the coal from its source to the steel plants, and job losses in all the industries that depend upon steel and coal for supplying engineering and other materials to them.
    Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us are not prepared even to contemplate the steel industry being closed? Why is it that week after week she avoids answering the question for which she is responsible—why the law of the land on secondary picketing is not being invoked? Why is she not prepared to state her view that it should be invoked and why, against all documentary evidence, do the Government continue to persuade the British Steel Corporation not to bring a civil action?
    The Prime Minister: I have continually answered the right hon. Gentleman. The trouble is that he does not like the accurate and true answer. If the BSC wished to use its civil powers to go for an injunction, it would be able to use it. The question that it has to ask is whether that would stop the mischief to which the use would be directed.
    Dr. McDonaldasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. McDonald: Why is it that when America is running such a huge budget deficit the dollar is so strong and the pound has hit an all-time low?
    The Prime Minister: One reason is that interest rates are very much higher and, of course, are making the dollar strong. That is one of the problems with the US deficit. It tends to drag up interest rates all over the rest of the world.
    Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read of the decision by the Labour party to plan, together with the NUM, a joint campaign against pit closures? Does she agree that that constitutes an attack by Her Majesty's official Opposition on those men who are working in the mining industry and on those steel workers at Llanwern and Ravenscraig who, at this moment, are fighting for their livelihood?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the Labour party is against the working miners. It is supporting the striking miners and is now supporting the striking miners against the steel workers and against all of those who work in industries which need a secure supply of coal and electricity at reasonable prices. The Labour party is against the majority of the people working in industry today.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 JULY—A debate on the New Ireland Forum, and other documents on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
TUESDAY 3 JULY—A debate on the 1984 CAP price fixing, in particular milk quotas, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, and when the draft dairy produce quotas regulations and EEC document 6059/84 will be relevant.
Motion on EEC documents on fisheries, the relevant document numbers will appear in the Official Report.
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.
WEDNESDAY 4 JULY—Estimates Day (2nd Allotted Day). The Estimates for consideration will appear in the Official Report.
Remaining stages of the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 5 JULY—Opposition Day (18th Allotted Day). Debate on an Opposition motion on "the Government attack on the National Health Service—The Alternative for Better Health Care."
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order.
FRIDAY 6 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 9 JULY—Consideration of private Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, remaining stages of the Cable and Broadcasting Bill [Lords.]
Estimates for consideration on Wednesday 4 July:

1. Class IX, Vote 8 (Prisons, England and Wales (Home Office)). Consideration of this Estimate to be completed not later than half-past 7 o'clock.

2. Class VIII, Vote 5 (Central Administration and Environmental Research (Department of the Environment)). Subhead DI (Dog and Game Licences).

Class VII, Vote 1 (Housing, England (Department of the Environment)).

Class VIII, Vote 1 (Local Environmental Services).

Class VIII, Vote 2 (Central Environmental Services etc.).

Class VIII, Vote 4 (Royal Palaces, Royal Parks, Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments and the National Heritage (Department of the Environment).

Adjournment debate on CAP prices and milk quotas on 3 July.
Relevant Document: Agricultural Prices 1984–85 Document No. 6059/84.
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee
HC 78-xxiv (1983–84) paragraph 2.
Fisheries Debate on 3 July
Documents

(a) Total Allowable Catches for 1984—Document No. 11209/83 and Document No. 11209/83 Amendment 1.

(b) North Sea Herring: Interim.

(c) North Sea Herring: Norway—Document No. 4969/84.

(d) Total Allowable Catches for 1984: Amendment—Document No. 5390/84.

1158

(e) Fishery Conservation: technical measures—Document No. 7250/84.

(f) North Sea Herring—Document No. 7248/84.

(g) Fish Stocks/TACs (sprat)—Document No. 7286/84.

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 78-xii (1983–84) paragraph 4.

(b) HC 78-xii (1983–84) paragraph 5.

(c) HC 78-xvi (1983–84) paragraph 4.

(d) HC 78-xx (1983–84) paragraph 5.

(e) HC 78-xxvi (1983–84) paragraph 1.

(f)W HC 78-xxvii (1983–84) paragraph 8.

(g) HC 78-xxix (1983–84) paragraph 2.

Mr. Kinnock: First, I thank the Government for the debate on Tuesday on milk quotas. If the contents of the draft order are not acceptable, will the Minister. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food give an undertaking that he will revise the order in the light of the views expressed in the House and so forcefully put elsewhere?
Our debate on the NHS on Thursday has been deliberately chosen to take place on the anniversary of the establishment of the NHS. Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that we shall be drawing attention to the fact that the attitude of the Conservative party, now as then, is, to say the least, one of very conditional enthusiasm for the National Health Service? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Where it is not nonsense, it is very conditional enthusiasm.
In the light of the Prime Minister's statement on the Fontainebleau summit, may we have a full debate, on a substantive motion, in the near future and before the tabling of the legislation that will commit Britain irrevocably to increases in VAT own resources?
Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that there will be a debate in the near future on the Baker report on the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978?
Will he consider providing time for a debate on the effects of the United States deficit and interest rates on the British economy? In view of a recent answer from the Prime Minister, at least one right hon. Member on the Conservative Benches urgently needs educating about the state of affairs in the United States.
Mr. Biffen: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for the points that he has put, and take up immediately his observations about the possibility of a debate upon the effects of the United States deficit? Of course, these matters can be considered through the usual channels, but I should have thought that, as we are now close to the Report stage of the Finance Bill, that could well provide an opportunity for discussions of this kind.
The Baker report is an important document and, indeed, relevant to the debate on Thursday. I will be looking for an early opportunity to arrange a debate on this matter, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, there is insufficient time for it next week.
I note the anxiety that the House should have an early opportunity to debate the European Community, particularly in the context of the Fontainebleau decisions, and I very much hope that that can be arranged.
I note that Thursday is to be signalled as the anniversary of the National Health Service and I am sure that in what will be a constructive and wide-ranging debate my hon. Friends will wish to assert their formidable record in the development of the service and in making it an integral part of the consensus of British politics.

1159
The debate on milk quotas will be in the context of a draft order, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will wish to take account of the debate when making his final judgments.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend will have noticed not only today but on other days concern about the future of the mining dispute and the associated issues of reducing injuries and deaths as well as considering whether future money for the coal industry should go into profitable pits or continue to go in subsidies to unprofitable ones. Will he find an opportunity, if not next week then the week after, on a motion for the Adjournment so that Members on both sides of the House can put forward their views, first, to call for an end to violence as well as condemning it, and, secondly, to give their views on where the investment should go—to profitable investment or to unprofitable investment?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bear in mind the virtues of an Adjournment debate upon the coal industry dispute, but I have to say to my hon. Friend that there is no prospect of one next week.
Mr. Greville Janner: Can the Leader of the House give an assurance that neither Mr. Lepem nor any other National Front leader from France will be permitted into this country to attend the Fascist rally in Maidstone shortly? If he is unable to do so, may we be assured that there will be a debate in the House so that we do not suddenly find that, without the House having had the chance to express an opinion, we have an invasion from across the Channel of Fascist leaders, whether or not they are Members of the European Parliament?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot give such an undertaking because I have no departmental responsibility in the area that has been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I will certainly draw the points that he makes to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Sir John Farr: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the title of the debate for Monday? It appears to some of us that there are a number of equally important and significant documents that have been produced about the future of Northern Ireland, and to single out one may give some undue significance to it.
Mr. Biffen: It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that the reference to "other documents" covers the Official Ulster Unionist document "The Way Forward", the Official Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly debate on the forum report, "The Unionist Case", which is a Democratic Unionist party document on the Forum report, and a discussion paper on joint sovereignty produced by the Alliance party research committee. I understand that those documents are available in the Library.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will there be an opportunity next week—and, if so, on what day—to discuss proposed changes in the membership of Select Committees? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give us an opportunity next week to discuss—as he has often suggested—the arrangement by which 16 days of Opposition time have been taken by the Labour party, one day by the alliance, half a day by the Ulster Unionists and
1160
half a day by the Government? Will he also provide an early opportunity to discuss the order under which 5,000 rural telephone boxes are threatened with closure as a result of the Government's privatisation of BT?
Mr. Biffen: I shall consider all those points and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Since our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that the main reason for allowing an increase in VAT own resources to the Community was to allow for its enlargement to incorporate Spain and Portugal, and since as my right hon. Friend may know—although it has not yet been published—Commission estimates show that the inclusion of Spain and Portugal may cost nothing and is most likely to cost only 0·15 per cent. of VAT starting in 1986 and not fully arising until 10 years after that time, and as it is therefore unlikely that the accession of Spain and Portugal could necessitate any increase in VAT, may we have a rapid debate on the enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal?
Mr. Biffen: I do not know about a rapid debate, but, as I have said, I very much hope that we can have an early debate on the Community.
Mr. John Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the Attorney-General's attention to our dissatisfaction about the fact that he announced by way of a written answer the Government's decision to suspend the Bingham committee, which is considering certain aspects of contempt? Does not the Attorney-General have a duty to attend the House to meet criticism, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. and learned Friend did precisely the same thing a few weeks ago when he gave his last major statement on picketing in the form of a written answer on a Friday afternoon? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Attorney-General to make a statement to the House next week?
Mr. Biffen: I know that my right hon. And learned Friend the Attorney-General would be most anxious to be acquitted of any discourtesy to the House, and I shall, of course, draw his attention to that point.
Mr. Neil Thorne: As many right hon. and hon. Members were unable to speak in last week's debate on the defence Estimates, does my right hon. Friend have any plans to provide us with a great opportunity to discuss discipline before the summer recess? Will he consider giving three days in future to a debate on the defence Estimates, possibly with only one opening speech altogether and a closing speech on each of the three days, because at present an undue amount of time is devoted to opening and closing speeches?
Mr. Biffen: Although I can give no firm commitment, my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are now moving into the season when the individual Services are debated by this House. In the meantime, I have noted my hon. Friend's observations about Front Bench speeches, and I imagine that they have secured some support.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already placed in the Library an adequate supply of the Ulster Unionist document to which he referred?
Mr. Biffen: Yes, and I am sure that there will be a good and steady demand for it.
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to announce to the House how legal effect will be given to the proposed increase from 1 per cent. to 1·4 per cent. in our VAT take to the EEC? Will it involve reform of the European Communities Act 1972? Will he give an assurance that the Committee stage of that legislation to amend the 1972 Act will be conducted on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Biffen: I am not really in a position to answer that question, but I am sure that that is one of the topics that will quite legitimately be pursued further when we debate the Fontainebleau arrangements.
Mr. Leo Abse: May I ask the Leader of the House yet again about the Warnock report on in vitro pregnancies? Since that report is clearly in the Secretary of State's hands and has been widely publicised outside the House, and since the House is the last place in which the matter is to be debated, may we have assurances that the report will be published before the summer recess so that we can have a debate in the Chamber?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. There are plenty of opportunities for private pursuit and initiatives to ensure that such matters are brought to the Floor of the House.
Mr. Timothy Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the consequences of the international banking crisis and the problems of the Third world, especially of South American debtor nations? May I commend the subject, not only because of the potential damage that could be done to this and other countries, but because it is one of the crises for which the Government cannot be held to blame but the consequences of which they could claim credit for alleviating.
Mr. Biffen: That is rather nice. This is the time of year when we are under considerable constraint in relation to parliamentary time. There is no prospect of such a debate next week or in the near future.
Mr. James Lamond: Since the Stockholm conference on security, confidence building and disarmament in Europe draws to the conclusion of its second stage next Thursday, and since it appears that the Government are now anxious to have warmer and closer relations with the Soviet Union, would it not be opportune for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to make a statement about progress, and efforts by Britain to make progress at Stockholm to justify the meeting of 35 European and North American nations?
Mr. Biffen: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Secretary will be in Moscow next week. Parliamentary opportunity to raise such issues could be taken during the debates on the Service Estimates.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the confusion about the future pattern and financing of broadcasting, particularly about direct broadcasting by satellite and about community radio? May we have an early general debate on the future of broadcasting in addition to the detailed consideration that we have had on cable broadcasting?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend might like to take the opportunity available to hon. Members in private time to
1162
pursue the matter. I shall, of course, refer my hon. Friend's important suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the ever-increasing hard drug problem, and will he arrange it in Government time because the Government are directly responsible? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unemployed youngsters and teenagers, with no hope or stake in their future, are easy prey to the evil drug pushers, that the police are unable to deal with the problem because it has reached epidemic proportions and that the area health authorities do not have the resources to provide for the medical consequences of the hard drug problem? Is he aware that the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise staff have been cut by the Government and so cannot stop the floodgates through which the stuff comes in from Pakistan? Is he aware that worried parents in Merseyside and throughout the country are calling the Thatcher years the hard drug years and that a whole generation is being sacrificed?
Mr. Biffen: That matter was raised last week by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). I said then that I would refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that today is an Opposition day and that there is to be a statement first. I shall allow business questions to continue until 4 o'clock. If hon. Members speak briefly, they will all be called.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Leicester, which is a Labour-controlled council, has just launched a massive public relations campaign against rate capping? Will he provide time for a debate on the role of the district auditor to act as a warning to Labour-controlled councils throughout the country that they are wasting taxpayers' and ratepayers' money?
Mr. Biffen: As the topic does not involve public expenditure, it is an ideal subject for an Adjournment debate. I wish my hon. Friend well in any such intitiative.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesborough): Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of early-day motion No. 114 about breaches of emigration policy in the Soviet Union under the universal declaration on human rights and the final act of the Helsinki agreement?
[That this House views with grave concern recent Soviet pronouncements that the emigration process is complete with its implications that the Soviet authorities will continue to deny exit visas to those 380,000 Jews still awaiting them; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to urge the Soviet authorities to comply with their human rights obligations and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the breaches constitute serious violations and are worthy of a debate in the House at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Biffen: Clearly this is a matter of great concern, as is shown by the number of signatures attached to the early-day motion and subsequent amendments. However, I must say in all candour that no Government time can be found for such a debate next week.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 71,000 men employed by the British Steel Corporation are extremely concerned about their future, following the decision of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers to butcher their industry? Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that matter so that finally the Leader of the Opposition can say whether he supports the president of the NUM in closing down forever Llanwern, Ravenscraig and other major steel plants?
Mr. Biffen: Although trying to secure a clear and unambiguous statement from the Leader of the Opposition is an enticing prospect, I confess that no Government time can be found for that next week.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: In the light of the recent results of the elections to the stock exchange and the growing concern in the City about security protection, and so on, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate—if not next week, in the week following—on the Gower report before any legislation is drafted?
Mr. Biffen: There is widespread feeling in the House that there should be a debate on the Gower report. Although I can give no specific commitment, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's request sympathetically, if I can.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: On the National Health Service debate next Thursday, will my right hon. Friend use his powers through the usual channels to ensure that there is a reversal of the usual pattern so that those Conservative Members who take an interest in that subject do not find themselves debating with deserted Opposition Benches? Can my right hon. Friend ensure that some Labour Members actually turn up to demonstrate that their concern for the health and welfare of this nation is genuine and not just hogwash?
Mr. Biffen: I have some responsibilities, but, mercifully, they do not cover trying to secure the proper attendance of Opposition Members.
Mr. David Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for the House to consider the constitutional implications of the policing of the miners' strike? It appears to some of us that, in some cases, the police are not only making their own laws but are departing from the rules which, in the past, have governed their conduct.
Mr. Biffen: No provision has been made for such a debate in Government time, but if the matter causes such widespread dissatisfaction among Opposition Members no doubt time will be found through the processes available to the Opposition.
Mr. William Cash: When will the House have an opportunity to debate the British Telecom licence which we understand was recently laid before the House?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. and learned Friend raises an important point which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: As the Cabinet Secretary appears to be engaged in consultation about recommendations for the appointment
1164
of a successor to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what arrangements he proposes to make to ensure that any recommendation carries the full support of the House because of the parliamentary nature of the job?
Secondly, in view of the extremely trenchant criticisms—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair to ask more than one question.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises a point which, I am sure, is dear to him and is of topical relevance to the House. I will look into it and be in touch with him.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the high quality of debate going on in the media about the countryside and the views being expressed by the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council? As this matter affects every hon. Member and every constituency, does he agree that time should be found in the reasonably near future to debate it, remembering that the reconciliation of the interests of town versus country are important to us all?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an important point. This is the time of year when there are a number of private Members' occasions and I hope that, at least initially, we might ventilate this topic, and consider subsequently whether it merits debate in Government time.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on drugs abuse? Will he tell the Secretary of State for Social Services that we require a programme for action on drugs abuse, particularly in the light of repeated comment in the media in recent months and the fact that the public cannot understand why Parliament does not appear to wish to respond to the major concern on this issue?
Mr. Biffen: I promised that I would refer the remarks, which were reasonably extended, of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) to my right hon. Friend. I am certain that he will regard them appropriately.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend find time, if not next week then in the weeks following, for a debate on the Government's reply to the report on Grenada of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs? It is an uncharacteristically belligerent reply, and I should be grateful if time could be found to make certain that the Government do not repeat the mistakes which the Select Committee pointed out.
Mr. Biffen: I am all for a bit of belligerence in these matters. I am afraid, however, that I cannot provide the facility of Government time to protract the fisticuffs.
Mr. John Home Robertson: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the extraordinary statement made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport on Monday, in which he announced an inquiry into a train crash at Morpeth but in the same statement prejudged that inquiry by saying what he thought had caused the accident? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that points of order have been raised in the House on the subject every day this week and that it is imperative that the Minister concerned returns to the

1165
House to set the record straight, if only to ensure that my constituent, the train driver, gets fair treatment at the inquiry?
Mr. Biffen: I understand that the point has been raised on the Floor of the House and has since been the subject of a ruling by Mr. Speaker. I shall refer to my hon. Friend the point that has now been raised.
Mr. David Maclean: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wisdom in giving us a chance next Tuesday to debate the vexed question of milk quotas. May I ask him in all innocence whether the House will have a chance, before we rise for the summer recess, to amend the detailed regulations which will come before us so that we can achieve the best possible legislation before it passes into law?
Mr. Biffen: I have never heard a less innocent question. My hon. Friend will know that the debate on Tuesday will have before it a document, which will not be the final document. I have no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will listen carefully to the views that are expressed in that debate before Parliament finally has the opportunity of confirming the order.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that we should discuss the role and responsibility of the chairmen of nationalised industries, particularly in view of the statement of Mr. MacGregor last night that he wanted to see the leadership of the NUM roundly defeated rather than see a quick solution to the miners' strike? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that was a responsible statement, and does it not throw into question Mr. MacGregor's suitability for the post of chairman of a nationalised industry?
Mr. Biffen: I am not sure I feel that there is an imperative for Government time to be given up to provide a debate on the role of the chairmen of nationalized
1166
industries. If the hon. Lady can persuade her colleagues that the topic is of such significance, I am sure that they will provide the time.
Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Leader of the House agree that, as we near the summer recess, it is imperative for us to debate the mining industry, particularly in view of answers given by the Prime Minister in which she seems to accept the seriousness of what is occurring not only to the mining industry but to the rest of industry in Britain, although we note her apparent abdication of responsibility for such matters? As the chairman is seeking to prolong the strike rather than shorten it, it is imperative that the House debates the issue. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give an assurance that there will be a debate next week, will he agree to arrange a debate before the summer recess?
Mr. Biffen: I assured the hon. Gentleman when he raised this matter last week that the issue was being kept under constant review. He is right in thinking that no provision has been made for a debate next week. None the less, the matter will still be considered.
Mr. Max Madden: What plans does the Prime Minister have to tell the House what she has already arranged to tell journalists through her press adviser about the rumours that are circulating concerning a member of the Cabinet and their lack of substance? Will he confirm that security service reports are the basis of the advice which has been given to journalists?
Mr. Biffen: I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's good natured anxiety to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I normally take points of order after statements. I shall take them after the Standing Order No. 10 application, if it arises.

Enterprise Oil
4.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the sale of shares in Enterprise Oil.
The application list opened and closed yesterday for the sale of 212 million shares at a minimum tender price of 185p a share, payable in two instalments.
The issue was underwritten successfully and in full on 19 June by a wide range of institutions. The share market generally, and the oil market in particular, have substantially weakened between the underwriting of the issue and the opening of the list. Applications were received for 66·4 per cent. of the ordinary share capital. Rio Tinto-Zinc has announced that it applied for 49 per cent. of the shares. All its applications were made through nominees.
At the outset, the Government clearly stated their intention that Enterprise should be an independent oil exploration and production company. The board and the staff of the company were recruited on that basis.
The Government's intention to ensure the continued independence of Enterprise for an initial period was clearly stated in the prospectus. To secure this the Government took two special steps.
First, they retained complete discretion to reject in whole or in part any application for shares on flotation of the company; and, secondly, they retained a special share which, in effect, gives the Government a majority of shareholders' votes in the event of a takeover or attempted takeover of the company, for as long as such a situation continues. These steps were designed to enable the board and management to establish Enterprise as a new independent British oil company.
In keeping with this approach the Government have decided to exercise their power of rejection with a view to ensuring that no single individual or company, directly or through nominees, should hold beneficially more than 10 per cent. of the equity as a result of the flotation.
On this basis applications for over 56 million ordinary shares from more than 13,000 applicants have been accepted as valid and allocations will be made at the minimum tender price of 185p per share. The remaining shares will be taken up by the underwriters and sub-underwriters at the minimum tender price.
Finally, the Government wish to make it clear that it is their firm intention to use the powers available to them to ensure the independence of Enterprise at this stage of its development, consistent with the objectives specified in the prospectus.
Mr. Stanley Orme: The sale of Enterprise Oil shares was a disastrous flop. It was greater than the Britoil flop and was a sellout of the real shareholders, the British taxpayers. Was the Secretary of State aware of RTZ's market manoeuvres and the use of nominees yesterday afternoon? If so, what did he say to RTZ, or was he left in the dark? How many shares have been left with the underwriters and sub-underwriters and what percentage are they of the total? What effect does he think these shares will have on the price and what is magic about the 10 per cent. limit? If there is any magic about that, why was the 10 per cent. limit not introduced before the sale started?
1168
As the estimates reveal that only about a quarter of the shares were subscribed, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the exercise has been a disaster? Surely the obvious solution was to cancel the issue and to retain Enterprise Oil as the publicly owned British National Oil Corporation. After Amersham International, Britoil and Wytch Farm, we now have the Enterprise Oil scandal. We call on the Government to abandon this form of public asset stripping.
Mr. Walker: Anyone listening to the right hon. Gentleman will have gained the impression that tomorrow there will not be the happy situation of a new, independent and strong oil company in the private sector. Between 150 and 200 institutions were happy to underwrite the issue. Tomorrow, as part of the underwriting process, they will become shareholders in the company.
I was informed yesterday afternoon by RTZ of its interest in obtaining 49 per cent. of the shares. The company phoned to say that it had made that approach. In the context of the prospectus and the powers taken to guarantee that the company would remain independent, it was decided to pursue a certain course. I have rightly informed the House of that decision this afternoon and I have informed the City.
Mr. Michael Morris: Why do the Opposition continually oppose the success which has brought an independent British oil company on to the market? Has my right hon. Friend any idea why they continually resent successful flotations?
Mr. Walker: It will be a considerable advantage to the British economy to have a company of the size of Enterprise Oil with its strength of management. It will make an important contribution to our success in the North sea and overseas in the years to come.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: As the sale of Enterprise Oil will not increase competition, will the Secretary of State explain how the sale will benefit the nation? Will not the disastrous sale of Enterprise Oil considerably undermine the possibility of a successful flotation of British Telecom shares later in the year?
Mr. Walker: The Social Democratic party obviously wishes to retain this asset as part of a nationalised industry and is opposed to an independent British oil company. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a company of the size of Enterprise Oil with talented management will not strengthen our competition at home and abroad, he is mistaken.
Mr. Peter Rost: Can my right hon. Friend explain why the flotation of a new enterprise which will create jobs and new wealth for Britain causes so much bellyaching on the part of Labour Members?
Mr. Walker: I understand that the Labour party has always been opposed to privatisation and to putting companies into the private sector. The Government believe that the company is highly efficient and that it will be a most successful oil company to the benefit of the nation.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State admit that it is a matter of grave concern that, in terms of previous incarnations, Slater Walker does worse than Lex? Therefore, we are awaiting a further explanation from him of how he might block any move by

1169
RTZ to appoint a board member and, in effect, take control of the company. Are the underwriters happy to have such a large amount of shares in their hands because of the Government's incompetence in timing the flotation? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is time that we stopped the selling of public assets and abandoned the idea of putting British Telecom into the private sector?
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are not founded upon the facts. The underwriters' assessment was based on the price that they were willing and happy to underwrite. They considered that, at the price stated, the shares were a good investment and a good buy. The spot price of oil fell considerably during the week, but the underwriters would have assessed the risk of that happening as would everyone else.
At the end, the underwriters have perfectly correctly stuck by that commitment. That is why tomorrow Enterprise Oil will be a free new company operating in this country.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I accept that my right hon. Friend almost certainly made the right decision in letting the smack of firm government be felt primarily on the bottoms of the RTZ directors. Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend accept that this problem would not have arisen if the Government's timing had been dictated by commercial forces, not by forces such as the legislative timetable and the PSBR requirements?
Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friend that the timing was not dictated by those forces. My hon. Friend knows that, because of the nature of markets, the position in the middle east and the OPEC supply reductions, there is unlikely to be any time when one can be guaranteed that in the week concerned there will be guaranteed stability in the market. I have no regret at the timing, and I am delighted that tomorrow this company will be launched in this way.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Given the division on both sides of the House on this fundamental issue, would it not have been better for the Government to have taken advice from the Public Accounts Committee, which warned of this very thing and whose advice the Government ignored?
Mr. Walker: The Public Accounts Committee suggested that an offer such as this should be made by tender, and that in fact is exactly what we have done.
Mr. Eric Cockeram: Does not the sudden drop in the oil market in the few days preceding this issue demonstrate the benefit of the underwriting system, and does that not give the lie to those members of the Labour party who, with the benefit of hindsight, criticise the underwriting system when the underwriters make a profit?
Mr. Walker: Yes; and it is absolutely right to use underwriting when launching issues of this nature. In this case, the underwriters negotiated and agreed the terms to the issue. They are, of course, fulfilling their commitments.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: How can the Chancellor of the Exchequer sit there without blushing to the roots of his hair? Does he recollect the long lectures on the importance of timing that he delivered to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr.
1170
Rees), my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhynmey (Mr. Rowlands) and others of us during the debate in Room 11 on the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about this timing? Should he not admit that this is a rip-off?
Mr. Walker: Either one suggests the fact that more people did not tender meant that the price was too high, in which case it can hardly be called a rip-off; or, alternatively, one suggests that the underwriters made a correct assessment of the important value of this company, and that is why there is no problem in their abiding by their underwriting commitments.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does not all our experience prove that the North sea is best developed by private enterprise? Is it not almost certain that we would be self-sufficient in gas supplies, because we would not have to import a great deal from Norway if North sea gas had long ago been open to exploration and development by private enterprise?
Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that private enterprise has had a considerable success story in the North sea, and is continuing to do so. There is no doubt also—every observer made this comment—that the basic financial strength, the prospects and the quality of the management of this company are such that in the years to come it will make an important contribution to activities in the North sea and abroad.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is is not equally true that British Gas has had a great deal of success in the North sea? What is so wrong about a highly profitable enterprise being left in the hands of the British people? Is it not a fact that the dogma of privatisation is far more appealing to the Government than the interests of the British people?
Mr. Walker: British Gas has never been an operator in terms of the oil in the North sea, but it has had an interest in assets. We now have highly skilled and high quality management which will be operating to the benefit of the country in the years to come.
Mr. Tom Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this underwriting has been a great success for the British taxpayer, who will receive a higher price for the shares than they are currently deemed to be worth? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has happened since the underwriting in the financial and oil markets and the fact that some financial institutions may lose money have little to do with the House?
Mr. Walker: I believe that the investment that the underwriters will be making through their underwriting responsibilities will prove to be perfectly good and sound. The reality is that in a week of considerable instability in the oil market, which neither the underwriters, the Government nor Opposition spokesmen observed or predicted, the underwriting system has seen to it that this issue has taken place, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive £392 million and that a new successful private enterprise company has been launched.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Whatever happened to the brave new world about which we have been told in

1171
the past few years? Whatever happened to the capital-owning democracy? Where is the wider share ownership? Why is it that the Secretary of State can be outwitted not once, but four times? The Cabinet is supposed to be full of business acumen, and it has been outwitted in four separate sales. Could it be that the people who are buying these shares do not have all that much confidence in the Government?
Mr. Walker: They certainly have no confidence in the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to say that 150 to 200 institutions, including pension funds, 13,000 other applicants and a large number of the employees will be participating in the company.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's disappointment had nothing to do with the excellence of the company, but was due entirely to adverse modern conditions which were beyond his control? Does he agree that it can only be in Enterprise Oil's long-term interests if a sizeable chunk of that company is owned by an excellent business such as RTZ, which is developing considerable oil expertise?
Mr. Walker: No, because the Government made it perfectly clear from the beginning in statements and in announcements to the staff and management that they recruited and to investors that it was intended that the management would have a few years of independence and would not be under the influence of any outside group or management organisation. That was the basis on which we launched the company and on which we are completing the process. In the subsequent period, the high quality management of Enterprise Oil will operate on that basis.
Mr. James Wallace: The House has listened to discussion by the Secretary of State on the difficulty of timing the issue. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 25 October 1983, when the House debated the transfer of assets to Enterprise Oil, I warned that, because of the depressed state of the market and warnings by financial columnists that the market was due to slide again in the spring, it was unlikely that the nation would reap the full value of its assets? In retrospect, which of us does the right hon. Gentleman think was right?
Mr. Walker: Myself.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although he was right to exercise his right not to allow Enterprise Oil to go to RTZ, that company is not a slouch, and it reflects the high quality and depth of the management and investments held by Enterprise Oil that RTZ would even want to be involved in the first place?
Mr. Walker: In past months, a large number of major organisations and groups of oil companies have been interested in the prospects of Enterprise Oil. Obviously RTZ took that view yesterday. There is no surprise about that, because, under any examination, it is a strong company in management, assets, prospects and finance.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Secretary of State agree that this company will be neither independent nor British as long as a multinational vandal like Rio Tinto-Zinc has any interest in it whether it is 10 per cent. or less? Does that not prove that the selling off of the assets of British oil has nothing to do with competition in this country, because capitalism has lost its patriotism and the multinationals have moved in? Would we not have done less damage to the British people and economy if we had sold off the Crown jewels instead of our oil assets—we would probably have raised more money—or are they next on the list?
Mr. Walker: We have not sold off our oil assets. We have created a well managed, strong, new and independent British oil company.
Mr. Timothy Yeo: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to make a permanent restriction of only 10 per cent. on the holding of any individual shareholder, because the retrospective imposition of a condition such as that could affect the attitude of prospective purchasers of future issues where privatisation has been undertaken by the Government?
Mr. Walker: We have stated, following the flotation, that we consider it right not to allocate more than 10 per cent. to any particular group or individual. That is consistent with the prospectus.
With regard to the exercise of the special share, we will see that control does not pass over the coming years. We made it clear that this share will exist for the early period of the company, until it creates its own reputation and standing in the market place, after which it can defend itself.
Mr. Orme: If this was such an outstanding success, one shudders to think what the reaction would be if the Secretary of State had to report a failure to the House. Will he now answer the question that I asked about how many shares have been left with the underwriters and sub-underwriters? What percentage is it of the total? What effect will it have on the price, particularly for the small shareholder?
Mr. Walker: There is no way that I can predict what will happen to the price, because it depends on what interest there is and the degree to which the underwriters retain shares. Of the 212 million shares on offer, 56 million were taken up, and the rest are with the underwriters.

Questions to Ministers
Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) in Prime Minister's Question Time. Is it appropriate that Prime Minister's Question Time should be used to ask questions on the internal affairs of the Labour party?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with this matter before. I have frequently said that questions to the Prime Minister or any other Minister—such a case came up somewhat later today—must be on matters for which the Prime Minister or the Minister has departmental responsibility. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers is patently not one of departmental responsibility.

Hon. Members (Declaration of Interests)
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Question Time there is no need to declare a commercial interest. Does that apply to statements? I ask that question because in the exchanges that we have just heard it was sometimes difficult to know whether Conservative Members were speaking on behalf of their commercial interests or of their constituents.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not necessary to declare an interest, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Question Time or during statements, but the Register of Members' Interests is there for everyone to see.

Railway Accident (Morpeth)
Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that the inquiry team investigating the Morpeth train crash will report to the Department of Transport tomorrow? This is the last opportunity for the appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House about what he said earlier this week. Do you not believe, as I do, that he has a moral obligation to the House, and to the train driver and his family, to make it absolutely clear that the inquiry team must be free, fair and independent and take no notice of the Minister's remarks earlier this week?
Mr. Speaker: Order. There were questions to the Leader of the House on that matter, and the hon. Gentleman will have heard what was said. I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday and the day before.

Home Secretary (Press Reports)
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have had the opportunity to examine yesterday's Hansard and you will have received a letter from me about the matter that I raised yesterday. I wish to clear up the impression that I intended to smear a Member of the House. That was not the case. I was endeavouring to raise a legitimate matter of concern. I hope that you will be able to acknowledge that in due course.
Opposition Day
  I7TH ALLOTTED DAY

    The Rich and the Poor
    Mr. Speaker: I should announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.24 pm
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores the widening gap between the incomes of the rich and poor which has resulted from the Government's taxation and social policies; notes that the promised tax reductions have only been made on annual incomes of over £18,000 and that at least two million British people are now subsisting at a standard of living lower than they had five years ago; and calls upon the Government to change the pattern of income distribution in Britain in order to distribute the national wealth more equally in the interests of justice and efficiency.
    You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, and so will the House, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not regard this debate as worthy of his participation. Had this Opposition day been concerned with arcane adjustments to company taxation the right hon. Gentleman would have taken part, but because we are debating poverty and the poor the Chief Secretary is put up as the compassionate face of capitalism and the voice of caring Conservatism. It is impossible to imagine a more unconvincing representative of those dying virtues. In reality the Chief Secretary is a walking text for a sermon by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym).
    I ask only one thing of the Chief Secretary. Are the facts on which the debate is based—increased poverty and the increased numbers of poor—admitted. Reading the Government amendment does not encourage me to believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will talk about the subject in that honest and objective way, because the amendment asks the House to accept the Government's commitment to a reduction in the amount of public wealth spent by the Government, and their commitment—I emphasise that word—to the amount of disposable income that individuals are allowed to spend on themselves.
    The reality of the past five years of Conservative freedom that works is that larger and larger proportions of national income have been taken in taxes and spent by the Government. The Government's extraordinary achievement is that they have spent more in the public sector, but they have managed nevertheless to increase poverty and widen the gap between the rich and the poor. That is because the Government's priorities are not those of the normal British citizen. They prefer to spend money on airfields in the south Atlantic than on houses in the north of England. That is the great condemnation of what the Government have stood for, and, I fear, will continue to stand for.
    The increases in poverty and the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor are the indisputable realities of life in Conservative Britain. There may be arguments about why those changes have come about. Some Conservative Members might have the courage to say that they applaud the growing inequalities which the

    1175
    Government have caused. The Prime Minister herself boasted, in her one excursion into philosophy, that she was intractably opposed to the doctrine that the state should be active in promoting equality in the provision of social welfare. I suppose that that is the high argument for a divided society. Naturally enough, the low argument for a divided society came from the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who said:
    "The State spends all its energies taking money from the energetic, the successful and thrifty to give to the idle, the failures and the feckless."
    With those opinions, the hon. Gentleman has become the Minister for Social Security. He articulated them in a book with the interesting title "Down with the Poor".
    The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): That was George Bernard Shaw.
    Mr. Hattersley: I agree that the hon. Gentleman has associations with the 19th century, both visible and intellectual, but it is not possible to argue that George Bernard Shaw ever held the view shamefully held by the hon. Gentleman that
    "The State spends all its energies taking money from the energetic, the successful and the thrifty to give to the idle, the failures and the feckless."
    The lunatic argument for inequality came, of course, from the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who said:
    "A family is poor if it cannot afford to eat … By any absolute standard there is very little poverty in Britain today."
    It is incumbent upon us to teach the Secretary of State for Education and Science the reality of poverty in Britain today. The poor are increasing in number and becoming poorer, while the rich grow more prosperous, not least because the rich are the sole beneficiaries of the tax cuts promised by the Government at two general elections.
    Despite the promises of those two elections, the annual tax bill is now £22,500 million higher than it was in 1979, but only families enjoying an annual income of more than £18,000 benefit from cuts in taxation by the Government, Families on average incomes have been cheated by the Government, because there have been no tax cuts for them. That is the reality for the average family. Today, however, we wish to concentrate on the scandalous treatment of the poor.
    To the Government's shame, in speaking of the poor we are referring to millions—and increasing millions—of British citizens. I remind the House of the figures. In 1981, 7¼ million people—one seventh of the entire population—were living at or below supplementary benefit level, which is the accepted definition of extreme poverty. That was an increase of 24 per cent. since 1979. Those people were expected to live on a weekly rate of £62 for a family of four. The House may be interested to know that that is less than the hourly rate of pay received by each of the Saatchi and Saatchi brothers.
    Supplementary benefit level is the accepted definition of total poverty. The accepted definition of relative poverty is supplementary benefit level plus 40 per cent.; that is, £86·50 per week plus housing benefit for a family of four to cover all expenses. That is the equivalent of 20 minutes' pay for the highest paid director of the British Oxygen Co. Ltd. On that weekly level of pay, 15 million people—one quarter of the total population—now subsist.
    1176
    I must confess that those figures were for 1981. That is because at that point the Government prudently—in my view, cynically—abandoned their census of poverty. We know, however, that poverty has increased since then and that there are now 2·8 million more people on supplementary benefit and 120,000 more on family income supplement. That increase is due principally, although not exclusively, to the increase in unemployment which is the direct result of Government policy.
    As the number of the poor has grown, their poverty has deepened. The Government have continually increased taxes on the working poor while giving huge handouts to the rich. They have continually reduced the benefit received by the unemployed. They have also continually reduced the level of housing benefit and changed the formula whereby the annual increase in pension is calculated. It is impossible to argue otherwise than that the Government have set out to reduce the standard of living of the poorest 10 or 20 per cent. of the population.
    The Government's attitude is typified by one particular instance of parsimony, to which I shall return. It is generally accepted that a long-term supplemenatary benefit rate is desperately needed to meet the new tragedy of long-term unemployment. Two Select Committees have agreed that it is necessary, and many Conservative Back Benchers have campaigned for it, but the Government say that, desirable though it is, the cost of £500 million in a full year is too much for the Exchequer to finance. Yet in the last Budget the abandonment of investment income surcharge and the halving of stamp duty lost the Government revenues of £520 million. The truth is that the Government's priorities are to subisidise the rich and penalise the poor.
    Why do the Government insist on taking from the poor and giving to the rich? There are two reasons for which they have tried historically, and may try again today, to justify growing inequality. The first is based on the central intellectual error of Conservatism—the notion that freedom is nothing more than the absence of restraint and the idea that liberty is simply the right of the rich and powerful to use their riches and power in whatever way they choose.
    The result of that view is the proclamation of rights which for most of the population are wholly theoretical. In theory, my constituents have the right to buy their way into private schools and private medicine. In reality, however, they have the right to send their children to overcrowded state schools and to put their names down on ever-lengthening hospital waiting lists. Theoretical rights are of no value unless those who possess them have the economic wherewithal to make them realities. Theoretical rights merely amount to the exploitation by the rich and powerful of those who do not share those riches and power.
    In the Government's consistent Budget strategy, that notion has a direct and detrimental effect on the lowest income groups in society, because it leads the Government to believe the cliché that people have the right to spend an increasing proportion of the money that they earn irrespective of the effect on society as a whole. That is the message buried deep beneath the clichés of the Government amendment. The so-called rights fall differently on different groups of the population. The man or woman on eight times national average earnings has a right to huge increases in tax concessions. Those on 10 or 15 times national earnings have the right to remarkable

    1177
    reductions in their tax bill as a result of the last Budget. As the last LWT poverty survey shows, however, it is also the right of 5·5 million people regularly to be unable to afford the necessities of a decent diet, for 6 million people to lack essential clothing and for 3 million people to be unable to afford heating in the living rooms of their homes.
    I am anxious to see a redistribution of wealth which in a positive and creative way will extend the real rights of those with the least rights in this country—the lowest income groups, who do not have the economic ability to spend the money necessary for a civilised life. For freedom to be real, it must be effective. Theoretical rights are meaningless if they cannot be exercised, and in divided Britain they can be exercised only if there is a positive policy for the redistribution of wealth.
    The second argument for inequality which I suspect some Conservative Back Benchers will daringly advance concerns efficiency and incentive. We are constantly told—I have no doubt that the Chief Secretary will tell us again today—that captains of industry will not work with energy and enthusiasm, determination and attachment, without high and constantly increasing earnings. I have never understood why managing directors need the encouragement of constantly escalating salaries, while manual workers in their factories are expected to work harder and harder for deteriorating wage levels.
    Mr. Peter Hordern: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hattersley: Before giving way, I shall make an assertion which I know the hon. Gentleman will confirm—that in the manual classes of income distribution wage levels are deteriorating.
    Mr. Hordern: The right hon. Gentleman, above all others in the House, knows how to restrain income, as he personally introduced the Labour Government's statutory prices and incomes policy. It must surely follow from his present argument that the ratio of supplementary benefit to earnings should now be falling. How does he explain the fact that the ratio of supplementary benefit to average male earnings has risen from 55 per cent. under the Labour Government to 64 per cent. now?
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me just as I was about to give the facts. The relative rate of manual earnings of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population—the lowest 10 per cent. in terms of earning capacity—is falling too. That is a fact of life in present-day society. If the hon. Gentleman is about to argue that the unemployed are better off now in real terms than they would have been if they had enjoyed the benefits of the small increase in national income which the Government have managed to contrive, he will find it difficult to substantiate that argument on the statistics. I look forward to hearing him do so when he makes his speech, or indeed now.
    Mr. Hordern: Taking the lowest decile of gross weekly earnings—which is what the right hon. Gentleman referred to—the percentage of median pay, which has risen since the right hon. Gentleman's Government were in power, was 67 per cent. in 1980 and is 66 per cent. now. Where is the great difference?
    Mr. Hattersley: I blame myself for giving way when I was about to go into detail on the point at which the hon. Gentleman aims his criticism. I shall do so now. I remind
    1178
    the hon. Gentleman that the mere removal of the earnings-related supplement has made a difference to unemployment pay which more than compensates for the point which he has tried to make.
    I shall put the matter in a wider perspective. It is now a canon of the Government's economic policy that one of the remedies for unemployment is a reduction in wages. Ministers are open about that. The point was mentioned in the Mais lecture which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave 10 days ago, and various Treasury Ministers have said that the path to increasing the number of jobs is to ask existing workers to accept lower incomes. In pursuit: of that policy, the Government have introduced tight public sector pay limits, abolished the fair wages resolution, and weakened the wages councils. None of those placebos has reduced unemployment, but they have successfully held wages down.
    I can give the hon. Gentleman some more statistics about the lowest paid 10 per cent. of the population. In 1978, the lowest paid 10 per cent. of male workers earned 66·8 per cent. of the national average. Last year, their earnings had fallen to 64·1 per cent. of the average. In 1978, the highest paid 10 per cent. of male workers earned 157·9 per cent. of the average. Last year, their earnings had risen to 169·7 per cent. The gap between the lowest paid and the highest paid had widened dramatically and—in my view—unacceptably.
    The lowest paid have suffered from two other disadvantages. First, over the past five years they have paid an increasing proportion of their wages in taxes, while the very rich have paid a decreasing proportion. Secondly, the lowest paid have felt the effects of inflation far more savagely than men and women higher up the income scale because—naturally, inevitably and occasionally tragically—the lowest paid have to spend a higher proportion of their salary on the basic necessities of life, and the cost of the basic necessities has risen faster than the cost of the services and goods which are bought and enjoyed by men and women higher up the scale.
    The lowest-paid have suffered in three ways, each of which is in part the responsibility of the Government: their pay increases have been held down; their taxes have been increased; and inflation has risen more steeply for them than for other social groups. Under the present Government, poverty among the working poor has increased and the gap between the incomes of the worst paid and the better paid has widened dramatically.
    The Government's attitude towards the unemployed poor, the pensioner and the sick has been one of unredeemed parsimony. I offer four examples to prove that point. First, since the Government changed the formula by which the annual increase in the pension is calculated, pensioners have been denied any share in the slow growth of the economy. As a result, every pensioner couple is £3·90 a week worse off and every single pensioner is £2·50 a week worse off than they would have been had the increases been calculated in line with changes in earnings and according to the formula applied by the previous Government.
    Mr. Nigel Forman: We would give more credence to the right hon. Gentleman's argument in favour of state pensioners if we did not remember that under the Government of which he was a distinguished member, both in 1976 and in 1978, the kink with earnings as opposed to prices was not kept.
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: But the result was 20 per cent. higher.
    Mr. Hattersley: As my hon. Friend says, the result was that at the end of those years the pensioners received more than they would have received if the calculation had been based on the highest possible element in the formula.
    There is another answer, which is irrefutable. Had the present Government applied the policy which we applied in 1979, the pensioner couple would be more than £3 a week better off and the single pensioner would be more than £2 a week better off. Conservative Members do themselves no service by pretending that that is not so.
    My second example of the Government's total disregard for the welfare of the least well off is the sorry saga of housing benefit. The whole House knows that the housing benefit scheme, thanks to the changes imposed by the Government, is now a shambles. That shambles is the cause of hardship, suffering and anxiety to poor families who do not know where they stand. More importantly in the long run, the state of shambles which has existed since April helps 2,150 million fewer people than were helped before the Government revised the scheme, and 1,300 million fewer pensioners. The Government plan to deprive more people of the benefits of the housing scheme in November.
    The Minister for Health explained on the radio—I read the text this morning—that the Government's reduction in investment income surcharge was introduced as part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's determination to help the elderly. If the Chancellor wants to help the elderly, he will restore housing benefit to the 300,000 pensioners to whom he denied it last April.
    My third example of the Government's callous unconcern relates to unemployment Pay. First, there was the abandonment of earnings-related supplement, which cost the average recipient of unemployment pay £11·60 a week. Now, after a series of other petty adjustments and reductions, such as the recalculation of child support, there is the refusal to extend the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the unemployed.
    Long-term unemployment is, very largely, the creation of the present Government. When Labour left office—
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that, he does not understand economics.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to say anything on this or any other subject? If so, I shall gladly give way to him. I try not to be critical of the hon. Gentleman. Those of us who have been here for any length of time understand and excuse him everything.
    Long-term unemployment is very largely a new phenomenon created by the Government. When the Labour party left office in 1979, just over 300,000 men and women had been unemployed for one year. Now, even on the Government's phoney and doctored figures, 1·2 million men and women have been unemployed for more than one year. On an honest calculation, that figure is 1·5 million. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) rightly and courageously said, those 1·5 million and men and women are long-term unemployed, but must exist on short-term benefits. We have complained, and will continue to complain, about the Government's squandering of North sea oil revenue on unemployment pay. All of the evidence makes it absolutely clear that although the bill
    1180
    for unemployment pay has increased by £11 billion, it has increased not because of the Government's generosity to the unemployed, but because they are throwing so many people out of work.
    My final example of the Government's parsimony, callousness and lack of concern relates to child benefit. It is now a trifling amount above its 1979 level and it is to be increased by a full 35p. If the Chancellor had improved child benefit by the same percentage as he reduced tax rates—that was the clear intention when child benefit replaced child allowance as a means of supporting poor families—child benefit would be increasing not by 35p but by £1·10. The Chancellor chose a minimum increase in the provision to help families and a maximum increase in the tax concession that most benefits the rich.
    I and my right hon. and hon. Friends believe that the simple facts of the Government's record speak for themselves. The facts are the indictment and the callousness is shown by the Government's unwillingness to do anything to alleviate the conditions of the poor. I shall end with just two points. The first is a request and the second is a prediction.
    The request is to the Chief Secretary. I ask him to do the poor of Britain the courtesy of attempting to justify the policies that have produced the increases in poverty about which we complain. This is not an occasion for his usual offensive arrogance. He has made his reputation by defending the indefensible, so I hope that he will spend part of this afternoon trying to do exactly that in terms of the Government's attitude towards the poor.
    Now the prediction. It is obvious that the Government believe that they can win the next general election by a crude appeal to cynicism and self-interest by asking people in work to forget the old, the poor and the sick. The Opposition have a higher opinion of the British people. There is a growing sense of outrage at the deprivation that the Government have caused. According to the surveys, three quarters of our people believe that the gap betwen the rich and the poor is too wide, and a similar proportion are willing to pay extra taxes to ensure that everyone can afford the necessities. The next general election will be a contest between cynicism and idealism. The Labour party will stand or fall by the belief that the British people want something better for the British poor than the Government have provided.
    4.53 pm
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'welcomes the continuing economic recovery and falling inflation, supports the Government's economic and social policies as the best means of encouraging enterprise and promoting prosperity throughout the community, and applauds the Government's commitment to the transfer of power and wealth from the State to the individual.'
    I should have liked to congratulate the Opposition on their choice of theme, because I had hoped that we would have a long-term issue treated seriously. Perhaps it was chosen to re-establish the Labour party's egalitarian credentials. I treat with a little reservation, after his outpourings today, the claim of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to stand as the candidate for idealism. We have read his notable speeches made outside the House. This is the first time that he has made a speech on a near economic theme for some time.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: The Chief Secretary has a short memory. My right hon. Friend made such a speech three months ago.
    Mr. Rees: That was some months ago. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that, for those of us who have been in Committee Room 10, life has moved on. [Interruption.] I shall get on with my speech if I am permitted to do so, but at the moment the Opposition seem keener to assault than to listen. If we are to have a serious debate, I know that they will, with their habitual courtesy, listen to what I have to say.
    I must say in all candour—I know that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would prefer candour as he is the candidate of the hard truth — that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was long on moral indignation but a little short on basic analysis and on objectivity, and very short on realistic remedies, unless his attack on private medicine and private education are to be regarded as a realistic contribution to the debate.
    I shall begin by examining the issues a little more objectively than the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Our perception of poverty inevitably changes with time. In the previous century it meant insufficient income for even the basics of life, such as food, shelter and clothing. I hope that that is an uncontroversial statement. Even the right hon. Gentleman at his most indignant will concede that standards have improved immeasurably since then. Now, for example, 79 per cent. of households have a washing machine, 93 per cent. have a refrigerator, and 97 per cent. have a television. Such goods, which a few years ago were unimaginable luxuries, are now the commonplaces of life. However, some people are still regarded as poor. In that sense, we can never hope to eliminate poverty, because, as our national prosperity increases, we redefine poverty.
    The creation and diffusion of wealth must be a matter of continuing concern for the Government of the day. I hope that all men of good will agree that every Government's aim should be to increase the prosperity of all the people, so enriching every member of society. Perhaps I might cull a telling phrase from one of the right hon. Gentleman's recent speeches. We should aim—it is the aim of the present Government as, I am sure, it was the aim of the Labour Government—to create a society in which lives are more fully lived.
    At this point, however, the great divide between the two major parties opens. One offers a society in which the state uses a battery of controls in an attempt to keep rewards for individuals broadly equal. That is presumably what underlies the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, which I hoped he would explain, to the effect that he was not interested in equality of opportunity but only in equality of outcome. It was a pity that he did not devote a little more time to that concept. If he had, the House and the country might have been illuminated.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Chief Secretary tell us about the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym)?
    Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) published a notable book, which the hon. Gentleman has no doubt studied. [Interruption.] I shall leave my right hon. Friend to expound on that in greater detail.
    1182
    The Conservative party, to which I am glad to belong, offers a society in which the differences in choice and talent are reflected in different rewards. The state steps back, but encourages individual enterprise. For the Labour party, which has not changed much over the past few years, the creation of wealth must be largely the responsibility of the state through nationalised industries, and the subsidisation, direction and control of business enterprise. Consistently with this, the creation and transmission of wealth by individuals is to be made as difficult as possible.
    The Conservative party's philosophy is different. Economies are run by people. Our success or failure is the result of the efforts and activities of millions of people. Most of them are motivated to give of their best and to realise their full potential. They are given the incentive to succeed by the prospect of financial rewards. The Government and the British people recognise the dynamics of a successful economy, the processes that lead to growth and so to better living standards for all. [Interruption.] Opposition Members demonstrate why they remain a minority. That is the philosophic divide, and I shall show the House how it has been translated into practice.
    Mr. Jack Straw: Why does the Chief Secretary not cut through all this badly drafted verbiage and admit that the philosophy of the Conservative party is the law of the jungle, in which the strongest take all the rewards?
    If that is not the case, how can he justify the Government's taxation policy, under which £1,000 million a year extra is given to the rich, who are already doing extremely well and were doing extremely well even under the taxation system of the previous Labour Government? How can he justify the fact that the direct tax burden on the poor and those earning up to twice average earnings has been ratcheted up each year? Where is the justice in the Government's policy on taxation?
    Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman had contained his impatience and allowed me to develop my theme, he would have heard the answer. He will hear the answer in due course. If he contains himself, I can come to the heart and core of what I have to tell the House. The Opposition are making it difficult. [Interruption.] It is too early to come to my peroration. Not many points in the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook deserve serious consideration, but I shall attempt to deal with the few that there were.
    It is trite to observe that the basis for prosperity for the whole of society depends on the prosperity of the country as a whole. For the past three years the United Kingdom has enjoyed economic growth at an average rate of 3 per cent. a year. We were the fastest growing member of the Community last year. It is true that we went through one of the sharpest recessions since the 1930s, but none of the Opposition's policies would have helped us to come out of the recession faster or more surely.
    The European Commission forecasts that we shall be near the top of the Community's growth league this year. We are experiencing one of the longest recovery periods in post-war history. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should compare that with their own performance in government. [Interruption.] All the indicators point to a continuation of the growth in activity through 1984 and into 1985.

    1183
    We have in this country—we we are one of the few countries that can make this boast — the winning combination of steady growth and low inflation. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was right to concentrate on inflation, because the inflation record of the Labour Administration was disastrous. Lower inflation has lifted a great burden from the old and those who live on their savings. The right hon. Gentleman also rightly emphasised that inflation touches most sections of our society. That is why I am surprised that he has not supported us in our endeavours. The containment of inflation is one of the planks of the Government's economic policy.
    Unemployment remains a serious problem, and no Conservative Member would dispute that. I am sure that all hon. Members are pleased to see that the recovery is increasingly being reflected in the labour market, which offered an estimated 190,000 new jobs in the economy between March and December 1983. No less than the Labour party, the Government wish to see a lasting reduction in the number out of work. We differ from the Labour party in rejecting the idea that there is a quick or easy solution to unemployment. To pretend otherwise is a cruel deception. Lord Barnett said that, even with the most careful planning, it would be foolish to promise or even to suggest that there is a new, radical solution rapidly to reduce unemployment. Those are wise words which Opposition Members would do well to digest.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Americans are doing it.
    Mr. Rees: The American economy is a good deal more flexible than ours. I shall come to that later. [Interruption.] It is nothing to do with expansionary policy or the United States deficit. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can take his pick among the economies. He seems to prefer to keep up a running commentary. He should reflect why Mr. Martin Feldstein chose to withdraw from the American Administration.
    Mr. Bell: Will the Chief Secretary tell the House what is the Government's definition of full employment?
    Mr. Rees: That is a theoretical question.
    Mr. Rooker: The Chief Secretary has never even thought about it.
    Mr. Rees: Of course, I have thought about it. If I were to produce a number, hon. Gentlemen would probably find it unrealistic, as I would. [Interruption.] I think about it constantly. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who is intervening from a sedentary position, remembered the slightly less than £3 million devoted to employment creation measures by the Government, he would recognise that a Chief Secretary must give constant thought to that question.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the Treasury's estimate for employment in the coming months in the construction industry? Other than the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for the airfield in the south Atlantic, there seems to be little to which the construction industry can look forward. What is the Treasury's estimate?
    Mr. Rees: I hate to disappoint the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), because I know of his keen
    1184
    interest in airfield construction in the south Atlantic. This Government, like the Labour Administration that the hon. Gentleman supported before 1979, are equally coy about making employment forecasts. I have learnt that lesson from them.
    Mr. Hattersley: I am deeply reluctant to intervene in the Chief Secretary's speech, because I think that it is better to leave him to flounder alone. The assertion that previous Governments did not make forecasts of unemployment has been made so often that it must be refuted. It is true that previous Governments did not give figures, but they invariably made forecasts about whether the path was going up, down, or staying on the level. Will the Chief Secretary do the same as previous Governments and tell us whether the path is going up, down, or staying steady?
    Mr. Rees: I am entitled to adopt the answer that came from the lips of the previous Labour Government.
    The lessons of experience demonstrate clearly that so-called expansionary policies are not the way to sustain growth and tackle unemployment. The only foundation for a sustained recovery without renewed inflation is continued, firm, macroeconomic policies. That is the basis on which the Government propose to proceed.
    In the longer term we must rely for jobs and prosperity on improvements in the efficiency of the economy, supported by macroeconomic policy. The largest task facing our economy, in common with others in the Western world, is to adapt to a new pace of change. We shall persist with our strategy of making the economy work better by abolishing controls, reforming the tax system, sweeping away monopolies, introducing competition and promoting the greater mobility of labour. Those are all part of the process of rediscovering the enterprise culture of which the right hon. Gentleman seems blissfully unaware. They are also tasks to which we shall return with renewed vigour in the European Community as a result of the settlement achieved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Fontainebleau earlier this week.
    As the right hon. Gentleman pressed me hard on taxation, I should say that we aim to improve incentives at every level. That lies behind our firm resolve to reduce direct taxation. As one would expect, the right hon. Gentleman made great play of the top rates of taxation. The top marginal rate of tax on earnings is now down to 60 per cent., which is a full 23 percentage points below where the Labour Government left it. The discrimination by penal taxation on investment incomes, which produced a near-confiscatory rate of 98 per cent., has, I hope, been consigned to fiscal history. A more rational and acceptable structure for taxing incomes is an achievement of which the Government are rightly proud.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked a great deal about the redistribution of wealth, but was coy about telling us the means by which he would achieve it. We heard little about the Labour party's fiscal policies, and the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House in his next great contribution to tell us exactly what the Labour party's fiscal policies would be if, contrary to our hope and expectation, it were returned to power.
    Mr. Rooker: Just like the Tories did.
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We were very explicit about what we intended to do.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: As one who has been in the House for long enough not to be surprised by witnessing a dialogue of the deaf, and although I do not wish to enter a discussion about the lack of positive content in the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), could the Chief Secretary—now that rather more than 15 minutes have elapsed since he began his speech—tell us at least something about his view of the nature of poverty in Britain? Will he tell us how he and his colleagues measure poverty, because, when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook tried to define it—the debate is supposed to be about poverty—the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied the standard definition of poverty as being those who live below the supplementary benefit level? Does the Chief Secretary accept that definition?
    Mr. Rees: No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman said that I have been speaking for 15 minutes. He is inaccurate. I may have been on my feet intermittently for 15 minutes, but his intervention has delayed the progress of the debate. If he has an important point to make, no doubt he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the debate.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Why give way to the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Rees: I could not anticipate what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would ask me. He made a long intervention, which will come better in the speech which I assume he will wish to make later in the debate.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Rees: No. I have already given way a great deal. I have especially given way a great deal during the past two months to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to contribute to the debate. If I am overgenerous, especially with the hon. Member for Workington, some hon. Members may be cheated of the opportunity of contributing to what should, but might not be, an important debate.
    The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was curiously silent about thresholds. Incentives are not just an issue for those on higher incomes. It is hard to justify a system under which people who are poor enough to receive means-tested benefits should also be regarded as rich enough to pay tax on their incomes. A major part of the solution to that problem must therefore be to control public spending and to raise again the points at which people begin to pay tax on their incomes. In the Budget we increased those allowances by 12·5 per cent., which was 7 per cent. more than the rate of inflation at that time. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to remove 800,000 people from tax altogether. The Labour Administration were unable to match that achievement.
    In the previous Budget we also increased the allowances by more than the rate of inflation. Basic thresholds for single people and married couples are about 16 per cent. higher in real terms that they were in 1978–79, and at their highest real level for a decade. As a result, about 1 million households have been removed from income tax altogether. We can be justly proud of that achievement, which gives the lie to the right hon. Gentleman's charge that the tax system is now skewed in favour of the rich.
    1186
    The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook mentioned the poverty trap, without giving the House a clear demonstration of how he would tackle that persistent problem. If we can pursue the policies that we have initiated and make this sort of progress during a sustained period, we could eventually eliminate the worst aspects of what is generally meant by the poverty trap. I do not deny that the road will be long and difficult, but that cannot be a reason for not setting out along it.
    The right hon. Gentleman prefers to emphasise child benefits, but he seems to be sublimely unaware—perhaps because he comes fresh to the subject—that child benefits are now at their highest ever in real terms. But if we are to try to deal with the poverty trap, which is a serious matter—I hope that there is some common ground between both sides of the House on that—increasing personal allowances has several advantages, because it directly reduces the marginal rates of those taken out of tax and increases the net incomes of all taxpayers, whether they are in the poverty trap or have children. Six million families receive child benefit, while 20 million families and single people benefit from an increase in tax thresholds. We are right to concentrate on that method of alleviating what is undoubtedly a problem.
    The right hon. Gentleman waxed eloquent and indignant about public spending and the protection of the poor. We have now brought public spending under control, so that in future we can lower the burden of taxation. However, control of public spending has not been at the expense of the poor. They have been protected.
    The Government pledged that they would maintain the real value of pensions and other long-term benefits. They have more than honoured that pledge. Between November 1978 and November 1983, pensions were increased by 75 per cent. while the retail price index increased by 69 per cent. That is a statistic on which the right hon. Gentleman should ponder. Child benefit will increase in November from £6·50 to £6·85, maintaining it at its highest ever real level. We are now spending £39 billion, or almost one third of all public spending, on social security. The right hon. Gentleman overlooked that point.
    Another matter that does not seem to agitate the Labour party is the diffusion of wealth. Maintaining the safety net is, of course, important, but it is not the end of the story. Part of the oppression of poverty lies in the dependence that it brings on the safety net and on state handouts. The failure to understand that and its promotion of dependence on an impersonal state has made the Labour party a minority interest.
    Mr. Hattersley: Can the Chief Secretary tell us what state handouts are?
    Mr. Rees: If the right hon. Gentleman reviews the social security programme, he will see a range of them—[Interruption.] Labour Members may recall that every time a relief from tax is introduced, they regard it as a state handout. If I fell into the jargon of the Labour party, I am sorry. Obviously we must all correct our language.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Rees: I shall not give way, as I have much more ground to cover.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
    Mr. Rees: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Morris: Does the Chief Secretary's remark about state handouts rank with the then Sir Alec Douglas Home's reference to old-age pensions being donations?
    Mr. Rees: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must make his own judgment of that. I leave him to debate with himself that fine semantic question.
    I want to devote a little thought—I hope that hon. Members who contribute to the debate later will do so as well—to how wealth should be diffused throughout our society. We have enlarged the opportunity for individuals to acquire a real stake in Britain, which does not seem to concern Labour Members at all. That did not feature in the contribution of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook one little bit.
    Perhaps the most important step that has been taken in social terms by this Administration is the sale of council houses over the past five years. More than 700,000 of our fellow countrymen have taken the opportunity to buy their homes. The right hon. Gentleman might have restated his party's position on that matter. Does he believe that it was a wise measure? If the Labour party were returned to power, would it continue that policy? Does it grudge to people who have bought their homes that stake in our country? The right hon. Gentleman was quick to intervene in my speech earlier, but he seems to be a little coy on this question now.
    The Government's privatisation programme has provided us with a valuable opportunity to carry forward our policy on the diffusion of wealth. The vast majority of employees in nationalised companies which have been returned to the private sector have grasped the opportunity to buy part of the equity. Let me also emphasise the successful management buy-out of the National Freight Corporation which has enabled the management and employees of that company to own and run that particular part of our economy.
    We intend to spread share ownership even more widely. Various measures in the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—the cut in stamp duty, the reduction in capital taxation, and the abolition of the investment income surcharge—are all directed to that particular end.
    Mr. Rooker: Is that a state handout?
    Mr. Rees: It is a sale on open market terms.
    Nor must we forget the way in which the-growth of occupational pension schemes has transformed the prospects of millions when they come to retire. As the Diamond commission recognised, that is a real addition to the wealth of over half of our population.
    We seek a society in which owners and earners are indistinguishable. We seek an end to the idea that there are two sides of industry—an idea which is nurtured by the Labour party and which has been developed into a philosophy of conflict which has done enormous damage to Britain.
    By those means the Government are actively engaged in a most practical way in removing inequalities. They are providing precisely what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said he rejects—equality of opportunity;
    1188
    equality to earn and to own. We are also laying the basis for sustained prosperity which, as I said in my opening remarks, provides the only sure means to reduce poverty.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Chief Secretary has a good sense of humour.
    Mr. Rees: I need it to endure the rather ill-informed contributions of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
    In an admirable burst of candour—I am sure it was appreciated by the Labour party — the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said on 15 May, in Committee Room 19, that though the public applaud the Labour party's compassion, they doubt its capacity. Would that he would cast those pearls before us in the Chamber rather than before the Ruskin Fellowship.
    On a close analysis, the Labour party's claim to be the party of compassion depends on a cavalier disregard of its past performance in government and an adroit use of statistics. I hope that I have picked my words with care without giving offence. I find that a rather doubtful basis for a claim on the regard of our fellow countrymen. The Labour party's incapacity has been proved by several long spells in government since the war. Nor is there much evidence that that capacity has improved since 1979. It and the country will be the first to recognise the defection of talent to other parties.
    We are led to believe that with the departure of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) in the autumn of last year—in retrospect and in the context of the Labour party's present position some of the judgments of his performance were a little harsh—a new-look Labour party has come into being. It may appear slightly different, but we have learnt nothing over the past 12 months, certainly nothing from the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, of the mind behind the face. No fresh policies have emerged for us to judge, either over the past 12 months or today. Indeed, the diffidence of all but the extreme Left of the Labour party—now well represented in the constituencies—to state its policies is a notable feature of the political scene and perhaps accounts for the modest contribution of the Labour party to our normal debates in the Chamber.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: Is this the peroration?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman can judge for himself in a moment or so.
    I am disappointed that today we have not heard more about how the Labour party would transform our economic base, more of its nationalisation plans, more of its fiscal policy, and more of its plans for capital taxation, which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) has told us are under review. I can understand why the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook chose to concentrate on policies for distributing wealth rather than the more important policies for creating wealth. He could not make his policies look attractive even to his party, let alone to the country.
    But I can guess, as I am sure my hon. Friends can, what those policies will amount to. They will mean a bleak prospect for rich and poor alike, a stagnant economy cocooned in controls — exchange controls, dividend controls, and price and profit controls. [Interruption.] I have obviously anticipated what commends itself to the Labour party. Perhaps unwittingly it will let out today its

    1189
    real feelings on those policies. I know, too, that it believes that a system of taxation should be out of line with those of our competitors. We believe that we must harmonise it with those of our competitors. The Labour party believes in a system of taxation calculated to thwart and discourage enterprise, initiative and thrift. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook pretends that the scheme that he has sketchily outlined can be financed by increasing the PSBR by £6 billion. Leaving aside the implausibility of that sum, he is remarkably coy about the impact it would have on interest rates.
    The motion oozes a synthetic compassion which conceals the politics of envy which is still the hallmark of the Labour party. It has chosen today's motion so that the antediluvian prejudicies it nourishes can be given an airing—prejudicies which prevent a real debate about real options.
    The House and people outside have seen through that synthetic compassion and, as they so strikingly demonstrated in 1979 and 1983, they will continue to do so. The Government's policies alone provide the economic dynamism and the creation and diffusion of wealth which can ensure the health of our society and true opportunities for our fellow countrymen. I commend the Government's amendment to the House.
    5.27 pm
    Mr. John Morris: The Chief Secretary proved himself a good reader, but I had hoped that in a busy week he would have had time to read his verbiage and the odd give-away phrase before he came to the Chamber. It took many years for Sir Alec Douglas Home to live down his description of old-age pensions as donations. The Chief Secretary's description today of state benefits as handouts will take many months, if not years, to live down. He will rue the day that he said that before that description is forgotten.
    The Chief Secretary praised the increase in social security benefits but he forgot, or did not recognise or realise, that the major portion of those benefits is the result of the necessary increase to deal with the huge rise in the number of people on unemployment benefit. The Government have created a huge pool and that is the basic cause of the increase in which he took such great pride.
    I want to concentrate my remarks this afternoon on that part of the Government's amendment which states that they believe that they have the best means of promoting prosperity throughout the community. It has been said recently:
    "Whether fair or not the public perception is of a Government that is indifferent to social problems and wants to cut public spending, not just out of economic necessity but for doctrinal preference".
    Those are the words, not of an Opposition Member, but of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) in the revealing excerpt from his book, which crystallised, I am sure, a growing feeling on the Conservative Benches. However, I believe that it is a fair view of Government policy.
    The most masterly understatement that I have come across in the book's excerpts says:
    "'On yer bike' is not the most constructive advice to give to the neglected add forgotten unemployed in so many areas."
    That was a mere anecdotal and rather vulgar way of expressing what the Prime Minister had already said to an
    1190
    audience at Swansea, namely, that if there was no work, one should move on. She did not specify what particular area still had its streets paved with gold.
    It is not only public perception that is in issue. It is a belief deeply held, from the Prime Minister down, that toughness leads to national salvation. It is a throwback to the monastic self-flagellation of the middle ages. Whatever its curative properties then, it is just not curing the underlying disease now.
    The excerpt endorses the Opposition's motion. I quote again what the right hon. Gentleman says:
    "At present, the real incomes of the 'haves' and the employed are rising steadily; the real incomes of the 'have-nots' and the unemployed are at best static in absolute terms and are declining in relative terms."
    We have already been given some of the statistics, particularly those dealing with the unemployed and the long-term unemployed, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I shall not go over the details again.
    Let me pinpoint what is happening in one area in my constituency, a valley 10 miles from the sea and blessed with a superb motorway, a fast rail service and a significant port at its mouth. Despite all those advantages, how are the people who have the benefit of the so-called handouts faring? In my time, I have seen all the pits closed. In my time, I have seen, almost at a stroke, over half the employment in the steelworks cut. In my constituency, hardly anything of significance has come to replace the lost jobs. In entire streets, even on the sea front, very few people are working. It is a hopeless situation and, to my great surprise, a hopelessness that has become accepted as a way of life.
    Let me take the House for a moment to the valley where the pits used to be. This may help the House to understand a little of the dread of miners today when a pit is sentenced to be closed. I make no apology for having fought in my time to try to retain those pits, and to prophesying what lay ahead for the community. Detailed but unofficial sample surveys show that, in a part of that community today, 47 per cent. of male adults between 16 and 64 are not going out to work for some reason or other. This is because they are unemployed, disabled, sick or for some other reason. The figure for males between 16 and 24 is 62 per cent. Those are the figures in an area which has been denuded of employment through pit closures. The figures for women are more difficult to interpret, but are in the same league. One third of the children are living in homes where nobody is working. That is the reality of the state handouts about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Government do not know.
    Mr. Morris: Long before the present difficulties, valley children were always at a disadvantage. Whenever they went to find jobs, they were jobs in the lowlands. The preference was always to choose those who lived nearer to the place of employment, because of poor transport and difficulties in getting to work. It is no wonder that tempers have been at boiling point in that valley since February, when parents became aware that the county council was minded, because of Government cuts, to withdraw free school transport, and did so, in an area with probably one of the highest percentages of free school meals in south Wales, if not in the country. Those are the state handouts

    1191
    about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks so blithely. When all the Members representing west Glamorgan went to see the Secretary of State for Wales, he washed his hands of the whole affair. He thought that he could silence opposition by an unprecedented series of interruptions of one of my right hon. Friends.
    That is a practical instance which demonstrates how right the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East was—and I wrote telling him that I would quote him in my speech today—in referring to the perception of
    "a Government indifferent to social problems."
    That sums it all up, and there is little to add.
    As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there have always been two nations, the nation of the "haves" and the nation of the "have-nots". In microcosm, they are there in one valley, in one street, even in one household. The widow, the single-parent family, the old and the disabled are in one nation. Then there are the employed—the able-bodied, the two-parent households—who are the "haves" to varying degrees.
    My political beliefs are founded on the need to identify inequality wherever it is and in whatever form it is, and then to strive to correct and dent some of that inequality in our time. In my experience, the inequality between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is growing not only in my area but in many, if not all, parts of the country.
    My constituency has become a disaster area. A few factories have been built, but nobody comes to the factories, even though they are at superb sites. Even if they were all filled, it would be a mere scratch on the surface of the problem.
    Against that background of the hopelessness of an area, one sees how doubly hopeless it is for the disadvantaged to live there. At least the old and disabled in other areas can share the joys of seeing some of their children and grandchildren finding employment and climbing in the course of that employment. We cannot. It would be rash of the Government to persuade themselves that the fabric of society is not under strain. We rightly deplore the violence that we see on television screens night after night. The real cause for wonderment is that there is no greater and wider crime rate involving violence.
    In 1980, my colleagues from all parties in the House who served on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs prophesised gloom. In a unanimous report, they said:
    "We are impressed by the conviction of some of our witnesses who stress the risks of serious social disorder if there were to be very high and chronic levels of unemployment, particularly among the young."
    I did not share the extent of the Committee's fears. I did not realise that the period without hope would be such a lengthy one and that Welsh unemployment at nearly 169,000 would be double what it was then and almost exceeds all the estimates at the time of the report.
    A whole generation has grown up never having done a day's work. Some of them have already married and more inevitably will, and their condition is very different from that of so many in the 1930s. Now, they all have television sets. Night after night they see the good things of life being advertised, which are available to all—to all, that is, with money. Will that not inevitably put an increased strain on the very fabric of society? Will tantalising the young married unemployed man who is living on his "state handouts," and who may never have had a proper job, with
    1192
    the good things of our material age which he cannot afford to buy for his young wife and family stabilise or destabilise our society? The Minister may laugh—
    Mr. Peter Rees: I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to misunderstand me. I smiled wrily only because I heard him use the phrase "state handouts".
    Mr. Morris: I was quoting the Minister, who used those words. He will rue the day that he said that, because it will be wrapped round his neck by every speaker in every debate in which he takes part. Those were his words, not mine, and he will regret ever having uttered them.
    That is the road that we are treading—widening and widening the gap, and increasing and lengthening the period of hopelessness. Unhappily and tragically, youth unemployment is everywhere. However, the chances of obtaining a job are considerably higher in many other parts of the country. Perhaps we should all move. What would happen if 10 per cent. of the unemployed in my area and other areas of south Wales accepted the Prime Minister's advice and moved? What would happen if 20 per cent. of them moved? Would that not be a recipe for chaos?
    Responsibility for the state that we are in lies heavily with the Government. It is not only a question of style, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East sought to underline. It is much more than that; it is irresponsibility on a scale which none of us, when we began our political lives, could ever have imagined. It is a mixture of arrogance—as we have seen this afternoon—and complacency. That will be perceived more and more by the people. In the meantime, my constituents, and the weak, poor and disadvantaged everywhere can expect nothing—not even hope—from this Government.
    5.42 pm
    Mr. Peter Hordern: I followed the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) closely and with great sympathy. In my constituency, unemployment is probably about the lowest in the country and that contrasts markedly with the plight of his constituents, which he so movingly described.
    However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman fairly said that the stark conditions in his constituency were due to reasons that were by no means new. Those conditions have not suddenly emerged because of this Government's actions, nor their failure to act. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to acknowledge that under the Labour Administration in which he served the mining industry was being run down very quickly. Indeed, I think that it was being run down rather more quickly than it is being at present. Quite fairly, he pointed out that successive Governments have had a large measure of responsibility for the state of the economy and for unemployment.
    The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was not particularly original in what he had to say. He was reminded that, although he addressed, I believe, the Fabian Society in a Committee Room upstairs and spoke about the Labour party's compassion, people doubted its capacity. One could say that again. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government who were quite clear in their policy of printing a lot of money in the hope of getting the economy moving, and of restraining the effects of inflation by a prices and incomes policy. If ever there was an old lag, it is the right hon. Gentleman.

    1193
    We do not have to go back very far to discover who was responsible for the failure of those policies or for their culmination in the Clegg report, which hung like an albatross round the necks of my colleagues when they came to office. However, that was not the right hon. Gentleman's point. He said that, regardless of who was responsible for unemployment, there had been a relative deterioration in the fortunes of the well off and the poor. He endeavoured to produce some statistics to prove that.
    I have looked up some statistics myself. I accept that if there is any justice in the right hon. Gentleman's case, he is right to draw it to our attention and to initiate a debate. However, in an intervention to him, I pointed out that the lowest decile—in terms of the proportion of gross weekly earnings—was fractionally lower now than in 1980, when the Labour party had just left office. The lowest quartile is at precisely the same level. Thus there is not much in that particular statistic. Today, 190,000 people receive mobility allowance as opposed to 165,000 at the time when the Labour Government left office.
    But the most telling statistic of all involves the proportion of supplementary benefit to male average earnings. Above all, that statistic shows whether the Government have acted fairly and properly by the poorest in our community. In 1980, that proportion was 55 per cent. whereas the latest figure is 64 per cent. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about the number of people in receipt of supplementary benefit, and whatever he may say about the cause being unemployment—we can all argue about who is responsible—that most important statistic shows that his charge cannot be sustained and is, indeed, quite false.
    I shall not weary the House with other statistics. But whether one takes local authority expenditure on health and personal social services, education, the level of taxes on expenditure—where the ratio is almost exactly the same—the statistics do not support the arguments of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in any way. In short, the case has not been made, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have initiated this debate. But then I should point out that I am no longer surprised by anything about the right hon. Gentleman.
    As often happens with the Labour party, this debate is based on the politics of envy and spite. That is what it is all about. The Labour party's traditional base is moving away rapidly. If Labour Members do not understand that, they do not understand anything.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that to discuss poverty is to pursue envy?
    Mr. Hordern: I am saying that to attribute poverty to the Government is the politics of envy. That is exactly my point.
    The Labour party is curiously old fashioned in the way in which it treats the electorate. That is not doing it any good and, indeed, it will do it increasing harm. It thinks its natural constituency consists of those who work in manufacturing industry. Yet the number of people working in that sector is rapidly declining, and has been falling for the past 20 years. The number employed in manufacturing has fallen by 3 million during the past 20 years and now amounts to only 5·5 million, whereas the number of people employed in insurance, banking and finance, and particularly in the professional and scientific services, has increased markedly and rapidly. The number
    1194
    employed in professional and scientific services increased from 2·1 million to 3·7 million in the past 20 years. Controversy and arguments based upon the politics of envy are directed at an ever smaller audience. If members of the Labour party continue along that line, their audience will leave them and they will never be re-elected.
    I hope that I have shown the House that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has not established any inequalities. I do not believe that the subject is a good subject for debate. However, there are reasons for concern, not about the relative levels of lack of opportunity or inequality, but about the absolute level of inequality here compared with other countries, and with our neighbours in particular.
    Our education system does not provide the opportunity which young people have the right to expect in an increasingly competitive world. Not nearly enough engineering and scientific graduates are emerging. More importantly, our education system is failing to provide a literate and numerate working society for the future. This is a matter of great importance.
    In the West Sussex authority, which has one of the best performances in education in the country, the figure for A, B and C passes at O-level in ordinary maths is 8 per cent. of all those who take the O-levels. The figure for A, B and C passes in French, German and Spanish is only 6 per cent. I see a real risk for the future in that low performance level in numeracy and literacy in other languages. Other countries in the European Community do not suffer from that low performance. I understand that only about 60 per cent. of those eligible to stay on after reaching school leaving age stay on in Britain compared with 90 per cent. in other European Community countries.
    One can say that the responsibility belongs to education authorities, but I think that the Government must give a lead. The statistics are intolerable. The Government must give a lead in where they think that the country should go and try, by example and whatever other means necessary, to raise the level of competence among young people. To that extent, I believe that Britain is at a disadvantage.
    The same is true of higher education. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) tabled a question on 9 March 1983. She was told that full-time enrolments as a proportion of total population was, at the lowest level, 2·4 per cent. of that of all the major countries. The same applies to universities. The Government and the House must address themselves to the problem. If we are to compete in the increasingly technological world, we must have the human material to cope.
    In health, too, I see a lack of initiative. I am thinking of successive Governments over a long time. I admire what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is doing in setting up special bodies to examine various systems. Can hon. Members remember any time in the last few years when the Department of Health and Social Security has taken a real national initiative? Why is it that nearly all expenditure is devoted to curing and treating patients and hardly any to the prevention of disease? That does not happen in other countries. Insurance systems in the United States insist that one is not eligible unless one has regular check-ups and medical inspections. The same should apply here.
    An example involves diabetics. Small reactive agents called dextrostix measure the sugar in the blood. They are convenient to carry around in the pocket. Such agents

    1195
    should be freely available to diabetics. The alternative is that a diabetic fails to control the condition and goes to hospital where treatment is exceptionally expensive. The dextrostix is available to hospitals but cannot be prescribed by general practitioners. The overall cost of the failure to measure the blood sugar must be great. There is a fault in the budgeting system about which the Ministry could do something.
    We all applaud occupational pensions, but they involve a degree of inequity which should not be sustained any longer. I am talking about what happens when someone leaves a job and moves to other employment. When that happens, pension contributions are frozen and the added value cannot be transferred to the new employment. That smacks of a Victorian regime—the person who works for a company is the property of that company and the pension is given only if the person is of good behaviour and remains in the same job. We should encourage mobility between jobs.
    I know that the system has changed slightly so that new contributions are made to provide some equalisation, but I should like any person to be able to take his pension with him when he changes job. We need a truly portable pension scheme. There is no reason why an occupational pension should be made the property of a company or employer rather than of the employee. I hope that the Government will address themselves to that problem. They are considering the matter. A change would be a great social advance.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury also mentioned the sale of council houses, which has done more for the Government and their political popularity than any other single measure. The Government could take other measures which would be equally popular. Portable pensions are an example. People should have a sense of being owners of capital and having a stake in our country.
    I think that Aneurin Bevan said that Socialism was the language of priorities. It has not looked much like the language of priorities. It has looked more like the language of the deaf and the dumb and indescribable confusion, but the Conservative party and the Government must address themselves to the question of priorities. We must ask whether every item of public expenditure is of equal value or whether some things deserve more expenditure—for example, the prevention of disease.
    I am not sure why we have a Forestry Commission, for instance. I do not understand why it is necessary for such distortion in tax relief for the investment income of pension funds. I cannot see the logic in allowing pension funds to store up a claim for the future instead of allowing funds to go freely from one form of goods and services to another in generating wealth. The investment income of pension funds is a source of income—
    Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened for about 15 minutes to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say, but I have failed to understand how his remarks contribute to a debate on the widening gap between the rich and the poor. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would relate his remarks to that subject.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I, too, have found it rather difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the
    1196
    transferability of pensions to the motion on the Order Paper. I hope that he will now address his remarks more closely to the motion.
    Mr. Hordern: Of course, I shall be happy to do so. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the transferability of pensions is at the very root of any inequality between the rich and the poor. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) for raising that point because it enables me to point out that during the first few minutes of my speech I demonstrated that there was no growing inequality. To appease the Whips and others on the Conservative Benches, I hope that I have been able to elaborate the argument substantially in other ways—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members do not enter the House and address it simply to please the Whips. A number of hon. Members are seeking to address the House.
    Mr. Hordern: I would not dream of doing any such thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Much as I admire my hon. Friends in the Whips' Office, I would never deliberately do anything to please them.
    The Government have many challenges ahead of them, and they must be met. But equally I am sure that the Opposition are bereft of ideas and have no contribution to make to this debate or, indeed, to any other debate in the House.
    6.1 pm
    Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Having listened to the speeches from the Opposition and Government Front Benches, and also to that of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), I do not believe that there has been a very auspicious start to the debate. The speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was a catalogue of the deficiencies of the Government. It was fine as far as it went, but it was entirely negative. I was waiting for the second half of the speech, giving an analysis of the problems and setting out possible solutions to them. That was not forthcoming, and it was a disappointing start to the debate. That was compounded by an even worse contribution from the Minister, who read out a speech which sounded like a party handout from Conservative Central Office.
    I am pleased that the motion has been tabled, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this important subject. I wish that it was proving to be a rather more serious discussion, with less of the party claptrap that we have heard from the two Front Benches.
    Two fundamental problems face the country and are the main causes of inequalities. We must have some modesty when we discuss these problems. The first problem is unemployment and how to deal with it. It is a bold person, either in this House or elsewhere, who says that he has a solution up his sleeve. Unemployment is a fundamental cause of poverty and inequality. There is a vicious spiral of increasing prosperity for those in work and a vicious spiral of declining prosperity for those out of work.
    Associated with that is the question of how to bring about a growth in the economy that will help to alleviate some of the problems. I like to think that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see a solution to poverty. The alliance view on how to begin to confront

    1197
    unemployment is well known. We believe that there is a case for expanding the economy at a steady rate over a number of years, so that we do not stoke up inflation. That expansion should be led by capital investment in schemes with a low import content and a high labour content, which will help to build up the wealth of the country. Both during the general election and since, alliance Members, together with other Members, the CBI and representatives of the construction industry, have put forward proposals which we want the Government to consider. It is the way to put the economy on a growth pattern.
    The Government have been in office since 1979, and for the Minister to come here and talk about the success of the Government's economic policy during a debate on poverty and unemployment is an insult to the unemployed. The 3·5 million and more unemployed people throughout the country find that a hollow joke. We cannot begin to tackle the harsh poverty being suffered by many people unless we succeed in injecting growth into the economy and reducing unemployment.
    I agree with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) about poverty being comparative. There were a few exchanges about the definition of poverty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about people's expectations being raised by advertising. During my studies in the northern region, I found that the most desperate misery was caused not because people did not have a house, food or clothing—which is the definition of poverty imposed by some Conservative Members—but by the comparative position of families—the fact that out-of-work parents cannot provide children with presents at Christmas in the same way as parents who work are able to do. They feel humiliated when they canot buy new and warm clothes for their children, but have to make do with second best. That is just as much poverty as not having a roof over one's head, which may be the definition of poverty in other countries with a lower level of income and less wealth than Britain. I accept the definition of the Low Pay Unit and the TUC, which is based on two thirds of the average earnings of a male manual worker. That is the right way to judge poverty.
    The second difficulty is that there is no easy solution for dealing with the tax, benefits and poverty trap problems. Anyone who has studied the problem in depth will know that there is no easy solution to getting people out of the poverty trap and to raising income to a reasonable level. It is facile and misleading nonsense to suggest that there is an easy solution. The SDP spends a considerable amount of time studying the problem. It set up a working party under the chairmanship of a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Dick Taverne. As a result of an exhaustive study, it has put forward proposals for the introduction of a basic benefit that will bring together the tax and benefit system and thereby increase the income of the most poverty hit families in the country. They are not those on low pay, but large families who are entirely dependent on benefit for their income. We put forward a suggestion for bringing together some of the benefits and the tax system to try to help the most poverty stricken.
    We wanted to deal with the problem of the poverty trap. We dealt with it to an extent, but we did not overcome it, because it was such an enormous problem. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has studied these matters, has been critical of our proposal for that reason.
    1198
    However, in a publication which he recently produced he supported the proposal, as does his party, for a statutory minimum wage. We find that an unsatisfactory way of dealing, first, with the real poverty that exists in society and, secondly, with the poverty trap.
    I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his honesty in dealing with this and other matters. He said that if we went to a statutory minimum wage of £100 a week, we should increase women's unemployment by 4·5 per cent., or by 405,000 jobs, and push up the general unemployment rate by 1·5 per cent. He went on to say that if the trade unions tried to establish differentials, the effect would be little short of disastrous. His honesty came through because he was rightly critical of the trade unions for constantly doing that and for not working as the trade unions do in many countries—for example, in Sweden—for the low paid.
    The trade unions in Britain — I bear some responsibility, having worked for a white-collar union—have not fought hard enough for the low paid. There is no question but that they would seek to retain their differentials. The hon. Member for Birkenhead must accept that those are major difficulties. The Labour proposal for a statutory minimum wage is flawed massively by the increase in unemployment that it would bring about and by the even worse economic effects that it would have if, as is virtually certain, the trade unions sought to retain their differentials.
    Mr. Frank Field: The point of the publication to which the hon. Gentleman referred was to draw attention to the difficulties so that they could be faced. The introduction of a minimum wage, without a whole series of other policies, could, but need not necessarily, be disastrous. I hope that at some stage we shall debate that issue. In the meantime, I take the hon. Gentleman back to his party's publication and its idea of a basic benefit. That faces us with the dilemma which most reforms present in the short run.
    The SDP said that its aim was to increase significantly the income going to the poorest, but that it could not devise a scheme in the short run which achieved that aim without also significantly increasing the poverty trap. It is clear, therefore, that there is no panacea. There is no single answer. We must consider a whole range of policies. One of those policies may be a minimum wage, provided that we can get people to face the difficulties.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming what I said about the need for the House, instead of indulging in the claptrap that we heard from the two Front Benches today, to deal honestly with the fact that there are major problems for anybody trying to confront and overcome the difficulties involved in this whole sphere. We did not in our publication suggest that the poverty trap would be increased in the way he suggests.
    Mr. Field: I hope that everybody will now read the publication to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It explains that we could ease the poverty trap by having a gentle rate of withdrawal. The effect would be to pay benefit to people with incomes in excess of £14,000 a year. The alternative would be to concentrate on the very poorest in society, which would mean a high withdrawal rate, which would in turn go to the basis of the poverty trap. It would be wrong not to face that issue squarely.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: I appreciate the dilemma of which the hon. Gentleman speaks. We published a variety of tables showing the impact of the different scales and withdrawal rates and the effect that they would have on the poverty trap. We made a substantial proposal for the redistribution of money from married people, by doing away with the married man's tax allowance, to the poorest. On balance—that is how we must judge the various proposals—I have not yet seen a better scheme for dealing with the real poverty that exists in society. We look forward in that document to the time when we can go forward, with the computerisation of the Inland Revenue, to a more comprehensive scheme that would overcome some of the major problems.
    I have drawn attention to what, in my view, are the two major issues of this debate: first, unemployment, and, secondly, how to change the tax and benefits system so as to overcome the real poverty that exists in society. I hope that the final speeches from the two Front Benches will provide some insight into how they see their party policies for dealing with these problems in the future and that we shall not have the silly slanging match, containing comparisons of records going back a decade or more, that we witnessed at the beginning of the debate.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. Nigel Forman: I regret that the Labour motion is little more than an example of the propensity of Opposition Members to go in for declarations aimed at the purposes of social engineering. I was particularly worried by this tendency as I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) because it was clear that he was interested in the idea of equality of outcome. That is either a hopeless objective because one knows of no society anywhere in the world, except perhaps Cambodia recently, where that has been achieved in any full sense without enormous human and social cost, or, if one only strives towards that objective, there are enormous transitional costs and distributional penalties which must be paid by the rest of society.
    The motion talks of income distribution. It might conceivably be just to redistribute income and wealth in society more equally, though that would not be politically popular with the great majority of the British people, and that was underlined to some extent by the results of the last two general elections.
    But, even if it were a more just direction in which to move, it would not be an efficient one because it would inevitably involve the redistribution of income and wealth on a scale and in a manner which would have to be done by much higher rates of direct taxation and national insurance contributions and probably more public borrowing as well. We know from bitter experience of the 1970s that that way lies the danger of hyper-inflation and economic disaster, from which the poor tend to suffer more than the well off, who can protect themselves.
    If anyone has any doubts about my comments on the Labour party's record as opposed to its promises, let him consider the party's record on the distribution of income and the distribution of wealth. The figures show that in 1974–75 the top 10 per cent. of the income scale accounted for about 26·6 per cent. of total income. In 1978–79, the same top 10 per cent. accounted for about 26·1 per cent. of total income. It is clear that there was virtually no redistributive impact on income for the top 10 per cent.
    1200
    under the previous Labour Government. The same official figures show that in 1974–75 the bottom 10 per cent. accounted for 2·6 per cent. of total income and, in 1978–79, 2·4 per cent. If anything, there was a marginal deterioration.
    Labour's record as distinct from its aspirations—I pay tribute to its aspirations—is not an especially happy one. During the six years of Labour Government from 1964 to 1970 the wealth of the top 20 per cent. rose slightly from 84·3 per cent. to 84·5 per cent. of the total. The share of wealth of the top 1 per cent.—the super-rich—increased during 1974–79 from 23 per cent. of total wealth to 24 per cent. The top 5 per cent., who are pretty rich by anyone's definition, increased their total wealth from 20 per cent. to 21 per cent.
    We all need to be rather humble about the positions that we take on income and wealth. The Labour party has aspirations massively to redistribute, but the achievement of its aspirations has eluded it over many years. Neither on income nor on wealth is Labour's record impressive. It has not achieved in government what it has preached in opposition. It would be well for the country to heed the objectives stated by the Labour party and the transitional and distributional costs which would be involved if ever it had a chance again to seek to implement the policies that it now puts before the House.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that from mid-term in the previous Labour Government's period in office they had round their necks a deal with the Liberal party which prevented members of the Labour party who sought to introduce increases in capital transfer tax and other forms of taxation from realising their objective? That may well account for the minor differences in the statistics to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That will not happen again.
    Mr. Forman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. He and his more egalitarian friends in the Labour party were restrained to some extent by parliamentary arithmetic and because the Liberal party sought to exact a price for its continued support of what was an ineffective and unsuccessful Government. Even if the hon. Gentleman had been in a position to increase capital transfer tax, for example, his plans for redistribution would not have been realised. In the latest year for which we have figures—1983–84—all capital taxation yielded £1,280 million. Whatever one's objectives may be, a radical increase in capital taxation would not bring in such a tremendous sum to redistribute for other desirable social purposes. If we go in for massive redistribution of the sort that the hon. Gentleman believes in, it will be necessary to attack the super-rich, those who are especially well off in terms of wealth or income, and those in the middle income bracket who account for the mass of the population. However fine Labour's policies may sound on public platforms, they turn out to be electorally rather unpopular at general elections.
    Before anyone says too much about poverty, I am sure that he has a duty to define what he means by the word. The problem has already been touched upon. Most definitions these days, unlike those at the time of the Beveridge report, are relative rather than absolute. Definitions of poverty have changed a good deal since those days. If we talk to the more elderly in the population, we hear them say that today's poor might have been

    1201
    considered by our fathers and grandfathers to be relatively well off and are certainly well off when compared with many in other parts of the world. We are sometimes rather too parochial in our consideration of poverty.
    From a definitional point of view, there are many different forms of poverty. There is the obvious one, which is shortage of cash, but there are other manifestations including limited access to essential services or facilities, low personal horizons and a monochrome quality of life. All these shortcomings lead to various forms of poverty.
    When discussing poverty, we are talking about changing perceptions of relative deprivation. If the problem is put in that way, a fair-minded individual will accept that the problem can never be solved in a final sense. As soon as we think that we are nearing the end of the race, someone always moves the finishing line. That is the characteristic of relative definitions of poverty.
    The Child Poverty Action Group and other champions of the poor say that there are more than 7 million truly poor people in Britain. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook claimed that there are about 7·8 million. These are people whose income is at, near or below the level of supplementary benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) put the problem in similar terms when he related supplementary benefit to the average industrial wage. This means that about one in eight of the population is truly poor. That is about the same ratio as that of unemployed to employed.
    It is a matter of regret on the Conservative Benches that we have a society in which seven parts are relatively well off and one part is relatively badly off.
    Mr. Tony Blair: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will point to the section in the Government's amendment which draws attention to the one eighth who are in poverty and deplores their plight.
    Mr. Forman: The amendment does not do so, but it was not drafted by me. It was drafted by others who are much more senior and wise than myself. I am not duty bound to defend every phrase in the amendment.
    Given the division between the seven parts and the one part, it must be our objective to alleviate the conditions of the one part and preferably to provide those within it with more opportunities to escape from their relative poverty to join the relatively more prosperous section of the population.
    It is worth asking ourselves, even in the form of a rhetorical question, "Who are the poor today?" before we seek to discuss ways in which we can most effectively help them. A large part of the poor are the elderly, especially those on state pensions, who form about half of those whom we are discussing. We must include also families with children, especially large families, and the 750,000 one-parent families.
    Mr. Frank Field: The Labour party has tried in successive speeches to show that this is really a problem of large families. Is it not a basic fact that most poor families have only one or two children?
    Mr. Forman: Statistically, the hon. Gentleman may be right, but there is no doubt that the problems in providing for the various needs of large families—child benefit goes some way towards meeting their financial needs—
    1202
    are still great. There are organisational and parenting problems. The analysis is not that easy, and money is not the sole aspect.
    The new category about which we are concerned is the low paid in work, many of whom are paying tax and have little bargaining power to improve their financial position. It is a salutary sign of the difficulty of the poverty trap that about four fifths of those who claim family income supplement pay tax on their income.
    The major category of the genuine poor must include the 3 million registered unemployed, especially the 1 million long-term unemployed. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has tabled a worthwhile motion on the desirability of extending the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed.
    An important category includes the sick, the handicapped and the disabled. I am glad to say that over the years the Goverment, in their actions and in the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, have treated that category as well as can be expected within the limitation of the resources available. There is no doubt that special attention has been paid to heating allowances and the like to provide for the needs of those who are in special difficulty.
    Those are the most notable categories of the poor. Clearly there are insufficient resources in the public sector to enable any Government to help all those categories to the extent that we would wish. We must seek to help them according to our scale of priorities to the extent that it is economically possible to do so.
    Viscount Cranborne: I have listened with the keenest attention to my hon. Friend. Does he consider that one of the difficulties facing this country as the century progresses is the fact that an increasing proportion of the population, especially among the old, will fall into those categories? Perhaps our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench should consider more urgently than has been evident the impact of an increasingly aging population not only on public finance but on the welfare of the people in those categories.
    Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend is right. I am confident that those are among the points that will be taken fully into account in the four reviews conducted by the DHSS. They were also touched on in the Green Paper on long-term trends in public spending. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise those points.
    I believe that it behoves us all to state our priorities in these difficult matters. I have four priorities. The first priority, if we are to help those who are vulnerable and not so well off, must be to concentrate on getting the rate of inflation down to zero, or as near zero as we can get it, as soon as possible and then to have stable prices. I fervently believe that that would be the best single form of help that we could give to the poor and disadvantaged. In that respect, the Government's economic policy is absolutely right.
    My second priority is to make further efforts to ensure that the take-up of the vast range of existing benefits, both means-tested and otherwise, is improved by publicity, greater simplicity and, above all, steps to eliminate any residual stigma in some people's minds about taking up benefits. It must worry the House that of those eligible for benefit only 70 per cent. take up supplementary benefit,

    1203
    only 70 per cent. take up rent and rate rebates and only 50 per cent. take up family income supplement. Improving take-up must be a major objective of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend accept the fact that people who do not take up benefits distort the total picture? Often people are perceived as poor, but they have not always taken up the benefits to which they are entitled. The community asks why people are so poor when, in fact, they have not availed themselves of the available help.
    Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend is correct. He is endorsing and elaborating my point.
    The third priority—my priorities are not listed in order of importance—is for the Government to pursue a steady course of raising personal tax thresholds every year for, say, the next three years; preferably on each occasion by about 5 per cent. more than the rate of inflation. I hope that in pursuing that policy in a way that is analogous to the policies that were introduced in the last Budget for the corporate sector we shall find a way of giving people the certainty that we are not intending to use what little is left of inflation as a disguise to bring more people into taxation and thereby to increase the available revenue.
    I hope that, when considering raising tax allowances, the Government will bear in mind the importance of including the age allowance in the calculation. It was a matter of regret that the age allowance was neglected compared with the married man's allowance and the single allowance on the last occasion.
    The fourth point I should like to make is that over the full period—
    Mr. William Cash: Is it not true that this year 850,000 people have been taken out of tax? Should not my hon. Friend refer to that fact, not just to his recommendations for the next few years? Should he not refer also to what has been done in the Budget?
    Mr. Forman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that positive aspect of the most recent Budget. I was taking all the good points of the Budget for granted. I intended going on constructively to suggest some areas in which we could progress further.
    As we succeed in our economic policy and continue to achieve the economic growth to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary referred, it will be important in human and political terms to raise pensions in real terms when the resources are available. In 1979, at the beginning of the Government's term of office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), when Secretary of State for Social Services, said that the Government were committed to ensuring that pensioners would share in the increasing prosperity. We should endorse that objective today.
    Mr. Frank Field: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had moved to his last priority. His third priority was to increase the rate of the tax threshold in real terms, but he did not link that with the crucial need to increase child benefit at the same rate. Unless that is done, the hon. Gentleman would be advocating sabotaging one of the pledges made by the Conservative party during the 1979 and 1983 elections—to shift the burden of taxation from those with children to those who are childless.
    Mr. Forman: I am pleased to say that the Government's record on child benefits has been to increase those benefits to the highest level in real terms that they have ever been. The hon. Gentleman knows that. There is no doubt that we cannot do everything in this area. One of the difficulties is that we must choose. I believe that the steady process of increasing tax allowances should be carried through further. In that way we can do most to help a wide range of people—those with families and single people.
    There are more doubts than certainties in the longer term. Should we raise child benefits and one-parent benefit by substantial amounts? Should we finance that, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said, by abolishing the married man's allowance? Should we try to bring child benefit into taxation in contradistinction to the original idea? Should we regard long-term unemployment as a tragic fact of modern life? Should we be fatalistic about it, and therefore seek to alleviate it financially by extending the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed at the cost of about £500 million? Should we seek to make a breach in the principle that one is either out of formal paid employment on a low level of social support or in formal paid employment at whatever is the going rate for the job that one has managed to get? In other words, will the time come when society demands that we offer useful paid work to the unemployed without the concomitant requirement that they lose their unemployment or supplementary benefit in consequence? As there are many worthwhile tasks to be performed in society, increasingly people will make those demands upon us.
    Those are some of the many things about which I am not certain of the answers, any more than I am absolutely certain of the overwhelming advantages of the tax credit scheme, which I have supported for many years since Lord Barber suggested it in the early 1970s. The credits to cover all major social needs would be very expensive. That is clear. The cost would be between £10 billion and £20 billion. It would entail considerable tax burdens in income tax and national insurance on the rest of the community. However, if we had credits on a limited scale to cover only some social needs, they might turn out to be less supportive and socially useful—this is a paradox—than the present cat's cradle of benefits that are available in our complicated welfare state.
    One has always to look at both cash and care, at provision and financial support. There is quite a lot of evidence to show that, for example, bus passes, school meals and National Health Service care delivered free at the point of use are valued more by many of our constituents than the possibility of having the equivalent of a voucher in their pockets—in other words, the cash with which to pay for the service.
    The main dilemma in this difficult area is that if we are to achieve reasonable support for the unemployed in particular, which is the one group that I have most in mind, the level of pay or income of the lower paid has to be raised accordingly. To do so without the increase in productivity that is necessary for a competitive basis would raise costs and reduce competitiveness. That is the essential dilemma that we cannot get round.
    Therefore, I hope that the Government will face up to some of the problems with honesty and compassion, and explain their policies as clearly as possible. They should explain not only our goals but the justification behind

    1205
    them. If we frame all our policies, both economic and social, with the interests of the poor and the dependent very much in mind, we will have faced up to our main responsibility, which is the cohesion of this country. The principle that has always been central to the Conservative party is that we believe in one nation.
    6.44 pm
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Among the more pious commitments in the Treaty of Rome, which forms the basis of the European Economic Community, is the pledge of member states to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. For some member states, that commitment seems to have been conveniently forgotten and quietly slipped under the mat.
    In an EEC survey of European regions completed this year, south Wales is classified in the least prosperous grouping of Europe's 131 regions. The league table was made up by combining a measure of chronic unemployment trends with an index of output or gross domestic product. I intend to be very parochial. I believe it important that Conservative Members should be made aware of other regions in Britain outside the affluent southeast of England.
    Wales is defined as one of the peripheral regions of the European Community. Geographically it is on the fringe, and it is also one of the poorest parts of the EEC, as the survey proved. The industrial areas of south Wales were placed among the least prosperous regions that make up one fifth of the Community's population. The rest of Wales just escaped inclusion in the same category.
    The years since Britain joined the European Community have been traumatic for Wales. In 1972, unemployment was below 5 per cent., with fewer than 50,000 people out of work. The economy, based on the coal and steel industries in which more than 100,000 Welsh people worked, seemed healthy, and the future looked promising. The National Coal Board's "Plan for Coal", published in 1974, predicted a long-term prosperous future for the industry. But in the south Wales valleys collieries have continued to close, and there has been relatively little development of new mining capacity compared with other parts of the British coalfield. There are now 28 pits in operation, employing 20,000 men.
    Until very recently the Welsh farming sector, largely dependent on dairy production and livestock, fared quite well, although only 2 per cent. of the 1 million strong Welsh work force earned their living in it. However, the introduction of quotas on milk production signals a difficult period ahead. Even with the inadequate British Government grants to farmers who leave the dairy sector, another part of the economy seems about to undergo a period of painful restructuring.
    On top of the structural crisis in steel and coal, Wales has faced the effect of a devastating economic recession since 1979 and a heartless, uncaring Government. The Welsh unemployment rate, which stood at 7 per cent. when we were in government in 1979, is now 16·1 per cent. compared with the United Kingdom average of 13 per cent. and a rate of 11 per cent. in the European Community as a whole.
    Any discussion of income and wealth in Wales must start from an examination of certain aspects of the Welsh economy. Perhaps the key fact from which to begin is the level of GDP in Wales per head of the population. Of the regions of the United Kingdom, only Northern Ireland has
    1206
    a lower figure. In the past 10 years, GDP in Wales has been consistently between 83 per cent. and 89 per cent. of the average for the United Kingdom. In addition to the low level of GDP per head, two other characteristics distinguish the economic situation from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The first is lower rates of economic activity and the second is higher rates of unemployment.
    In the post-war years the Welsh economy has been able to provide jobs for a smaller proportion of the population than have been provided in England or the United Kingdom as a whole. Some 15·2 per cent. are employed in primary industry compared with 3·1 per cent. in Great Britain. Those jobs are mainly in mining, showing a high dependence on the mining industry. There are also low economic activity rates, especially among older men and women. That implies that if activity rates were to approach the national average unemployment would be even higher than at present because low economic activity rates represent hidden unemployment. In the past 20 years unemployment in Wales has stayed consistently above the rate in Britain.
    A study of incomes shows that Wales is an area of considerable deprivation relative to the rest of the United Kingdom or any of the English regions. If we look at a rather crude index such as an average weekly household income, we see that, of the regions of the United Kingdom, only Northern Ireland has a lower average household income than Wales. The situation is worse than it sounds because the average household size in Wales is larger than that of the United Kingdom, so a smaller household income has to be divided among more people.
    With regard to income and wealth, Wales is one of the poorest and most deprived regions of the United Kingdom. Why are incomes in Wales so low? The crucial factor seems to be the low rate of economic activity, which means that fewer households have the benefit of a second income and more people in Wales depend for their standard of living on social security benefits, and therefore live in relative poverty, particularly under this Government.
    The most obvious explanation for low rates of economic activity lies in the process of economic and industrial change and the failure of regional policy to make good more than a part of the loss, but two other factors are significant. First, the development of a European economy emphasises the geographically peripheral position of Wales. As the focus of economic activity has become European rather than imperial, Wales has emerged more clearly as a peripheral region a long way from where the action is.
    Regional policies alone will not solve the economic problems of Wales. The first prerequisite of an effective attack on the problems of low economic activity, high unemployment and low incomes is an economic plan for Wales, for which economists have been calling since 1976. Demand for such a plan in Wales has grown to such an extent that it seems incredible that a positive, affirmative answer can be denied for much longer, but we perhaps underestimate the resilience of central Government in the face of regional pressure as there is little sign of such a plan. Nevertheless, an effort to organise ideas and develop a strategy must be a prerequisite of any serious attack on the economic problems of Wales and the growing gap between rich and poor.

    1207
    Housing is central to any discussion of inequality. The housing in Wales is older than that of any other region, the oldest stock being in the urban areas and the valleys. That has substantial implications for Welsh housing policy and the housing investment required. In industrial south Wales the greatest concentration of older houses is in the older valley areas, notably the Rhondda, Cynon and Merthyr valleys.
    Closely linked with the age of the housing stock is the proportion of dwellings lacking essential amenities such as an indoor toilet, fixed bath or shower and hot water. Wales is the worst region of Britain in this respect.
    Thus, about one third of the population in Wales are either without accommodation at all or live in clearly inadequate accommodation. Geographical concentrations of particular housing problems are exacerbated by the increasing age of the housing stock and the Government's failure to devise and execute effective countermeasures.
    The other aspect of deprivation in Wales relates to health, which has been worse in Wales than in other parts of Britain for at least 100 years. State intervention in the provision of health care in Britain is by no means just the product of the National Health Service Act 1946. On the contrary, the development of public health legislation is an essential feature of 19th century urban history. The significant feature of the 1946 Act, however, is that it is based on a principle quite distinct from that of earlier legislation—that access to adequate medical care should be available to all, irrespective of ability to pay for it.
    Given the state's commitment to provide proper health services, inadequate access to health care has itself come to be seen as a test of social disadvantage. I repeat that health in Wales has been worse than in other parts of Britain for at least a century. In common with Britain as a whole, of course, there have been enormous improvements in average life expectancy and mortality rates in Wales. Nevertheless, in the early 1930s the death rate in Wales was 11 points higher than that for England and Wales as a whole and 40 years later, in the early 1970s, the disparity was almost exactly the same.
    Even more instructive is the massive and persistent discrepancy between death rates for south-east England and for industrial south Wales. There is nothing in the statistics to suggest that the inception of the National Health Service has done much to reduce the inequalities in life expectancy. Is it envy to want people in all parts of Britain to have the same opportunity of life? I suggest that it is not envy but a reasonable expectation.
    The general nature of resource allocation in the NHS was well summarised by Julian Tudor Hart in 1971, when he described the "inverse care law" as follows:
    "In areas with most sickness and death general practitioners have more work, larger lists, less hospital support and inherit more clinically ineffective traditions of consultation than in the healthiest areas and hospital doctors shoulder heavier caseloads with less staff and equipment and more obsolete buildings and suffer recurrent crises in the availability of beds and replacement staff. These trends can be summed up as the inverse care law, the availability of good medical care tending to vary inversely with the needs of the population served. Moreover, those areas with the highest rates of sickness and death are also those that suffer most from unemployment, low family incomes, poor housing and other environmental conditions."
    The mining area that I represent and many others elsewhere in Wales, Scotland and north-east England are significantly disadvantaged in health terms. Health care
    1208
    provision is insufficient to fulfil the basic objectives of the NHS and that failure, in turn, contributes to the high levels of illness and death in those areas.
    The picture that emerges is one of sharp and serious deprivation. Incomes per head in Wales are lower than in any region of England, on almost every count, the housing stock is worse than in England and at almost every age life expectancy is lower in Wales than in England. Those facts speak for themselves. To anyone with the time and energy to plough through the statistics, the shocking facts are all too plain.
    Wales is not unique as an area of deprivation. Many areas in the north and north-west of England have similar problems. For too long particular regional needs have been obscured by the bland national perspectives of Whitehall and the south-east of England. It is time that full and proper attention was paid to the gross inequalities between different regions and a genuine attempt made to tackle removable ills.
    6.58 pm
    Mr Tony Baldry: One of the depressing aspects of debates of this kind is that the language used by the different parties makes dialogue almost impossible, so wide is the gulf between them. I was especially conscious of this during the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I therefore wish to begin by explaining my concept of what we are trying to achieve in terms of social equality.
    First, there should be a level below which no one can fall. The usual analogy of a net is an unhappy one, because a net may bulge and let one fall through. What we need is a level below which no one can fall. From that there should be a ladder up which people can climb. It should not matter if some people climb higher up the ladder and, in consequence, the distance between the people at the top and those at the bottom becomes greater. Indeed, the chances are that the higher people climb, the more wealth they will create for others.
    The debate, therefore, is based on a false premise. The fact that the distance from the bottom to the top of the ladder is greater than it may have been at other times should not be regarded as inherently retrograde. If, as a community, we can ensure that there is a level below which no one can fall, and that the weakest are protected, the fact that some people do better than others should not be a cause for concern.
    It is in the interests of the Opposition to create a mythical two-class system. Ever since I was at university, I have heard Labour speakers try to create class warfare and the two nations because those are necessary features of their self-fulfilling political philosophy. One cannot talk about class warfare unless one can generate distinctions between various groups, but no one in the community is helped by attempts to set one group against another.
    I do not want to talk about that fake class warfare, or about the Opposition's politics of envy and greed. I want to consider in a positive manner how we can assist more people to climb the ladder and ensure that no one falls through the net.
    No one would deny that one of the main factors contributing to poverty today is unemployment. However, I have listened to hon. Member after hon. Member from the Opposition Benches, and I have not heard many positive ideas about how to tackle unemployment and get people back to work.

    1209
    In the Britain of tomorrow, there will be fewer jobs in the present main areas of employment. There will be an increasing amount of investment in those areas, no doubt, but there will not be large numbers of new jobs. The new jobs will be created when people set up small businesses or begin to work on a self-employed basis. There will also be an increasing amount of part-time work. Such trends must be encouraged. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) to laugh, but that is where the new jobs will be found.
    Mr. Bell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Baldry: I shall give way shortly.
    We must do all that we can to encourage small businesses to grow. We shall not do that by increasing the tax burden on those who show enterprise and initiative. The philosophy of the Labour party will not help the small business man. According to the Labour party, those who are slightly better off than the majority should be clobbered.
    Mr. Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Lord Lever, when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, did more for small businesses than the present Government have ever done?
    Mr. Baldry: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. More is now being done to encourage and foster small businesses in the present climate than has been done at any other time in our history. For the first time, we have realised how to do something positive about jobs.
    Yesterday, I visited two factories in Bicester which show the way forward. The first, March Engineering, started by employing eight people. After eight years, it now employs 100 people. The company has grown every year. It makes high-performance racing cars for the United States. It has taken on, and beaten, the United States motor car industry. It produces high-technology, high-engineering motor cars for a specific market. They race on the Indianapolis circuit. Short-run jobs of a specific and specialised nature, in high-technology areas, are what we need to encourage in future.
    The other company started six or seven years ago with three people in a barn in Thame. It now employs 10 people in quite a large unit, making showers for the disabled and other aids.
    Mr. Bell: Seven jobs?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman derides the idea of providing seven jobs, but that is the environment that we must foster. Unless we encourage the provision of seven jobs here and 10 there, we shall not get people back to work.
    Opposition Members are always wringing their hands and trying to outdo each other with their descriptions of the misery and deprivation of their constituencies. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley gave a long catalogue of the deprivation that had hit their areas, but they did not have anything positive to say about what they had done to help. How many Labour Members have helped to set up enterprise agencies in their constituencies? How many are helping to create small businesses?
    Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman talks about creating seven jobs. Does he not realise that in constituencies such as mine, and in mining communities, jobs are being wiped out? In my
    1210
    constituency, about 2,000 Mobs have been lost in the glass industry and in mining at one swipe. Poverty is being created.
    Mr. Baldry: No one underestimates the problems. We can all read the statistics. Certain industries have had to shed jobs in order to be competitive. However, it is no good sitting back and saying how tragic it is, or favouring the poorer parts of Britain against the wealthy areas. We must look to the future constructively. Jobs will be found and created in small businesses and in the new technologies. It will be not the state, but people with enterprise and initiative who will lead the way. We should encourage enterprise and initiative. We shall not do that by hacking the ladder halfway up. We shall not do it by encouraging people to invest money, to set up a business and suffer the teething troubles and then clobbering them hard with tax when they reach a certain stage. No one will respond to such an environment.
    That is the proposition that the Labour party is putting forward. Every vibration from the Opposition Benches today has been about wanting to increase taxation and to penalise those who are succeeding in creating wealth in order somehow to benefit the poorer members of the community. But that policy will not help the poorer members of the community. The only way to tackle poverty is to tackle unemployment, and the only way to tackle unemployment is to create jobs. The people who will create the jobs are those with initiative. The Labour party has yet to say anything about encouraging initiative and enterprise.
    The corollary to ensuring that the ladder is strong is that there must be a level below which no one can fall. In certain areas, perhaps, that level needs to be reconsidered. One of those areas is the rate of supplementary benefit for the long-term unemployed. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), myself and other hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed an early-day motion advocating that the long-term rate of supplementary benefit be extended to those in their 50s who are out of work. Such people will find it hardest to get back to work. Social justice requires that we do more to help them. A phenomenally large sum of money is not involved. It would cost about £70 million.
    Ten years ago no one in Britain could use basic computer language. Today, twice as many school leavers can use computer language as are conversant in French. That is a measure of the progress that has been made. The sterile, negative and nihilist approach of Opposition Members has been matched by the constructive and positive approach of Conservative Members in regard to how we ensure a level below which no one can fall, how that can be achieved, and how to create jobs. It is no answer to say that the state must provide jobs for everyone. That is unrealistic. More people will be employed if we encourage initiative and enterprise. We shall not achieve that by setting one part of the community against another in fake class warfare. That might be fine at a Labour party management committee, but the House deserves something rather better.
    7.11 pm
    Mr. William O'Brien: The Opposition motion is one of the most important that we have debated for some time. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) referred to the Labour party campaigning in regard

    1211
    to Britain's two societies. If he were to move north of Watford, he would find a different society. He also referred to job creation and what the Government had done in that regard. In west Yorkshire and the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), jobs have been lost because of the tax burden that the Government have put on industry.
    The motion is important, as it declares:
    "That this House deplores the widening gap between the incomes of the rich and poor which has resulted from the Government's taxation and social policies".
    It also draws attention to the fact that
    "at least two million British people are now subsisting at a standard of living lower than they had five years ago"—
    when the Tories came to power.
    With the exception of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), all Conservative Members, and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), have shied away from the real problem. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington drew attention to the Government amendment and its shortcomings. To a considerable extent, he spoke in favour of the motion. If hon. Members were to address themselves to the real problem they would support the motion, and if Conservative Members had to speak with their hands on their hearts they would support the motion, because it addresses itself to the problems which many parts of the country have faced for the past five years.
    The hon. Member for Stockton, South mentioned trade unions and said that they should be negotiating. He also said that the higher paid should be paying for the lower paid. That is a typical Social Democratic party approach. If the leader of the SDP had his way, more miners would be on the dole. The SDP is revealed in its true light when in one breath it says that it wants to increase unemployment in mining areas, and in another it criticises the level of unemployment. The SDP cannot face both ways. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes it can."] Well, perhaps it can.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said much about many things, but did not deal with the problem. He drew attention to the fact that the Government refer to pensions and benefits as Government handouts. I should like to say on behalf of people who are not here to defend themselves that I take exception to the suggestion that benefits that are paid to the retired, the chronically sick, the disabled and the unemployed are Government handouts. I hope that such a suggestion will be withdrawn by the Minister in his winding-up speech, because such people receive benefits as of right.
    I should like to quote from a background paper provided by the Library on the impact of the 1983 Budget, individual incomes and real income movement since 1979. It follows in detail how five example families have fared since 1979. It says:
    "The first group of changes have been to the tax system. The 1979 budget cut higher rates of tax, raised allowances more than inflation and reduced the basic rate by 3 per cent. This helped all the households, but the most significant effect was on higher-rate taxpayers. The 1979 budget, however, also increased VAT and excise duties, and these fed through into higher prices which largely cancelled out the gains from direct taxation, except for the richest households. The 1980, 1981 and 1982 budgets, and now the 1983 budget, have all increased National Insurance contributions—by a total of 2½ per cent. In 1980, the reduced rate band of tax … was abolished, and in 1981 tax allowances
    1212
    were not indexed, both increasing the tax burden. All these increases have hit the poorest households proportionately more than the richer ones."
    That is what today's debate is all about. Conservative Members should read the document, because it makes it clear that people are suffering because of the Government's taxation changes.
    The document gives five examples. The first refers to a person who earns £73 a week—as many people do in west Yorkshire. He is also eligible for family income supplement. The footnote, under the heading "Changes since 1979", states:
    "This family benefited from wage rises well above inflation before 1981, but since then their living standards have fallen considerably, partly because wage rises have been less generous but mainly because of tax increases … and steep council house rent rises. In March 1983 they are 2 per cent. poorer than in March 1979."
    That document is in the Library for all hon. Members to read. The statistics were drawn up, not by members of the Labour party, but by people who serve the House.
    Since the Government came to office they have done nothing but attack the living standards of those who are least able to look after themselves. They have attacked the unemployed, the aged, the chronically sick and disabled and the injured—in the latter case the Government withdrew the supplement to wages. I know people who are feeling the draught from reduced living standards. Poor people are becoming even poorer, especially in industrial areas. Therefore, I support the motion.
    In my constituency there are groups of people who are suffering hardship because of the Government's policies. The group which stands out most are the widows. None of the Tory Members who have spoken has mentioned the plight of widows. Widows have no income other than the special widow's pension or the retirement pension. In support of and to substantiate my claim I shall quote from a report in the Library. On page 17 of the recent Department of Health and Social Security publication entitled "Population, Pensions Costs and Pensioners Incomes" it states that
    "although the general position of pensioners has improved considerably in the last thirty years, many pensioners still have relatively low incomes. For most pensioners, for example, the NI basic pension is their largest single source of income (for a majority basic pension forms 60 per cent. or more of their total pre-tax income). One in five pensioners has income topped up by supplementary benefit, including a third of widows … About two-thirds of pensioner households receive housing benefit."
    The Chief Secretary said that the housing benefit scheme was in a shambles. All hon. Members will have received representations from their constituents about the problems that they have in understanding the scheme. I received a letter from a housing manager in the Wakefield metropolitan district area who said that, although a widow is a DHSS case, he cannot understand why she is not being considered for heating and water charges under the scheme. There are many other similar cases. The scheme is a shambles, and many people are worse off because of the way in which it is applied.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is my hon. Friend aware that the estimated cost of the administration of the housing benefit scheme when it was taken over by the Department of Health and Social Security was about £14 million? Is he further aware that in a recent answer to me the Minister

    1213
    said that the present estimated cost of administration was about £90 million? Does he agree that that is a disgrace and that the money should be put to better use?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has further outlined the shambles of the housing benefit scheme. Contrary to saving money, which it was suggested it would do, it is costing money. In addition, people are being denied benefit because of the shambles.
    Hon. Members should read the report to which I referred. It shows the problems facing pensioners and widows and says that 35 per cent. of widows are in receipt of supplementary benefit because their incomes are not sufficient to meet their needs. It is right that we should draw attention to that fact. Pensioners are getting a raw deal under the Government. In 1981 the Government dropped the link between basic pensions and earnings. If that had been maintained, a married couple on a pension would now be £3·50 a week better off. That link was established by the Labour Government to ensure that pensioners got a fair deal and that their standards were maintained. It ensured that pensioners did not fall into the poverty trap. The link maintained the standards of pension for people who had given a lifetime's work and prevented them from being denied full benefits.
    If a person who has worked 34 or 40 years is made redundant at 61 or 62 because his company has closed down, he may receive a redundancy payment of more than £3,000, but he cannot draw any benefit because of it. He can draw neither unemployment benefit nor supplementary benefit until he spends his nest egg of £3,000. Many people have come to ask me about that matter. They may need the benefit of that capital at a later date, but they must spend it if they are to receive any form of benefit.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead anyone outside the House. What he has just said is true of supplementary benefit, but it is not true of unemployment benefit. The possession of capital would have no effect on unemployment benefit.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister assure me that after 12 months someone who has more than £3,000 in the bank can continue to draw unemployment benefit?
    Mr. Newton: I hope that I did not misinterpret the hon. Gentleman. He knows as well as I do that entitlement to unemployment benefit runs out after 12 months. What he said is true of anyone who depends only on supplementary benefit, but he implied that someone with more than £3,000 of capital would not be entitled to unemployment benefit. That is not correct.
    Mr. O'Brien: If someone who retires at the age of 61 or 62, who still has four or five years to go before receiving the state pension, has a small capital sum of £3,000 or more, is the Minister saying that he is entitled to unemployment benefit for those few years? The Minister is now shaking his head. What I said was correct. He will receive no benefit after the first 12 months unless he reduces his capital to below £3,000.
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: How much does the hon. Gentleman believe someone should be able to retain in the bank and still claim state benefit—£4,000, £10,000, £20,000 or £36,000?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Lady is suggesting that we should put a ceiling on the amount. I am saying that if a 62-year-old has £3,000 in his savings account, he is not overburdened with capital. If the Government and their supporters were honest, they would accept that it is unreasonable to ask someone to commit all his capital before he qualifies for benefit. It is all very well for the hon. Lady to say, "Put a figure on it." I suggest that someone should be able to live comfortably and retain his £3,000 or more until he receives the state pension. As the Minister says, that does not happen at present.
    It is not just a lack of money that is crippling some of the poorer people in society. At Question Time today I asked the Prime Minister about a constituent who has been in need of surgery for some time. However, as there are no resources to guarantee hospital accommodation for the elderly and the sick, my constituent has had her appointment postponed four times. The chairman of the health authority wrote to me saying that from 1 April 1983 to 1 April 1984, 2,242 people were denied access to medical treatment because of a shortage of funds.
    We must bridge the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Conservative Members should support the motion, if only for humanity's sake. We appeal to the Government to give special consideration to those in the greatest need. It is against that background that I ask the House to support the motion.
    7.33 pm
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: I shall speak about the motion in some detail, because the Opposition seem to be developing the curious habit of choosing subjects about which they are wrong. They will do so again this time next week when they talk about cuts in the National Health Service. We know that the Government have spent more on the National Health Service and on benefits than any previous Government.
    The motion talks about the gap between the incomes of the rich and those of the poor, but it refers to gross incomes. [Interruption.] If Opposition Members would listen, since they have not been here for the entire debate, they might learn a few things. It might be worth putting on record the fact that for much of the debate there have been between six and 10 Labour Members present; and that at almost every stage they have been outnumbered by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the debate began there were 36 Labour Members and seven independent Members present, and by the time my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) sat down there were 46 Labour Members in the Chamber.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Perhaps we should get back to the subject of the debate.
    Mrs. Currie: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not raise this matter.
    The House should be aware that the distribution of wealth in Britain has changed very much in the direction that Labour Members wish to see. The Diamond commission, which in 1975 reported on the distribution of income and wealth in Britain, said that in 1936 the most wealthy 1 per cent. of the population owned 56 per cent. of all marketable wealth. In 1971 that had dropped to 31 per cent., and by 1981 it had dropped to 23 per cent. The

    1215
    commission also said that, taking into account access to occupational and state pensions, the change is even more dramatic. We are all much wealthier because of our pension rights, and that is especially true at the middle and lower parts of the scale.
    In 1971, the wealthiest 10 per cent. of the population accounted for 65 per cent. of all marketable wealth. But if one takes into account not only the passage of time but the accretion of their pension rights, the wealthiest 10 per cent. of the population now owns only 35 per cent. of all marketable wealth. They have gone from owning two thirds of wealth to owning one third. The relationship between the wealthiest and the less well off in society has changed for the better, and the gap has closed dramatically.
    If Labour Members believe that we should disregard the rights of pensioners and future pensioners, I say only that 12 million people now have rights to occupational pensions and that the state pension, to which we are almost all entitled, accounts for an accumulated accrual of about £154 billion, which is substantially more than our public expenditure for one year.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the hon. Lady comment on the fact that Britain still has the most unequal distribution of wealth in Europe and that it has been the least successful economy?
    Mrs. Currie: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we can all do better, I agree with him. I want Britain to become richer and our rate of growth to be faster, which would mean that the accumulation of wealth would be quicker for all of us. A bigger cake is much easier to divide.
    Inflation has a dramatic effect on the distribution of wealth. Labour Members have already mentioned what happens to someone's money that is stuck in the bank. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who, like me, represents miners and retired miners, will know that under the present schemes miners will do very well when they retire. Inflation has a great effect on people's ability to save and to show some benefit from a lifetime of work, and this Government more than any other have shown how to control inflation.
    The Labour party motion is deliberately misleading because it talks only about gross income. Its reference to an income of £18,000 without adding the words "before tax" is about as misleading as any proposition can be. The motion completely ignores the fact that our income tax system is intended to redistribute wealth. It is supposed to take money from the well off, or from people with incomes of more than £18,000, and give it to those with incomes at the bottom of the scale.
    Unfortunately, there are few up-to-date figures for this. I deplore that, and I wish that the DHSS would collect more recent statistics—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am on record as having said that almost every time that I have spoken in the House. In 1978–79, taking into account income from employment, income in kind, pensions and social security benefits, the top 1 per cent. of income earners accounted for 5·3 per cent. of income before tax and for only 3·9 per cent. of income after tax. The top 10 per cent. of income earners accounted for 26·1 per cent. of income before tax and 23·4 per cent. after tax. In other words, we have a redistributive system. The effect of the
    1216
    difference between gross and net income is to diminish the gap between rich and poor. That is what it is all about and we do it. As a result, the top 1 per cent. of income earners in Britain pay 36 per cent. of their income on average in tax, the top 10 per cent. pay 25 per cent., and so on down the scale. If that is not an active and effective redistributive system of the kind that the Labour party would seek to introduce if it did not exist, I do not know what is.
    We can also have a look at absolute levels of standards of living. It is the failure of the Opposition to do so that is wrong. All the discussion that we have heard, particularly the statistics from the Library quoted by Labour Members, has all been a question of relative values. One of the ways of looking at absolute values—what we do with our money and how we live—is to have a look at the family expenditure survey. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary referred to that briefly in his opening speech.
    In 1969, 51 per cent. of the British people had access to a car. Some had more than one car, but not many. By 1982 that figure was 61 per cent. In 1969, 25 per cent. had central heating. That figure is now 63 per cent. Sixty-two per cent. used to have a washing machine; now it is 81 per cent. Thirty-two per cent. used to have a telephone; now it is 75 per cent. Most important of all, nearly everyone has a television set, and 77 per cent. of those television sets are colour. I accept that in a way having a television makes things worse because it introduces people all over the country to the cornflakes world of the happy family with G-Plan furniture and not everyone will achieve that.
    Mr. John Powley: Will my hon. Lady Friend add to her list of commodities that are owned by the British people, thereby emphasising some of the wealth that has been created, by pointing out that we are the fastest growing country for the possession of video cassette recorders amongst a wide range of people in society today?
    Mrs. Currie: Not only am I glad to add my hon. Friend to my list of hon. Friends; I also acknowledge that that is true. It might also be worth having a look at my region—to follow the example of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
    The east midlands turns out to be quite an interesting region in one or two ways. For example, I have discovered that the east midlands has the highest ownership of washing machines in the country—87·5 per cent. of all households there have a washing machine compared with only 74 per cent. in the south-east, and the mucky people in London, with only 65·9 per cent. That pattern is confirmed in a survey by the Severn-Trent water authority recently on the east midlands, interviewing some 4,800 householders, including a cross-section in Derbyshire. The authority wanted to find out what the future pattern of water usage in the area would be.
    The survey showed that 36 per cent. of households in the region own a shower compared with only 15 per cent. seven years ago. Showers are also being used more frequently—on average 2·5 times a week per person instead of 1·5 times in 1977. Strangely enough, there has been no reported change in the frequency with which people take baths and the rate remains constant at an average of 1·5 times per week per person. Perhaps because of that change in our washing habits in the east midlands the local Derwent area has set up what the consumer

    1217
    relations adviser, Mr. Swain, has described as a watchdog body in order to check what is going on with water usage in the east midlands. I hope that they do not decide to watch my constituents making use of that water. It used to be said that we ought to have "mens sana in corpore sano" but we now have "corpus sanum in togo sano."
    It was mentioned earlier that the standard of living of many people in work, especially the lower paid, has been suffering. In many ways that is only true if one looks at relativities. If one looks at absolute figures, it just is not so. The wage rate of the worst paid people in society—hourly-paid female manual labour—over the past 10 years has gone up 4·5 times. Among people such as myself—non-manual female labour—the pay rate has gone up five times. What we get for our money has improved dramatically. Ten years ago it took 37 minutes of that hourly-paid manual work to earn enough for a dozen eggs. Now it takes half that time. Ten years ago it took 61 minutes to buy a pound of bacon. Now it takes 38 minutes. The same is true even for more expensive items. Ten years ago it took 66 minutes to earn enough for a pound of best sirloin beef, of which we have a lot in Derbyshire. Now it takes only 52 minutes.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Provided that one has work.
    Mrs. Currie: If it is true that the standard of living of many of those women has nevertheless not kept pace with inflation, I suggest it is because of the rising price of fuel which affects those households more than many. That is one reason why I for one passionately support the efforts of the Government and the NCB to modernise the coal industry and to ensure that the average cost of fuel that goes to our power stations is reduced.
    One aspect of poverty which disturbs all of us is the way that people still drop out. We have a huge complex system of income support. It now costs some £39 billion—or will do this year after the uprating. On the day that the uprating was announced in the House on 11 June, when an additional £1·6 billion was added to that sum, in a debate that lasted 42 minutes, we managed to spend the extra at the rate of £600,000 per second of debate. Overall the DHSS spends over £100 million per day on pensions and benefits. One thing that we can all agree on in the House is that there is no shortage of cash and nobody in Britain should be poor with a budget of that size to play with.
    Mr. Wareing: But they are in Liverpool.
    Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman should know that I lived in Liverpool for 18 years, and I am a frequent visitor.
    The problem with the system is, first, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) pointed out, that people are missed out. Only half of the people—the families with children in work—who qualify for family income supplement actually claim it. Only 70 per cent. of the people who could claim supplementary benefit and single parent benefit actually claim it. It gets worse. A recent survey by the University of York of families with disabled children shows that only between half and two thirds of those families who would qualify for attendance allowance—which is not only generous but tax free—were actually claiming it. It is also so crude a system that it overpays those who do not
    1218
    need it. Seventy-five per cent. of those receiving child benefit, including a number of us in the House, are well above supplementary benefit level before we get it.
    I agree with every word of criticism that has been made about the relationship between benefits and tax. When the Beveridge report was introduced, a small proportion of the population received benefit and a small proportion of the population were taxpayers. Now nearly all of us are both. It is an insane merry-go-round that has us paying tax at high levels in order to pay benefits on which tax is then payable—and so on. Constituents of mine who are married with two children will have to pay £700 this year in order to receive their child benefit. However, it will not be £700 because that is what they will get in child benefit and they have to add another £100 for the cost of administration for the DHSS to pay it and the Inland Revenue to take it back. What is the point? The reviews introduced by my right hon. Friend are long overdue. I for one would rather give up the benefit, pay less tax and see the difference, which now goes to the goodly souls who work for the Department of Health and Social Security and the Inland Revenue go to something more useful.
    I think that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that none of us on the Conservative Benches would dream of believing in equality. We do not believe in equality. We do not accept what has accurately been called the politics of envy, the philosophy that by destroying the good we benefit the worst. We do not. There should be a gap between the rich and the poor. It must be possible for people to feel that they can better themselves—for example, so that they can create businesses to provide employment for their fellow men. A redistributive system that is too heavy-handed—and I firmly believe that ours still is—which would do what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) wanted to do, "squeezing the rich until the pips squeak", does not help the poor at all, because the talents of people who are high fliers are marketable on an international basis. All we do is lose people. They do as many of the people with whom I grew up in Liverpool have done, which is to leave the country.
    We have to be sure that we close the gap, which we are doing, and improve the average so that we are all better off, and ensure that our worst off people are not destitute. Each effort at improvement simply exposes a different group that needs our help, and each item removed from the list of luxuries to the list of necessities, be it television, fridge or central heating, to my mind is evidence of the improving standard of living for us all.
    The job of the Secretary of State is a thankless task. I wish him well in it, and I look forward to further improvement under future Conservative Governments.
    7.51 pm
    Mr. Frank Field: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Opposition Members would do well to pay a little more attention to what she says sometimes instead of responding in the way that they often do. I think that the hon. Lady is the first Conservative Member to address herself seriously to the motion, and to come out confidently to defend her party's position.
    I wish to take Conservative Members back to the pre-1979 position when there was considerable confidence about what would be the result of widening the gap in this country between the rich and the poor. We were told that the rich would get richer and the gap would widen, but that

    1219
    in the process the standards of living of the poor would rise. It is interesting that no Conservative Member, apart from the hon. Lady, has had the courage to go back to the starting position of the huge and, I think, terrifying experiment that the Government have unleashed on the country since 1979. Those beliefs about making the rich richer in the hope that we would all benefit have certainly been the aim of Government policy, and I want to look at the result.
    After five years of this strategy, can we honestly say that we see the poor better placed than they were in 1979? Do we see fewer poor people today than we saw in 1979? The opposite has happened, as the information that has been quoted today by both sides of the House demonstrates. Much of the information has been out of date, and we have no more up-to-date information of the numbers of the poor than we had in 1981. Approximately 8 million people are living on supplementary benefit, and around 2·5 million are living below that level. Thus, we have seen the number of poor increase. One reason is the massive increase in unemployment.
    While unemployment has been a major recruiting sergeant for the army of the poor, there has been another disturbing trend. If we consider the poorest, those in work who have earned their poverty, they have been the fastest growing group under this Government. Let us examine the rhetoric and the promises in 1979 of what would happen if the gap between rich and poor were widened, and let us examine the reality. We have seen the gap widen, and the number of the poor, the poorest, and those who earned their poverty has increased. It is the opposite result from that which was promised. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South on taking us back to first principles. Once again she has given her hon. Friends a lesson in how these debates should be approached. I only wish that more hon. Members would follow her example.
    The parable of the mote and the beam came to my mind while listening to the debate. Most of us have accused our political opponents of errors, and then fallen into larger errors ourselves. No doubt I shall do the same. The biggest error in the debate had been for hon. Members to point to the confusions or simplifications in the speeches of their opponents, but then to go on to propose a panacea.
    The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) drew the attention of the House to the crucial fact that there are something like 4 million or 5 million people who wish to work but cannot work, and that it is folly to pretend that any one solution can return us to full employment. But he went on to say that the only way in which we will return to full employment is to back small businesses. Although I think that it is wrong for Conservative Members to say that that is the only solution to our unemployment problems, it is equally foolish for us to say that small business has no part to play in a return to full employment. It will be one part of a total strategy.
    Mr. Dalyell: On the question of the millions of unemployed, does my hon. Friend not think it strange that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Mr. Pym) should have written the book "The Politics of Consent", in which, at pages 128 and 170, he has a great deal to say about this subject, yet does not bother to turn up in the House, where there has been a great deal of publicity given to his book, to argue the case?
    Mr. Field: I think that it is more than strange, but it is a lesson that quite a few hon. Members could learn. We sometimes think that it is more important to address audiences outside than to address the House. My hon. Friend is a notable exception to that rule. He pays proper court to the House of Commons by putting his arguments in the Chamber before putting them elsewhere.
    As well as considering the debate about the widening gap between rich and poor and whether it has fulfilled the promises that the Conservative party said that it would fulfil in 1979, I wish to consider another gap, not because I wish to decry an examination of the increase in the living standards of the rich at the expense of the poor, but because there is another way to consider the divide in society. The gap is between those who have and those who do not have children. As well as promising us in 1979 that, by making the rich richer, we would improve the position of the poor, we were told that, by electing a Conservative Government in 1979 and in 1983, we would be electing a party that would put the family first. The Government have broken that pledge not only to poor families, but to rich families.
    When the House considered the social security review statement the other week, I questioned the Secretary of State on this point. I drew attention to the fact—and on this I sympathise with him—that he and his colleagues had lost the battle with the Treasury in getting a large increase in child benefit to match the increase in tax allowances. The effect of not increasing child benefit at the same rate as tax allowances was to shift the tax burden from those without children to those with children. No Secretary of State worth his salt has any difficulty with a single question, and the right hon. Gentleman dealt quite neatly with that by comparing a two-year rather than a single year period. That was a fair point, because last year—by comparison with this year—the Secretary of State fought a good battle with the Treasury and obtained an increase in child benefit that was way above the rate of inflation.
    Let us consider the record since 1979. It shows that the burden of taxation has shifted from those without children to those with children. That is why I disagreed so strongly with the list of priorities given by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). The hon. Gentleman advocated that the policies that the Government have already pursued, which have penalised those with children and benefited those without them, should be continued.
    Mr. Forman: Is not it stretching the truth a little to make that point when it is well known that our record on child benefit is the best in real terms?
    Mr. Field: I do not want in any way to decry the Government's record on child benefit. In real terms, child benefit has been maintained and slightly improved. However, it is less than fair of Conservative Members not to recognise the major input of funds by the previous Labour Government. I was critical of that Labour Government, but they did well in putting an additional £1·5 billion into the child benefit scheme. It can only be to the credit, however, of any Government if they maintain the real value of the benefit.
    If we had maintained child benefit in line with tax allowances, we would have been talking about not a 35p but a £1·10 increase this year. It is no secret that the DHSS

    1221
    team fought hard for a much more substantial increase in child benefit than it obtained, but that the Treasury won. However, the Treasury win has meant a vetoing of the clear commitment on which the Conservative party fought the elections in 1979 and 1983 to further the interests of families at the expense of those without children.
    The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed us in the right direction when he said that we should be prepared to state our priorities. I have one priority, and it should be clear even to those hon. Members who have not been listening very carefully. My priority is to put money into the child benefit scheme. There are five major reasons why hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber should support a Government of any party who try to win the battle to increase the real value of child benefit.
    First, child benefit is the most effective way of tackling family poverty. As most of the debate has centred on families in poverty—whether they are unemployed or single-parent families—that is a very important factor. There is no more effective weapon than the child benefit scheme.
    Secondly, the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) thought it important to talk about exits from poverty and to look at our education system. But we also need to think about reforms that will help not only a few but the vast majority. To do that, we must change the welfare state from being a ceiling over the heads of the poor into a floor from which they can build towards their own freedom. If Conservative Members are serious about tackling the poverty trap and the problem of the incentive to work, they should back their DHSS Ministers against Treasury Ministers in fighting for much bigger increases in child benefit than have been obtained this year.
    Thirdly, hon. Members on both sides of the House should support a big increase in child benefit because it is the best way of transferring incomes from men to women. Wherever one looks on the income scale, women are worse placed than men.
    Mr. Barry Porter indicated dissent.
    Mr. Field: I always call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend, because he lives in my constituency and represents the next constituency. I shall report his comments from a sedentary position to his secretary. If we wish to narrow the gap between men and women, we must build on the child benefit scheme.
    Mr. Powley: In many ways it is laudable to want increases in child benefit, and so on, but, in all conscience, the hon. Gentleman should tell us where the money is to come from and who is to provide it. There are several options. Will the hon. Gentleman please explain?
    Mr. Field: I should like, first, to finish my list. Having listened to many speeches, I made a vow to try to limit my speech to 10 minutes. However, I shall try to answer that question as well.
    The fourth reason for building on child benefit is that both sides of the House are committed to decreasing the relative tax burden on families. Now that we have abolished child tax allowances, we can do that only by building on the child benefit system.
    My fifth reason should again obtain the support a hon. Members on both sides of the House. If we are concerned to have a springboard to freedom so that people can build
    1222
    their own little paradises without central bureaucracy putting its big sticky fingers in, child benefit is the benefit to go for.
    Those are the five reasons why we should be interested in supporting the DHSS against the Treasury. That battle always goes on, but, sadly, it was lost this year. As a result, the Government have not fulfilled their clear pledge to lessen the tax burden on families with children.
    The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) said that I should explain where the money was to come from. I have tried to answer that question several times, but I shall not duck his main point. There is no easy solution, and the Prime Minister's saying that money does not grow on trees is right. Those who advocate taking from one group to give to another should say where the money is to come from. However, it is clear from what I have said that we should tax those without children more so that we can lessen the burden on those with children. In addition, since the 1979 Budget about £2·6 billion has gone to the richest 3 per cent. of the population in the form of tax reductions. That means that since then the very rich have seen an increase in income of about £8 billion. So there is still an enormous amount of loot among those at the top end of the income scale, and we should take from there.
    Mr. Porter: I am obliged to my Member of Parliament for giving way. Without, I trust, affecting his chances of reselection, may I say that I am very glad that he is my Member of Parliament. Perhaps there should be some sort of means testing. For example, the amount of money now given to my dear secretary and wife by way of child benefit is totally unrealistic. I do not get any of it, and I am sure that she enjoys it tremendously. If there were a means test, I could deal with "her indoors" as I would wish to.
    Mr. Field: It is because we do not want the hon. Gentleman to deal with his wife, and because we want the money to go to her so that he cannot get his mits on it, that we should support the present system. However, if I were to accept all the challenges made, I would have to speak for much longer than 10 minutes.
    I cannot understand why the Conservative Benches are not packed, why there are not hon. Members who cannot wait to cheer their Government for widening the gap between rich and poor and why they still believe in what the Conservative party said in 1979 and 1983. Perhaps only one Conservative Member has made that case, because Conservative Members now see that the policy of making the rich richer in order to help the poor has not served the nation, least of all the poor, as we were told that it would.
    8.9 pm
    Mr. James Couchman: It ill-behoves hon. Members to claim too close an acquaintance with poverty. Some of us may have spent a few months as impecunious students in the slums of Scotswood road, Newcastle. That was an uncomfortable experience and I am glad that I shall not have to repeat it. A few hon. Members aspire to the ranks of the wealthy, but few right hon. and hon. Members have suffered the poverty which, to our regret, afflicts too much of the population.
    The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) subjected the House to a torrent of statistics without offering any comment on the long-term

    1223
    decline in our economy, under Governments of both political parties—a decline which has led to a terrifying shake-out of overmanned industries since 1978–79.
    That decline took the form of an increasing lack of competitiveness in our traditional industries and the failure of both sides of industry to grasp the opportunities of the new technology. As a result, we have suffered more than most from the deep world recession and our unemployment has risen to its present unacceptable level.
    Not only do the unemployed suffer from poverty, but the families of the unemployed certainly comprise a substantial proportion of those who suffer the greatest poverty. Some parts of the south-east have high unemployment levels. My constituency is in the south-east and the unemployment level in the area is 16·8 per cent.
    Poverty takes two forms—poverty in the standard of living and poverty in the quality of life. The latter takes many forms. I regret that, apart from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), too few hon. Members have talked about poverty in the quality of life. If one is forced to live on the 15th floor of a tower block of flats with a permanently vandalised lift, one suffers a poor quality of life. Children who attend a school with disinterested teachers, plenty of vandalism and lashings of intimidation have a poor quality of life. If one is employed in a dreary mechanical, manual task which is more appropriate to a machine, one endures a poor quality of life. If one has no job, one certainly suffers a poor quality of life.
    Quality of life is much more abstract than standard of living, but in my opinion it is just as important. I am disappointed that so few hon. Members today have discussed that aspect of poverty. Most of today's debate has focused on standard of living and, in particular, income support.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary spoke about some of the material improvements which the population have enjoyed. He rightly drew attention to the revolution in home ownership since 1979 as a result of the right-to-buy legislation. That incredible surge in home ownership has made a real contribution to an improvement in the quality of life.
    My right hon. and learned Friend also spoke about the immense burden of the social security budget, which is set this year to rise to the fantastic figure of £39 billion. I am extremely concerned that this increasing burden, which has gone up by 25 per cent. in real terms since 1979, threatens any programme of improvement in the quality of life. The burden threatens improvements in housing, education, the National Health Service, industrial investment and the environment.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has set up a unique series of reviews of the social security system. It promises to be the most comprehensive and fundamental review of our welfare state since Beveridge. That welfare state has become hopelessly complex and its growing complexity has increased the potential for unfairness. Beveridge set out to write his historic report at about the time when I was born. I imagine that more than half the population have never known a time when the social security system did not provide the safety net of income support. We have a priceless opportunity when the review teams report to overhaul our social security system more thoroughly than at any time
    1224
    since Beveridge. I beg my right hon. Friend to grasp that opportunity and to seek to simplify the income support mechanism.
    I am certain that the 16,000 paragraphs which prescribe the application of supplementary benefits are capable of substantial simplification without loss of fairness. Indeed, I am convinced that simplification would lead to greater fairness and to focusing more on those in genuine need. In that respect I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said about the insanity of offering benefits with one hand and taking them back through the tax system with the other. That we who enjoy a substantial income should be in receipt of child benefit—a most unfocused benefit—is nonsense. Our recent debate on housing benefit showed that we give benefit to those with substantial incomes. I am persuaded that simplification would lead to less abuse of a system which allows a minority to perpetrate massive fraudulent abuse.
    I should have been happier if the brief to the review teams had offered a route to the consolidation of the income support mechanism into a tax credit or negative income tax system. Such a system would offer the only sure way out of the poverty trap.
    The erstwhile chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Professor David Donnison, said:
    "A comprehensive negative income tax or tax credit scheme provides the only certain way of ensuring a smooth transition from social security incomes to wages without confusion, anomaly or injustice."
    I hope that when the co-ordination of the various reviews takes place my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security will be encouraged to confront the major fiscal problems which are said to militate against a consolidated tax and benefit system. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiative in setting up the reviews. I hope that the aspiration to a fairer and simpler system will be realised so that the standard of living of those dependent on a social security income may be improved.
    I am totally persuaded that the Government's policy of creating a climate in which our industry can become more competitive, and hence more prosperous, offers the best chance of realising the cherished aspirations for a better Health Service, greater resources for education and better housing. Only that greater national prosperity can improve the quality of life for the poor, as well as for the rest of us. The positive way of closing the gap between the rich and poor lies in raising the standard of living and the quality of life of the poor, not in trying to impoverish those who are more fortunate.
    8.18 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). I am struck by the geographical split between the contributions from Government Members and the contributions from Opposition Members. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made a philosophical speech. We have also had contributions from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth).
    Each speech was different qualitatively from the speeches by Government Members because all

    1225
    Government Members who have spoken come from the south, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Hon. Members from the north of England and from Scotland encounter more of the deprivation about which we are talking today. That is a fact that must be accepted.
    The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) talked about the need to expand small businesses. There is a geographical, economic and social disparity and a balance must be struck geographically as well as socially and financially. We have a political system that produces no Conservative Members of Parliament north of the Wash and no Opposition Members south of it. It is a defective system. Conservative Members make great play of tabling early-day motions about the long-term unemployed and supplementary benefit. If they came from such places as Liverpool and Cowdenbeath, they would queue at Ministers' doors to get action on supplementary benefit and the problems of the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Porter: I have not contributed to the debate, but if it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman may I say that I come from an area not many miles from Liverpool which has an unemployment rate of more than 21 per cent.—which is higher than that in the city of Liverpool. When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), it was to make the point that it would be sensible to have a means test for child benefit. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that there should be a negative and simple tax system. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that Tory Members from the north do not take the same view as those from the south—we do.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I accept that my remarks were a generalisation, but the point holds. Those of us from the north have a different outlook, but there are exceptions. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that child benefit should be means tested. Means testing accentuates and consolidates any gap between the financially disadvantaged and those who are not financially disadvantaged.
    I am glad that the Opposition have chosen to raise this subject on a Supply day. It has been a useful debate, although it had a somewhat sticky start. The Chief Secretary made a thin speech—he must have thought that he was still in Committee on the Finance Bill at 4 o'clock in the morning, rather than in the House at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. However, the subject is worthy of debate.
    The Opposition motion deplores the widening gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor, and that view has been substantiated not only during the debate but during the past five years of current affairs and political life. The motion notes the tax reductions for those with incomes of more than £18,000 a year. I accept that it is a gross figure of £18,000, and do not accept the complaint made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South. She was not being fair. The motion also calls upon the Government to change the pattern of income distribution.
    There is nothing in the motion to which we can take exception, and I shall advise my hon. Friends to support it. However, there may have been differences between the alliance and the Labour party had its spokesman mentioned how to raise the revenue. We cannot debate the distribution of income without saying something about how the revenue will be raised. The right hon. Member for
    1226
    Sparkbrook was rather light on that aspect in his speech, although he showed his usual panache. We should also discuss the system used to distribute income. Generally speaking, we have no quarrel with the motion, which brings a timeous issue before the House.
    The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook competently deployed arguments about the way in which the Government have helped the rich. They have in the Budget donated £835 million to measures to help the highest earners. For example, a change in the rate of stamp duty, the abolition of investment income surcharge — in complete contrast to their action on housing benefit—the abolition of capital transfer tax, direct income tax cuts and indirect income tax cuts. The overall position of the tax system confirms that the Government's position is weak.
    Let us consider the other side of the coin and what the Government have done for the poor. Eight million people depend on supplementary benefit. From 1979 to 1981, 2,105 deaths could be attributed to hypothermia. That is a startling statistic. Three out of four families poor enough to qualify for family income supplement are subject to income tax. Since 1979, the number of families caught in the poverty trap has more than doubled. Average household expenditure of about £125 a week must be contrasted with basic supplementary benefit for the average family of less than £60 a week.
    The gap between those who have and those who have not has much to do with unemployment. Last week, The Economist, under the heading, "Print no evil", claimed that the Government were trying to suppress an article written in the September issue of The Employment Outlook, published by the Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation. The article was written by Mr. David Piachaud, a well-known and respected academic. His article reached the conclusion that unemployment causes real poverty, especially if it lasts for more than six months. If the Government are using their muscle within the OECD—which must pay attention to what member Governments say—they stand indicted not only for not keeping their statistics up to date, but for suppressing information that is not in their political interest. If that is true, it is quite ridiculous. I am sure that there are people not far from this place who, during the next 35 minutes, could tell the Minister whether that is true.
    The number of long-term unemployed has increased to more than 1 million, which is 37 per cent. of the jobless total. They suffer real hardship and contribute to the widening gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged. The Government should answer the charge in The Economist.
    Although unemployment is a problem, we must also consider low-paid workers. I come from a characteristically low-paid area. I am very worried about the plans with which the Government are toying in relation to wages councils. For the workers in the agriculture, hotel and catering and hosiery outworker industries, any attempt to weaken the wages councils would be a retrograde step and would exacerbate the problem we are discussing.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that, if we have money to spend, it should be spent on child benefit. I would also spend it on the elderly. The report of the Social Security Advisory Committee rightly pointed out that, although the Government are making great play of the fact that they will try to price-protect

    1227
    pensions, pensioners will never have the benefit of any element of growth in the economy. From time to time they should be given a consideration that takes them beyond price protection and gives them the benefit of some element of growth in the pensions increases.
    Child benefit is the most obvious way forward. Money for that should be found by stimulating the economy. There are differences among the parties about the rights and wrongs of that, though most Opposition Members would be prepared to increase the public sector borrowing requirement and stimulate the economy by careful and sensible projects.
    We regard that as a means of taking people out of unemployment and providing the budget with extra capacity which could be used for other purposes. But even if that were not done, I feel sure that if the case were put properly to the electors they would be prepared to pay extra to finance additional pensions and increased child benefit. That is a case which politicians should be prepared to make.
    Those are some of the steps that we should take in the short term. If there were time, I would speak about the plight of single-parent families and the problems that can arise as a result of rural deprivation, especially when people are living on state pensions alone and are deprived of services.
    Another matter that concerns me is the changed system by which child clothing grants are administered by education departments, which are subject to severe local authority constraints on expenditure. Kids in my constituency are sometimes kept off school for two weeks simply to justify to the local education authority that they have a need for clothing. In other words, we are reaching the stage when children's education is being sacrificed so that they can get clothing assistance. That is an absurd situation, and it is topical because people are now thinking about kitting out their children for the autumn term.
    Some of the short-term problems that I have raised need Government attention immediately. Some of the longer-term ones—time does not permit me to go into them; for example we had an interesting exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about tax credit systems and methods of overcoming the poverty trap—will, I hope, be included in the review that is being undertaken.
    Beveridge said that there were three conditions for a good life: freedom from war and fear of war; freedom from want and fear of want; and freedom from idleness and fear of idleness enforced by unemployment. He added:
    "We should regard want, disease, ignorance and squalor as common enemies of us all, not as enemies with whom each individual can make a separate peace, escaping himself to personal prosperity while leaving his fellows in their clutches. That is the meaning of social conscience—that one should refuse to make a separate peace with social evil."
    The Government stand charged with a lack of social conscience.
    8.33 pm
    Sir John Farr: Although this is an Opposition day, some important points have emerged from the debate which the Government will value and on which they will be anxious to take action. One was mentioned by
    1228
    my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) when he spoke about the low take-up rate of some benefits available to pensioners and others in real need. Such matters must come down to a lack of communication. Somewhere along the line my hon. Friend the Minister must deal with the issue, because, as was said earlier, only 70 per cent. of rent and rate benefits are taken up, and other instances of a lack of take-up have been mentioned.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke of what can be achieved when there is a rundown of industry in an area. He explained how steps can be taken to reverse trends. Indeed, he referred to two companies, one employing 100 and the other 10. Opposition Members may consider those to be small examples, but I can speak of the fantastic example of Corby. Heavy industry went out of the window about five years ago with what was thought to be the permanent unemployment of those concerned. In the years since Corby finished producing steel, with men with generations of heavy industry training behind them, there has been an amazing turn-round. Corby is now part of an enterprise zone. Nearly 4,000 new jobs have been created, and about 200 companies have been attracted to the enterprise zone. The examples which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury gave can be followed by the older and traditional heavy industries which are likely to suffer in future.
    Mr. Blair: Corby is an example not of entrepreneurs at work but of planning by the British Steel Corporation and by local trade unions, industries and the council to make good the gap left by heavy industry. It hardly bears out the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry).
    Sir John Farr: My point was simply that, with cooperation on all sides, it is possible to transform the scene. There has been good co-operation over the Corby new town between the local authority, the new development corporation and the Conservative Government of the day. It is a real success story. I invite hon. Members who are not familiar with the scene to go to Corby to see what can be achieved.
    The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) avoided referring to the performance of the Labour Government in the 1970s. The Labour motion is full of criticism of what the Conservatives have not done or should do, but the most fraudulent action committed on any group of pensioners, perhaps anywhere in the world, was that committed by the Labour Government, of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was a Member—I regret that he is not in his place—when they swindled old-age pensioners in 1975 out of £500 million a year, or about £1 billion at today's prices.
    Let me remind the, House of what happened on that occasion. In 1975 the Labour Government changed the calculation system for the updating of benefits and pensions. They changed to the forecast system. By using that system, instead of the actual level of price increases—the system to which the Conservatives have since returned — about £500 million was taken from pensioners' entitlements. That makes insignificant the suggestion that the present Government have adjusted matters so that pensioners have lost out by about £60 million. The motion is fanciful, and I fully support the Government amendment.

    1229
    In my constituency in Leicestershire we accept that Government plans are all right. We are all for returning to private ownership businesses that are in public ownership. We are in favour of the sale of council houses and the other proposals in the Conservative party manifesto. However, there are certain minimum improvements to the social life of everyone, wealthy or poor, that we demand. We are satisfied that the Government have continued to make improvements in the lot of the less well off, and we are pleased that the improvements have been maintained since the 1983 general election.
    I was helped in winning my seat in the election because the previous Conservative Government had been able to show that their performance had been remarkable in the real things that matter and in producing a quality of life for the elderly and those in poor circumstances. Perhaps the most important factor for an elderly pensioner is to know that the pound in his pocket will be worth 100p tomorrow, that the currency is stable and that he can save effectively. That means an immeasurable amount to the elderly. Pensioners are grateful to the Government for being able to change the run-away rate of inflation of about 27 per cent. when they took office to the present stable rate of about 5 per cent. Indeed, we hope that, if anything, it will decline.
    My constituents pay tribute to the Government for their ability in education. There are those who say that the Government are not spending enough on the various social services, but class sizes are at their lowest level—this was true at the general election—and there are more teachers per pupil than ever before. The same applies to the National Health Service, because there are more doctors and nurses, and other forms of NHS spending is increasing. I can assure the House that if it had been otherwise my constituents would not have supported the Conservative party at the 1983 general election and the country would not have returned the Prime Minister with such an emphatic majority.
    In Leicestershire we have been lucky enough to have one of the few new hospitals to be built and opened this year. The Glenfield district general hospital has given great encouragement to people in Leicestershire. It is a visible sign to those in the Leicester area health authority, which is part of the Trent region and one of the most deprived areas in the country for hospital waiting lists generally, including operation waiting lists, that the Government have been intent on improving the quality of life since they took office in 1979.
    My constituents are convinced that the Government's plans show that they are on the right road. It is clear that they intend to improve the quality of life for the poor and everyone else. Above all, the Government are seeking to remove whatever gulf there may be between different parts of the country. In the part of Leicestershire that I represent, talk of two classes or two sections of the country is valueless and not understood.
    8.44 pm
    Mr. Ron Leighton: The charge against the Government is that they are damaging the country and rending society apart by creating two nations. Wealth has always been unevenly divided in Britain. Those at the top have always had too much and those at the bottom have always had too little. This disparity is being exacerbated. The gulf which divides the rich from
    1230
    the poor, the north from the south and east London from west London is being widened and deepened deliberately. What is called Thatcherism is creating a society which is divided against itself. The tragedy which has befallen us is costly in human terms. We see the misery of poverty, hardship and deprivation. We see despair and alienation in our constituencies. This is costly in social and economic terms. A nation which is divided and embittered can never be efficient, for it can never pull together. Distrust and friction will hold it back.
    A perfect example of distrust and friction is the coal dispute. We have the spectacle of tens of thousands of nationally organised paramilitary police keeping large areas of the country under the equivalent of martial law. That is a fitting memorial to Thatcherism. I know of no other country in western Europe where anything comparable has taken place since the second world war. A country which is divided against itself can never be successful.
    How can there be a sense of national purpose and a feeling that it is our country while the present grave disparities exist? Unfortunately, they are being made worse. Those on low pay are being pushed down further. Since 1979 some 4 million more have been pushed down to the poverty line, while those on high incomes are getting more. The Government promised to lower taxes, but so far only the rich have benefited from the record handouts. The rest of us are paying more taxes. Investment income surcharge was abolished in 1984. The top tax rate on investment income and earnings has been slashed and capital transfer tax has been neutered. About £3 billion per annum is being given away to the rich in tax concessions. About £12 billion has been given to the very rich since 1979. Only those on incomes of more than £18,000 a year have benefited.
    The story is different for the rest of the nation. For example, VAT has been virtually doubled from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. and it has even been placed on take-away food. Employees' national insurance contribution rates were increased in the 1980, 1981 and 1982 Budgets. The reduced rate of income tax of 25 per cent. on the first £750 was scrapped in 1980. The Government have forced up local authority rates by cutting the rate support grant. There have been punitive increases in prices and charges which have hit the less well off.
    The House will be aware that gas prices have increased by 130 per cent., and what are they but a form of taxation? Electricity prices have increased by 88 per cent., and prescription charges have risen by 700 per cent. More than 1 million schoolchildren are receiving free school meals because their parents cannot afford to pay. A MORI poll that was conducted for the television series "Breadline Britain" revealed what poverty means. It showed that 3·25 million cannot afford to heal their homes adequately and that 4·3 million live in damp housing conditions. The results of the poll tell us that 3·4 million cannot afford new clothes, that 7 million cannot afford enough food, that 6 million have been in serious arrears with essential bills in the past year and that 10 million cannot afford to take a week's holiday.
    The rich have benefited by about £12 billion since 1979 as a result of tax cuts, but the less well off pay more tax and the poor, as a result of the uprating of pensions and other long-term benefits by comparison with prices rather than earnings, and by the abolition of the earnings-related unemployment benefit, have lost about £6·7 billion since

    1231
    1979. These are the Library's figures. We have had a redistribution of wealth, but it has been a redistribution from the poor to the wealthy.
    The biggest disgrace is in the treatment of the unemployed, because they are the victims of Thatcherism. They and their families are badly hit, and the worst hit are the long-term unemployed. However long those people are out of work, they cannot claim the long-term rate of benefit that is open to all other claimants after one year. They are consigned to a paupers' ghetto. The impact of withdrawing earnings-related supplement has been severe. In 1979 unemployment benefit was 35 per cent. of average male earnings; it is now only 18 per cent. Not only have people's jobs been destroyed, but they are victimised and penalised. This must be an evil policy.
    Other countries—civilised countries—do things differently. Recently, I took the Employment Select Committee to Denmark, where there has been 50 years of rule by the Danish Labour party. Denmark has its problems. There are unemployed people, but the unemployed receive 90 per cent. of their previous earnings for two and a half years, and after two and a half years they must be given a job. Every young person in Denmark is guaranteed a job, training or education until he is 18. There are no great disparities between the bottom and the top level of earnings. There is no such thing as low pay. There is a high level of education and a shared educational background. There is not the educational apartheid that we have, and as a result there is a strong sense of national identity, unity and cohesion—what a contrast with the wretched way in which we arrange matters in Britain.
    While the poor have been pauperised, there has been a dramatic and breathtaking boom in pay at the top. An article in The Sunday Times refers to the big league bosses and contains details of the 60 directors whose salaries are in six figures. The article refers to the increase in their salaries from 1981 to 1983. Robin Wilmot had an increase in salary of 148 per cent. In 1983 his salary was £189,000 a year. Mr. Michael Hollingbery, the chairman of Comet, received a salary increase of 145 per cent. His salary was £194,000 a year. Mr. Ralph Halpern of Burton received an increase of 97 per cent. His salary was £199,000 a year. The salary of Sir Kenneth Corfield of STC was £201,000. Sir Peter Baxendell of Shell Transport received £202,000. He works also for S. Pearson and received £201,000 from that company. Tiny Rowland received £265,000 from Lonrho and £234,000 from Associated Newspapers. Mr. N. Stewart and Mr. B. Christopher of BSR between them received an increase of 434 per cent., giving them a salary of £497,000. That is how we treated the rich during a period when inflation was running at 17 per cent. Last year, Mr. Dick Giordono of BOC received a salary of £522,000.
    Did they not do well? Are they not doing well? How do they justify one man taking so much from society? How do we justify one man receiving—I shall not say earning—more than 50 coal miners put together? At a time when British industry is performing badly, the directors are receiving more. As British industry is going down the drain, the directors are paying themselves more and more.
    The most impudent and arrogant impositions are made when firms collapse and such people are dispensed with. We all remember Sir Campbell Fraser of CBI. He was a
    1232
    great one for lecturing us about wage restraint and incomes policy. In 1983 when he was the chairman of Dunlop, the company lost £167 million. It could not repay its loans and he had to go. It is amazing and breathtaking to learn that, after drawing a very high salary, Sir Campbell Fraser received £137,400 in compensation. He also received a Rolls-Royce, a company chauffeur and a Mayfair office. That happened after he had allowed his company to collapse. What hypocrisy it is for those people to preach incomes policy to us.
    Sir Campbell Fraser was not the only one to prove that industrial failure pays. On 21 February 1984 The Times reported the annual report of the long-troubled Rank organisation, showing that four directors received £438,000 in compensation. On 10 March 1984 The Times reported that three directors of the William Press building group shared a golden handshake of £700,000. Admiral Sir John Teacher was made chairman of Playboy's operation in the United Kingdom. He lasted three months. How much does the House think he was paid for three months work, although I do not know whether one could call it "work"? He was paid £437,000.
    John Brown, the troubled engineering firm, virtually went bust. It got rid of its chairman, who went out with £400,000. The former chairman of the Associated Communications Corporation received £560,000 to say goodbye. The directors of Marks and Spencer plc were each given cheap housing. These directors receive many other perks—school fees, club subscriptions and top hat pension schemes are paid. Mr. Bill Fieldhouse, the former chairman of Charrington Viyella and the printing firm Letraset, became a golden handshake millionaire.
    Surely it is an affront and offensive that, while British industry is collapsing and the poor are being pushed down into low pay, those people get those enormous bounties. How are those salaries, perks and golden handshakes determined? As far as I know, those people just helped themselves. They vote each other huge increases on the basis of, "If you scratch my back, I will scratch yours."
    I said that Sir Campbell Fraser was given a Rolls-Royce. Many of us know the leafy suburbs of London where the driveways are littered with Rolls-Royces and Jaguars. Who pays for them? How many are paid for out of taxed income? Very few indeed. They are paid for by our constituents when they buy products in the shops. When they buy a can of beans, ½p or 1p on each can goes to keep those people in the style to which they have become accustomed.
    I could go on, but I intend to finish my speech at 9 pm, if not before, because I wish to hear what my colleagues have to say. In my borough of Newham, people are brought up in crummy housing, go to schools where they under-achieve, and when they leave school fewer than one in two gets a job; the rest go straight to the dole. Those who get work get dead-end jobs. It is an area of high housing stress. When people come to my advice bureau I have to say that a house for them cannot be guaranteed because we live in an area of high housing stress. However, in the property pages of The Sunday Times there is no shortage of houses. One can have a house or a nice flat tomorrow if one has £200,000, £300,000 or even £500,000. There are plenty of them.
    Therefore, the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. It should be diminished. We badly need a civilised Government who will diminish the gap so that we can get to one nation.
    9 pm
    Mr. Lewis Stevens: I listened to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) with interest. He quoted the extremes of those who have very high incomes. However, I feel that Opposition Members have not faced the need to have differentials. One cannot have a society today in which people do not have significant differentials.
    Many of our managers have been reputed over the years to be underpaid. One of the reasons for the decline in our manufacturing industry is said to be that engineering and allied sectors were never attractive enough, particularly compared with our European partners and America. People in management have been pushing and will push to increase differentials and wages. Time and again trade unions have wanted to keep differentials and push prices and wages up. They always want to be above their fellows and try to jump up the league. The automatic effect is that other people are pushed down.
    It has been said that unemployment is one of the main instigators of the problems for the less well-off. We cannot walk away from that. However, it is a social problem as well. The Government, as Opposition Members will know from when they were in control, cannot merely wave a wand and say, "Do this", and unemployment stops. It is in the hands of those who control, invest, and work in industry and commerce. It is not simple to sort out the problem. Our economic policies have the best prospects for solving it.
    One should consider how much people are prepared to think about those in less fortunate positions. A little thing called overtime is now increasing. How willingly would many people doing overtime and those in trade unions say, "Cut overtime and increase jobs. That will reduce some of the discrepancy in wealth."? That would not happen easily. When that idea is suggested in years ahead, those who do overtime will not easily accept it. Overtime is a small matter, but we must consider it.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-East said that the country is divided between north and south. I come from the midlands. We have an unemployment problem. Over the years there have been problems with pensioners and those on social security benefits. Not only the Government must consider social change. Trade unions, employers and educationlists have a large part to play. It is not just a matter of investing Government money and hoping that something useful will be done with it. We can look forward to some changes because of the Government's policies or how we distribute the finances that we have between social services and the various groups involved.
    I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State that certain aspects will be subject to inquiry and review. It is important to consider in detail how the money can best be used to achieve the economies that are possible. Expenditure has increased at a tremendous rate not just because of unemployment but because in some instances the Government have maintained spending ahead of that which was absolutely necessary to meet inflation. By reducing inflation and keeping it under control, however, the Government have provided for one group of people a protection that they did not have in the 1970s. I refer to pensioners on fixed incomes from company pensions and the like, who suffered disastrously between 1974 and 1979. Those people now have some respite.
    1234
    I hope that Ministers will consider two aspects when studying the possibility of some redistribution of benefits. First, the long-term unemployed over the age of 50 are a very deserving case if the necessary money is available. Secondly, there is a case for looking each year at the £3,000 capital that people are allowed to have when applying for supplementary benefit. I believe that there has been an increase this year. Now that economic growth is developing, we must honour the promises that we made to pensioners, not just in relation to index-linking but in other respects so that they receive their share.
    The Opposition have simply made the old claims about redistribution of wealth as though taking from one group and giving to another might actually work. Throughout all their periods of office—I hope that it will be a long time before such a misfortune occurs again—attempts of that kind were made. Those attempts were uncontrolled and did not work, with the result that the rich often became richer while the poor became poorer. Because they could not resist the pressure from trade unions and other interest groups, the Labour Government failed to help the situation then or the unemployment that followed.
    The alliance spokesman said that poverty was relative, but the danger of that approach is that, having set a comparative figure, we constantly chase that level with a resulting leapfrog effect so that in seeking standardisation we may merely cause acceleration of benefit increases but a worsening of the general situation.
    Despite Opposition criticism, I believe that the Conservatives have created a better prospect of fair play between rich and poor in this country than there has been for many years.
    9.7 pm
    Mr. Tony Blair: As many hon. Members have said, there is no easy solution to the problems of poverty. All too often, however, Conservatives use that as an excuse for doing nothing.
    First, we must recognise the scale of the problem, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) did in his book "Britain Can Work", which referred to the massive reconstruction process needed to deal with poverty in this country.
    Secondly, Governments have a duty to deal with poverty as a high priority, but nothing in the case argued for the Government by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury suggested any appreciation of those matters. He did not make a serious speech but merely meandered through an old Civil Service brief, so bored with the subject that he bothered to depart from the brief only once. In that one departure we saw a glimpse of what the Government really believe when we were told that social security payments were state handouts. The Minister made another interesting admission to which I shall return in a moment.
    It is important to remember that what we are debating is not just a social problem but a Government policy. No one denies that deprivation exists on a massive scale, and the statistics have been quoted fully this afternoon. Nor can anyone deny that there is a widening gap between rich and poor. The most obvious statistical expression is that whereas about £2·9 billion has been given in tax handouts since 1979, about £2·7 billion has been cut from social security payments.
    We should remember that the Government are headed by a Prime Minister who celebrated the right to be unequal. That was the ideological basis upon which the

    1235
    Government came to power, and the interesting admission made by the Chief Secretary when he opened the Government's case was this: he talked about the Labour party appealing to the poor and the worse off and said that we were appealing to a minority, which was perhaps why we were a minority party. In that lies a 'crucial problem. The Government are perfectly willing to appeal only to comfortable Britain, as David Shepherd recently called it, and the rest must go hang.
    If we cannot convince the Government of the moral correctness of our case, let me at least try in the few minutes that I have to convince them of the dangerous route upon which they have embarked. Ultimately, a Government who are so careless of the inequality in our society are a threat to democracy. The Government have an entirely formal notion of democracy. They believe that if they are elected to power in Parliament they have a mandate to do whatever they wish, and that the rule of law encapsulates the entirety of democracy. Poverty may be a shame, or they may even be indifferent to it, but it is not fundamentally undemocratic.
    The inequalities in our society, which the Government are perpetuating, are fundamentally undemocratic, and I disagree with their notion of democracy. There is a content as well as a form to democracy, and the content is that democracy is based on consent. The consent is people perceiving that they have a shared sense of community and that they can all participate in the wealth and benefits of society. It is not just a question of a safety net or a ladder of opportunity, as Conservative Members have said. It is not only one or two people who are suffering in this way; there are millions of them, and they constitute a sub-group of society. That is the danger.
    If we have a recurrence of breakdowns in law and order, as we may have if poverty continues and deepens, it is useless to pray in aid the rule of law. When Disraeli wrote about two nations in "Sybil" in 1845, he was not just talking about the repugnance of poverty as a threat to the democracy that existed. "Sybil" was written against a background of Chartism and the industrial and social unrest of those times.
    Many of the young unemployed in my constituency, who see no future for them, do not simply say that they will not vote for the Labour party; they do not intend to vote at all. They regard Parliament as a process irrelevant to their lives. That is the danger that we face, and we cannot be complacent about the matter. If those youngsters perceive that they cannot share the wealth and prosperity of society, they will reject its institutions. I do not want that to happen, but I believe that it might. They do not consider themselves as citizens of the state. They regard the state as the property of others, and they are simply a casualty of those people's neglect.
    The Conservative party has written into its philosophy a notion of fear. I do not believe that fear will ever bring benefits, nor is fear necessary for incentives to work. But suppose fear does aid incentive. If there is fear without even hope, it will eventually turn from quiescence to anger, and people will turn from Parliament to the streets. That was seen many years ago. Thomas Carlyle put the dilemma facing a Parliament which does not meet the challenge of its times rather well when he talked about the then Parliament failing to learn how to deal with poverty. He said:
    1236
    "If Parliament cannot learn it, what is to become of Parliament? Parliament with its privileges is strong, but necessity and the law of nature are stronger than it. But done, one way or another the thing must be".
    One way or another poverty must be solved. Let us solve it by democracy, as a triumph of democracy, rather than through democracy's destruction.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. John Powley: When I read the first line of the motion, the thought that immediately sprang to my mind was, "Here we go again. The Opposition are jealous of anybody who gets on in life." The speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) strengthened my conviction that jealousy lies behind the motion.
    The Opposition are jealous of anybody who gets on and creates wealth for the less fortunate members of society. They are jealous of home owners. Their policy is clear: they want to build more council houses, and they do not want to sell council houses because they want to keep control of people's housing conditions. They do not want people to free themselves from state housing. Opposition Members are jealous of anybody who benefits from private education, because they do not like people who free themselves from the state education system. They are jealous of those who work hard to provide themselves with private health care, because they do not like people who free themselves from the state health service. They like to control everybody's health care and hospital waiting lists. They do not like people who free themselves from state employment. They are in favour of more nationalisation. But the wealth in industry is created by private industry, not by state industry. State industry is propped up by the taxpayer. The Opposition do not like people who own shares in private industry because they like the state to own industry and individuals to be subservient to the state.
    We must decide how to improve the quality of life for everybody. There is no doubt that the more private owner-occupation there is, the better the housing accommodation is for everybody. That has been shown in practice. When we sell council houses to tenants who wish to buy them, we are helping to improve housing conditions for the less fortunate and for those who are and will always remain in local authority accommodation. The resources released from the sale of council houses are used to improve the conditions of those who live in poor accommodation.
    Norwich council owns 25,000 houses. Some of them are in a poor state of repair and 600 are empty, yet it resists selling them. Other more enlightened local authorities which sell their houses have increased their resources and improved the quality of housing in their areas. They have therefore helped the less fortunate in housing provision. If the Labour party opposes that policy, it should be aware that it is repressing the housing standards of the less fortunate. If it changed its policy, it would help those for whom it purports to care.
    Richness and poverty should not be measured solely in monetary terms. Someone who earns £20,000 a year can be poor in many respects, and a pensioner or someone on a fixed income can be extremely rich in terms of quality of life. I hope that the House will reject the motion and accept the Government's amendment.
    9.20 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Conservative Administration are a great proponent of

    1237
    the them and us theory of government. For the Prime Minister and her cohorts, "us" means anyone who earns more than £18,000 a year and for whom tax rates have consistently been lowered. "Them" is all of those dreadful indigent people who have committed the crime of being poor. They are the people whom the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us are in receipt of state handouts. Perhaps I could remind him who those people are. There are 40 million people in Britain who receive state handouts and there are many people who live in households that receive one or more state benefit. They are not my figures but those of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
    As far as I can see, the Financial Secretary thinks that anyone who is disabled, sick, unemployed or a pensioner is in receipt of largesse from him and his friends in the City. I find that deeply offensive. In order not to be in receipt of state handouts, as defined by the Financial Secretary, a person would have to be single and working. Perhaps I might remind him of the reality for many of the people whom we are supposed to look after. There are 1·8 million children who live in families, the head of the household of which is on supplementary benefit. When the Financial Secretary talks about what is really happening between the rich and the poor, why does he not ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to use some of the many inquiries that he is setting up to get some truly independent evidence of what happens to the people who must live on the utterly inadequate level of state benefit? What about people who do not claim benefits to which they are entitled? In 1981, £716 million of supplementary benefit was unclaimed. There was only a 70 per cent. take-up rate, and there was only a 50 per cent. take-up of family income supplement, which is a basic life-boat.
    What efforts will the Government make to spend some of their money on encouraging proper take-up? If there were more use of those benefits, many children who live in intolerable poverty would at last be able to enjoy a decent standard of living. Throughout today's debate there has been an extraordinary air—I put it at its best—of unreality on the Conservative Benches. Not all Conservative Members are totally hypocritical. Some of them are aware that there is at present very real deprivation. However, what they have presented to us today gave the impression that there has been a consistent attempt to improve the standard of living of all the people of Great Britain.
    Let us understand what the reality has been. It is not just in the simple administration of benefits that the Government have sought to deprive many people of their true standard of living. What has happened throughout the period of Tory Government has been a consistent attack, across the board, on some of the poorest families. There has been the fiasco of housing benefit. The local authorities tried to explain to the Government that if they were forced to set up what was in reality an enormous bureacratic bungle it would cost them a great deal of money. It has cost them £8·5 million. They also explained that they did not have sufficient time to set up the new machinery. They asked for enough leeway to enable them to produce an efficient system. However, they were told to put the system into operation irrespective of their wishes. They were told that it would simplify the administration of the social services.
    What happened was that many people who had never been in debt in their lives found themselves not only many months in arrears but threatened with eviction through no
    1238
    fault of their own. Social service departments—many of them already grossly understaffed—have found themselves totally unable to deal with the details of all the individual cases, and increasing numbers of tenants have faced real problems.
    The Government also used the housing benefit system to introduce more cuts by the back door. As many as 2,260,000 people lost benefit because of the scheme, and the delays in payment meant that, under the new and more complicated system, there were even greater losses. Under the existing system of housing benefits, 3,260,000 people will lose out, and those who will suffer most will be those whom the Government claim to support. For instance, 1,330,000 pensioners will have to make do on less money than they had under the old system. Over 1 million home owners—the people whom the Government are always claiming to support—will find it harder to keep up with the mortgage payments. Most hypocritical of all, a Conservative Government who claimed that the new system would not deepen the poverty trap or reduce the incentive to earn a better wage have done precisely that. Over half the cuts will be forced on the 1,160,000 people who are earning less than £20 week above the poverty line. In the case of housing benefit alone, for every extra pound that they earn they will lose 40p. With higher income tax, a typical family in the poverty trap will lose '79p of every extra pound earned. That is the incentive that the present Government offer to people to stand on their own two feet.
    The Government understand what they are doing. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security has said in a written answer:
    "The poverty trap is the consequence of the inevitable interaction between means-tested benefits and income relevant to them, tax and national insurance contributions. Estimates vary considerably about its practical effect on families; but the impact of any change in the component elements upon the extent and depth of the trap is carefully considered before decisions are reached. The complete elimination of the poverty trap would require either that means-tested benefit should no longer be available to families and individuals, or else an unacceptably high level of expenditure would have to be incurred".—[Official Report, 15 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 61.]
    In other words, the Government know what they are doing whenever they change the existing rates and they must also be aware of the very real difficulties that will inevitably result.
    I have been frightened a little—I use the word advisedly—by some of the speeches of Conservative Members tonight. The awful thing is that I believe some of them were sincere. Had they made speeches rather like that of the Chief Secretary which were manifestly something they thought they could get through quickly without too much damage, I should not have been so upset. But many Conservatives do not seem to understand the reality of long-term unemployment. They have no concept of what it is like to be frightened of not being able to pay the electricity bill. They do not seem to understand that a Government that forces up electricity prices—not because the electricity industry requires extra investment because it is now making indecently large profits and is positively embarrassed by the extent of the changes—is affecting the number of people who live through the winter.
    Many old people now know that they will not be able to heat their homes properly in the coming year. The Government know that for the past three years the electricity board has put up fuel prices to such an extent that profits are way beyond what is necessary. The

    1239
    Government know that that is a direct tax. It is an indirect tax in theory but a direct tax on the quality of life of those most at risk. It is a tax on those who are chronically sick and old. The Government make no bones about the fact that that is the way they want the taxation system to go.
    We have heard a great deal about small businesses tonight. When many of the small businesses in my constituency which are going out of business because of the imposition of VAT on take-away food complained through me to the Chief Secretary, they were told that that scheme was fully at one with the Government's attitude that there should be a move away from direct taxation to indirect taxation. The effect of that is plain to see.
    Since the Government took office, they have sought to undermine the existing standard of living of the poorest people. We have already been told of the move that has taken place in terms of taxation. We know that the poverty trap is carrying more and more people down into its depths. We also know that the implementation of the new changes will increase that figure. This year the unemployed will see a cut of £17 million in November. After that, for every year, they will lose £8·5 million. That has been brought about because the new payment will only be introduced two years in arrears. A person on a weekly wage—a system that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot envisage—who loses his job will in future have nothing to live on in the second week of unemployment.
    The family income supplement increases that have been announced will not be applicable to anyone who is already in receipt of benefit. They will only count for new people who are coming within the aegis of that grouping. Increasingly, although there has been a rise, no one who is receiving family income supplement on the first day of the new rates will get one penny. Most of all, the attack has been on the long-term poor. Roughly 2 million people have been on benefits for over one year. Those people will lose 50p or £1 a week.
    To somebody who is already faced with real poverty, that can be described in simple terms. Last week in The Guardian there was an example of the reality of long-term unemployment, and this is not even a typical case. Conservative Members might like to know that this is a woman who has been out of work for nine years, a qualified teacher and someone who has a great deal to offer society as a whole. She describes it in these terms:
    "Nine years of watching possessions wear out and not to be replaced … No matter how hard we try, we end up every winter in debt for fuel, which we painfully catch up during the summer months … Yet the expenses have been the same. As a result I have had weeks when I could not afford more than one meal daily."
    That is the reality of Mrs. Thatcher's Britain for someone with good qualifications and a good contribution to make to society as a whole.
    The hon. Gentleman who will wind up has made it clear that he regards the provision of state services, whether in education or in the Health Service—and certainly in social services—as a total waste of the money of those in private enterprise who will earn the wealth of the country.
    The system of taxation that the Government have brought in has set out to penalise those most in need. Not only has it divided north from south, but it has divided those who are in work and a group of young people who, in addition to seeing no future for themselves, are
    1240
    increasingly alienated from their families and from society. The price that we will pay for the Government's selfishness, their stupidity and their lack of imagination will be a society divided against itself. There is no way in which we can accept that great price. I ask all decent Conservative Members to show their independence tonight and to join us, because they know that ours is an accurate and true picture of 1984.
    9.36 pm
    The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): First, I remind the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that when she talks about a teacher who has been out of work for nine years, according to my history, for four of those years a Labour Government were in power. I do not want to get involved in the details, but it is interesting that the poor who are suffering now must have suffered then, according to what she said.
    Before I start to wind up the debate for the Government I wish to reply to what was said by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I was accused at the last DHSS Question Time of having kept secret a report when in fact I had put it in the Library many days before and, indeed, had it in my hand. The Economist, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, said that the Government were suppressing an economic report. I have had a check made, and I assure the House that there is no truth in the suggestion that the Government have attempted to suppress part of an OECD report on unemployment. It is up to the OECD to decide when it publishes. We have given our comments. I am glad to put the mind of the House at rest on that matter.
    I deal now with the question of poverty. There is no doubt that there is a clear difference, which has been brought out in many speeches from both sides of the House, between absolute and relative poverty. I do not usually agree with Professor Townsend, but on relative poverty I go along with him when he says that it is the state where people cannot purchase the goods or engage in the activities which the majority take for granted. In other words, as long as society has people earning different amounts, there will always be some people at that level.
    I am not saying, like the Bible, that the poor are always with us, but there will always be some relative poverty unless one has an egalitarian society, which Conservative Members do not want and which most of the voters who elect Opposition Members do not want. Unless one has an egalitarian society, there will always be some form of relative poverty; what Christopher Jenks, the American sociologist, called the inability to fit into a social group. To fit into a social group, one must have the means to take part in what it is doing.
    Absolute poverty, as we understand it, which exists in certain parts of the world, as my hon. Friends have reminded the House—[Interruption.] This idea is from my own mind, and if Opposition Members listen it might pass into theirs.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: That is what worries us.
    Dr. Boyson: If I were a Labour Member, I should be very worried. I am glad that I speak from this side of the House. Perhaps I may continue with our education session. Absolute poverty consists of a lack of food, shelter, and

    1241
    clothing, and sometimes a lack of light, and it exists in some parts of the world. I am sure that many Opposition Members are widely read and that they will have read Le Grand and Robinson's work entitled "The Economics of Social Problems". Those on the poverty line in the United States of America earn more than 50 times the average income of someone in India. That is what relative poverty is all about.—[Interruption.] I shall give Opposition Members a reading list afterwards if they want, as that might assist with their general education.
    A most interesting book was published recently by Jowell and Airey entitled "British Social Attitudes". It shows that 67 per cent. of British people consider there to be no absolute poverty in Britain. Interestingly enough, fewer Labour voters than alliance voters believe that there is poverty. Apparently, the more people earn, the more they believe that poverty exists, presumably so that they can be pleased about the fact that it is not themselves who are poor.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leyton) referred to "Breadline Britain". I know that there is relative poverty in parts of Newham, and I am not complacent about that, but the interesting point which that programme suggested is that if someone does not have three things out of 24 he is poor. Those three things could be refrigerators, washing machines and carpets in all living rooms and bedrooms, whereas 50 years ago, or even 25 years ago, people merely aspired to have such things. That just shows how far we have moved under such terrible Conservative Governments, even with intermittent Labour Governments.
    Conservative Members are not complacent. We all know the crushing sense of humiliation felt by a man who believes that he cannot give his family all that he would wish. We also know the concern of the pensioner who is saving to pay her winter heating bills. We know that there are some areas of high unemployment, where the prospects of school leavers are nothing like those in the south, where there is relative prosperity. We accept that high unemployment exists. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd)—I spoke at that by-election, but it did not seem to do much good—and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) mentioned that critical point.
    There is one thing missing from the Opposition's argument. They fail to recognise that there is a link between economic policy and social policy. One can divide the cake only when it has started to get bigger. What did the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979 do? They followed their usual policy of believing that anything could be solved by flinging money at it. That is what they did, and then, like good Socialists, they went with their begging bowl to the IMF. What happened then? I ask that gently, because I do not want to hurt Labour Members in any way. I know that they are busy at the moment, and one should not hurt them when they are busy. The Labour party slashed capital spending on health by 35 per cent. and suspended the Christmas bonus for pensioners. Indeed, I was grateful to be reminded earlier that it fiddled pensioners out of the equivalent of £1 billion in today's money by changing the method of uprating in 1976.
    We cannot separate economic policy and social policy. Economic policy must have priority and must be right if genuine needs are to met, as we would all like. If we want
    1242
    to improve the conditions of the less well off, growing national prosperity is the answer. That is the lesson of history. Social policy begins with wealth creation, not wealth taxation.
    Mr. Sheerman: When are the Government going to create wealth?
    Dr. Boyson: This Government's policy of cutting taxes at all levels and on businesses provides the incentive to get the economy going.[Interruption.] The figures show that there was an increase of 3 per cent. in our GDP between 1982 and 1983. Opposition Members can read the figures in Hansard tomorrow. That will be a treat for them at breakfast. In this year's Budget we took 800,000 poorer earners out of tax. Surely we should be praised for that.
    We in the Conservative party believe in an open, nonrestricted economy, in the equality of opportunity and in a rising standard of living for all our people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am reading. I wrote my speech, so it is very good. The Labour party has again been tempted by R. H. Tawney's so-called "equality of outcome". The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is knowledgeable on the subject. I have a copy of what he said last August about equality of outcome. A policy of equality of outcome can be carried through only by total state coercion. It means turning one's back on increased wealth and prosperity. There is no means of combining the increase in wealth with a move to an egalitarian society. That would be a search in vain, as for the Holy Grail or the alchemist's stone of old, and it is just as likely not to be there. As Churchill said, we do not want equal sharing of misery, but we do want equal sharing of blessings for the good of all. We in the Conservative party want to offer as much prosperity as possible, leaving the door open for the gifted, the entrepreneur, the motivated and the hard-working. We believe that a rising tide lifts all boats at every level of society.
    The selling of council houses has increased wealth. The Labour party would abolish that right, but people want to own their own homes. The Conservative Government have given people the right to buy. More than 1 million people now live in their own homes, thanks to the Conservative Government's policy of allowing the sale of council houses. That is an example of the genuine distribution of wealth. What a contrast it is with the bitter years under Labour, when fewer than 10,000 people a year were able to buy because of the Socialist opposition to their becoming owner-occupiers and achieving self-pride and everything that goes with that.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary talked about share ownership. People want a real stake in society. The Conservative Government are giving them that stake. Tens of thousands of employees own shares in the companies for which they work. The National Freight Corporation is a lesson for everyone. People who own shares feel that they are involved in wealth creation.
    People want a real say in their future. Only a Conservative Government have given them that, for example, in our pensions policy. If Opposition Members do not like our pension plans when they are made known, they will be unpopular. The Conservative Government, by our pensions policy and other means, are giving people a real say in their future. Our plans to revise and encourage occupational pensions provision for millions of families

    1243
    represent the latest stage in the revolution to create genuine wider ownership, and will be welcomed by the majority of our people.
    We have heard a lot from the Opposition about the take-home pay of the rich and the very rich. We have listened to their figures. We did not hear from Opposition Members that real take-home pay for those whose earnings have risen in line with the national average has increased at all income levels under this Government—by 8 per cent. for a married man, with a wife and two children, on half the national average wage; by 9 per cent. for the same man on the average wage; by 9·1 per cent. for the same man on one-and-a-half times the average wage; and by 10·2 per cent. for the same man earning twice the average wage. Tax reductions have not taken place only at the top. Tax allowances have increased by 6 or 7 per cent. more than inflation this year.
    Some of my hon. Friends referred to inflation, which hits the poor far more than the rich. The poor do not have antiques, penny blacks and landed acres; they save in the piggy banks—the trustee banks and the building societies. There is no doubt that inflation of 110 per cent. between 1974 and 1979 hit the savings of the poor. The Government have brought down inflation, and all tribute for that to my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in the Chamber tonight. During the past three years inflation has been in single figures.
    The poor put their money into the building societies. For the first time last year since the 1960s the rate of interest paid by building societies was more than the rate of inflation. Therefore, for the first time since the 1960s there was a real return on their money. That must have raised a cheer in many houses throughout the country—not in the big houses, but in the houses of those who wanted to save to buy presents or for their old age.
    Listening to the debate, one would think that the Government had closed all the local DHSS offices. We have looked after the poorer members of our society. Expenditure on social security and health has risen from £23·8 billion in 1978–79 under the Labour Government, when it was 36 per cent. of public expenditure, to £50 billion last year, when it was 42 per cent. of public expenditure.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Give us the figures.
    Dr. Boyson: I am giving the figures. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is here—he must come more regularly to our debates when I am speaking. The real increase in expenditure on social benefits under this Government is 27 per cent. Increased expenditure on the unemployed is about £1·5 billion, with another £3 billion on social security supplementary benefit. An increase of 27 per cent. means that we have put the equivalent—[Interruption.] Let me add it up so that I get the figure right. We have put about £10 billion more into our expenditure in that area. We are now paying for 650,000 more pensioners.
    The vast majority of benefits have risen. I recently gave the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) a list of the minor benefits that had been reduced. Let me give the House some figures so that Opposition Members can go home and feel secure tonight. They can sleep contentedly. Supplementary benefits are now 5 per cent. more in real
    1244
    terms than when we took office. We have put men from the age of 60 on long-term supplementary benefit. We have also put the poor on long-term benefit after one year. Pensions have risen by 83·6 per cent., while prices have risen by 76·4 per cent. Child benefit has risen to the highest level ever.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance and an unconditional commitment that the Government have no plan to tax or means-test child benefit? Will he repeat the assurance given by the Prime Minister during the election campaign last June and tell the Tory Back Benchers that there are no plans to do that?
    Dr. Boyson: There are no plans in the Department to tax child benefit.—[Interruption.] Opposition Members had better ask Treasury Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made a statement before the last election about the taxing of child benefit. There has been no change of policy since then. [Interruption.] I should not care to commit the Labour party to anything; one can never tell what that lot would do if they regained power.
    In 1978–79, £47 million was spent on the mobility allowance. It is £303 million now. Supplementary benefit single payments have gone up from £25 million to £145 million this year. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke about heating allowances. We are spending, in real terms, £140 million more than when the Conservatives came to power in 1979—[Interruption.] For the figures in detail, I could refer Opposition Members to my last speech in the House when I dealt with poverty and energy. We are now giving heating allowances to 1·6 million pensioners compared with 1·2 million in 1978.
    I shall not give many more figures, because little time remains to me. In 1983–84 we spent £4 billion on the long-term sick and disabled—30 per cent. more in real terms than was spent in 1978–79. Thus, I refuse on behalf of the Government to do any apologising for what we are doing in terms of social benefits. Our record is there for all to see.
    The history of the last 50 years in our society has been that of extending the luxuries of a privileged minority to become, first, the everyday conveniences and then even the necessities of a growing majority. Lord Harris of High Cross said in another place in 1981—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are frightened of what is coming, and I can understand their fear, but they are going to listen to it. He said that the lives of most people had been transformed in two generations from
    "the world of fly-papers, of gas coppers, of black-leaded grates, of mangles, meat safes, boiled milk in the summer and acres of lino".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 April 1981; Vol. 419, c. 1194–95.]
    Some of us grew up under those conditions and remember what they meant. That situation has been transformed totally, but how? Under the Conservatives, between 1978 and 1983, the number of home owners went up from 54 to 60 per cent. They are not the rich. The rich already had their homes.
    In the three years between 1979 and 1982, the number of households with some form of central heating increased by 5 per cent. to 60 per cent. They were not the rich. The rich already had central heating—[Interruption.]—which shows how we are spreading the benefits of our policies all along the way. Similarly, between 1979 and

    1245
    1982, the number of those with a deep freezer increased by 11 per cent., from 40 to 51 per cent., about a quarter more. They were not the rich; the rich already had deep freezers.
    I could continue the list, including washing machines and telephones. Between 1979 and 1982, the number of people with washing machines increased by 5 per cent. from 74 to 79 per cent. The number of people with telephones increased by 9 per cent. from 67 to 76 per cent. The number with colour television sets increased in those three years—under the Conservatives, who are supposed to be grinding the faces of the poor into the dust—by 11 per cent., from 66 to 77 per cent. The rich had their colour televisions before. All this progress has happened under the Conservatives, but one would not believe it when listening to Opposition Members.
    We in the Conservative party have aims and ambitions for our people at least as high as those of any sections of the Opposition Benches, but ours are fixed in terms of a true understanding of human nature. We do not make plans that we cannot carry out. We take human nature for what it is and we provide incentives and enable people to know what they are doing.
    Conservatives want a Britain in which, through the full development of the talents and motivation of all our people, there is an increasing standard of living, and in which over the next 10 or 20 years the luxuries of the rich become again the necessities of the less well off. Let the rising tide lift all our people. Let us have rising and fulfilled expectations and not the dull equality that is wanted by the Opposition. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the motion.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 257.

    Division No. 386]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Alton, David

    Corbett, Robin

    Anderson, Donald

    Craigen, J. M.

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Crowther, Stan

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Ashton, Joe

    Dalyell, Tam

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

    Barnett, Guy

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

    Barron, Kevin

    Deakins, Eric

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Dewar, Donald

    Beith, A. J.

    Dixon, Donald

    Bell, Stuart

    Dobson, Frank

    Benn, Tony

    Dormand, Jack

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

    Douglas, Dick

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dubs, Alfred

    Blair, Anthony

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Boyes, Roland

    Eastham, Ken

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    Fatchett, Derek

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

    Faulds, Andrew

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

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

    Caborn, Richard

    Fisher, Mark

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    Flannery, Martin

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Forrester, John

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Foster, Derek

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Fraser, J. (Norwood)

    Clarke, Thomas

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Clay, Robert

    Freud, Clement

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Garrett, W. E.

    Cohen, Harry

    George, Bruce

    1246

    Godman, Dr Norman

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Golding, John

    O'Brien, William

    Gould, Bryan

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Park, George

    Hancock, Mr. Michael

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Pendry, Tom

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Penhaligon, David

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Pike, Peter

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Haynes, Frank

    Prescott, John

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

    Robertson, George

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Rooker, J. W.

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Rowlands, Ted

    John, Brynmor

    Ryman, John

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Sheerman, Barry

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Lamond, James

    Skinner, Dennis

    Leadbitter, Ted

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

    Leighton, Ronald

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

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Snape, Peter

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Soley, Clive

    Litherland, Robert

    Spearing, Nigel

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Straw, Jack

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    McKelvey, William

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Tinn, James

    McNamara, Kevin

    Torney, Tom

    McTaggart, Robert

    Wainwright, R.

    Madden, Max

    Wallace, James

    Marek, Dr John

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Wareing, Robert

    Martin, Michael

    Weetch, Ken

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Welsh, Michael

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Williams, Rt Hon A.

    Meacher, Michael

    Winnick, David

    Meadowcroft, Michael

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Michie, William

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Mr. John Home Robertson and Mr. John McWilliam.

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Nellist, David

    NOES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Alexander, Richard

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Bright, Graham

    Amess, David

    Brinton, Tim

    Arnold, Tom

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Ashby, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Browne, John

    Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Baldry, Anthony

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Bellingham, Henry

    Budgen, Nick

    Bendall, Vivian

    Burt, Alistair

    Benyon, William

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Carttiss, Michael

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Cash, William

    Body, Richard

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Chapman, Sydney

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Churchill, W. S.

    Bottomley, Peter

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

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    1247

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Madel, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Major, John

    Conway, Derek

    Malone, Gerald

    Coombs, Simon

    Maples, John

    Cope, John

    Marland, Paul

    Couchman, James

    Marlow, Antony

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Mather, Carol

    Dicks, Terry

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Mellor, David

    Dover, Den

    Merchant, Piers

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Dunn, Robert

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Durant, Tony

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Eggar, Tim

    Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Moate, Roger

    Evennett, David

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Fallon, Michael

    Moore, John

    Farr, Sir John

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Favell, Anthony

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Murphy, Christopher

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Needham, Richard

    Forman, Nigel

    Nelson, Anthony

    Forth, Eric

    Newton, Tony

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fox, Marcus

    Normanton, Tom

    Franks, Cecil

    Norris, Steven

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Gale, Roger

    Oppenheim, Philip

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Ottaway, Richard

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Greenway, Harry

    Parris, Matthew

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

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Hannam, John

    Pawsey, James

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Hayes, J.

    Porter, Barry

    Hayhoe, Barney

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

    Heddle, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Powley, John

    Hicks, Robert

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Price, Sir David

    Hind, Kenneth

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Hordern, Peter

    Raffan, Keith

    Howard, Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Irving, Charles

    Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

    Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Renton, Tim

    Jones, Robert (W Herts)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knox, David

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Lang, Ian

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Rowe, Andrew

    Lester, Jim

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

    Ryder, Richard

    Lightbown, David

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Lilley, Peter

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Lord, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Luce, Richard

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Shersby, Michael

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Silvester, Fred

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Sims, Roger

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

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Speed, Keith

    1248

    Spencer, Derek

    Waddington, David

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Walden, George

    Squire, Robin

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Stern, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Ward, John

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Stokes, John

    Watson, John

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Watts, John

    Sumberg, David

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Wheeler, John

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Whitfield, John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Terlezki, Stefan

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Wood, Timothy

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Woodcock, Michael

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Yeo, Tim

    Thurnham, Peter

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Tracey, Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Douglas Hogg.

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 169.

    Division No. 387]

    [10.12 pm

    AYES

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Chapman, Sydney

    Alexander, Richard

    Churchill, W. S.

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

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

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Amess, David

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Arnold, Tom

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Ashby, David

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Colvin, Michael

    Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Conway, Derek

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Coombs, Simon

    Baldry, Anthony

    Cope, John

    Bellingham, Henry

    Couchman, James

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Benyon, William

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Berry, Sir Anthony

    Dicks, Terry

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Body, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Dunn, Robert

    Bottomley, Peter

    Durant, Tony

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Dykes, Hugh

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

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Eggar, Tim

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Evennett, David

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Eyre, Sir Reginald

    Bright, Graham

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Brinton, Tim

    Fallon, Michael

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Farr, Sir John

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Favell, Anthony

    Browne, John

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Forman, Nigel

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Forth, Eric

    Budgen, Nick

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Fox, Marcus

    Burt, Alistair

    Franks, Cecil

    Carlisle, John (N Luton)

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Gale, Roger

    Carttiss, Michael

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Cash, William

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    1249

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Greenway, Harry

    Parris, Matthew

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

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Hannam, John

    Pawsey, James

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Hayes, J.

    Porter, Barry

    Hayhoe, Barney

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

    Heddle, John

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Powley, John

    Hicks, Robert

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Price, Sir David

    Hind, Kenneth

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Raffan, Keith

    Hordern, Peter

    Rathbone, Tim

    Howard, Michael

    Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

    Irving, Charles

    Renton, Tim

    Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Jones, Robert (W Herts)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Knox, David

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Lamont, Norman

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Lang, Ian

    Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Rowe, Andrew

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Lester, Jim

    Ryder, Richard

    Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Lightbown, David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lilley, Peter

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Lord, Michael

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Luce, Richard

    Shersby, Michael

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Silvester, Fred

    McCrindle, Robert

    Sims, Roger

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Speed, Keith

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

    Spencer, Derek

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

    Madel, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Major, John

    Squire, Robin

    Maples, John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Marland, Paul

    Stern, Michael

    Marlow, Antony

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Mather, Carol

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Stokes, John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Mellor, David

    Sumberg, David

    Merchant, Piers

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

    Terlezki, Stefan

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Moate, Roger

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thurnham, Peter

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Tracey, Richard

    Moore, John

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Murphy, Christopher

    Waddington, David

    Needham, Richard

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Walden, George

    Newton, Tony

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Normanton, Tom

    Waller, Gary

    Norris, Steven

    Ward, John

    Onslow, Cranley

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Oppenheim, Philip

    Warren, Kenneth

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Watson, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Watts, John

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    1250

    Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

    Woodcock, Michael

    Wheeler, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Whitfield, John

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. Michael Neubert.

    Wood, Timothy

    NOES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Alton, David

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Anderson, Donald

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Ashton, Joe

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Home Robertson, John

    Barnett, Guy

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Barron, Kevin

    Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

    Beckett, Mrs Margaret

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Beith, A. J.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Bell, Stuart

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Benn, Tony

    Janner, Hon Greville

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

    John, Brynmor

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Blair, Anthony

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Kilroy-Silk, Robert

    Boyes, Roland

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Lamond, James

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    Leadbitter, Ted

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

    Leighton, Ronald

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

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Caborn, Richard

    Litherland, Robert

    Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    McCartney, Hugh

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    McDonald, Dr Oonagh

    Clarke, Thomas

    McKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Clay, Robert

    McKelvey, William

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Cohen, Harry

    McNamara, Kevin

    Conlan, Bernard

    McTaggart, Robert

    Corbett, Robin

    McWilliam, John

    Craigen, J. M.

    Madden, Max

    Crowther, Stan

    Marek, Dr John

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Martin, Michael

    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

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

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Deakins, Eric

    Meacher, Michael

    Dewar, Donald

    Meadowcroft, Michael

    Dobson, Frank

    Michie, William

    Dormand, Jack

    Mikardo, Ian

    Douglas, Dick

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Dubs, Alfred

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

    Nellist, David

    Eastham, Ken

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    O'Brien, William

    Fatchett, Derek

    O'Neill, Martin

    Faulds, Andrew

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Park, George

    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Fisher, Mark

    Pendry, Tom

    Flannery, Martin

    Penhaligon, David

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Pike, Peter

    Forrester, John

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Foster, Derek

    Prescott, John

    Fraser, J. (Norwood)

    Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Freud, Clement

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    George, Bruce

    Robertson, George

    Godman, Dr Norman

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Golding, John

    Rooker, J. W.

    Gould, Bryan

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Hamilton, James (M'well N)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

    Ryman, John

    Hancock, Mr. Michael

    Sedgemore, Brian

    1251

    Sheerman, Barry

    Torney, Tom

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Wainwright, R.

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wallace, James

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

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

    Wareing, Robert

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

    Weetch, Ken

    Snape, Peter

    Welsh, Michael

    Soley, Clive

    Williams, Rt Hon A.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Winnick, David

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Straw, Jack

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Tinn, James

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the continuing economic recovery and falling inflation, supports the Government's economic and social policies as the best means of encouraging enterprise and promoting prosperity throughout the community, and applauds the Government's commitment to the transfer of power and wealth from the State to the individual.

  Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is now some four hours since there was a Division in another place in which a major defeat was inflicted on the Government. It was no ordinary defeat because the Government were defeated on an amendment which disembowels the entire purpose of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. Entirely new circumstances now confront us. It is surely astonishing, in the light of those major events and because they occurred four hours ago, that the Secretary of State for the Environment is not here. One would have thought that he would be in his place representing the Department of the Environment.
  In view of the importance of these events for the House, the Government's programme and the country, surely we can expect from the Leader of the House an early statement on the Government's intentions—preferably tonight.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no knowledge of any Division in another place.
  Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is one point of relevance to the House. I understand that, having suffered the defeat, Ministers have made statements to the Press and on television—but not to the House—about their intentions in regard to the Bill. Surely that is a matter for this House.
  Mr. Shore: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is remarkable that the Secretary of State for the Environment is not here. Apparently he is addressing the nation on television. Can we at least get an immediate promise from the Leader of the House that the Secretary of State will be here tomorrow to make a statement on the future of the Government's programme?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with a point of order on a Division in another place about which I have no official knowledge. The Bill in question is in the possession of another place and this House has received no message.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. No further point of order can arise.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer for a Division in another place.
  10.30 pm
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): For the purposes of "Erskine May" and for posterity, I should explain that my sartorial precedent of wearing my own dinner jacket and the tie loaned to me by the Minister of State, Welsh Office, is a sign of my anxiety to respond to the wishes of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) at, as I am sure he would agree, very short notice.

  1253
  I recognise that the vote taken earlier in the other place is most significant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The plaudits tell me where Socialism finds its succour these days. The matter will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Treasury Bench generally, and the Government's intentions wil be made known in due course.
  The House will realise that the Bill will return to this House so that it may pitch its authority alongside that of the other place. Furthermore, fair-minded Members will recognise that the Government will wish to take a due and measured course in considering their judgment.
  Mr. Shore rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. No further point of order can arise.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. No further points of order can arise. What does the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) expect me to say in answer to what the Leader of the House has said?
  Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is normal for a right hon. Member to have the opportunity of further questioning the Leader of the House, who has just made a statement of great importance.
  We wish to register the obvious and simple point that it is not good enough for the Leader of the House to tell the House that the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement in due course when the House and the country demand that he make an early statement, and that he makes it tomorrow.

  Motor Vehicle Trade
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Steve Norris: The great anxiety in the British motor industry is reflected in the number of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have expressed support for the principle, upon which I shall expand, and the large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have expressed interest in this subject through parliamentary questions, written answers and previous debates.
  The Adjournment debate is frequently a vehicle for the pursuit of a local interest, and this debate is no exception. I represent first and foremost the interests of my constituents, which are bound up to a large degree with the interests of the Austin Rover group. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) is present, who has a similar interest, as well as many of my hon. Friends who have this interest close to their hearts.
  The Cowley operations continue to dominate the industrial life of my constituency. I must declare a personal interest as a garage proprietor, but I doubt whether that is very relevant to the debate.
  The problem to which I wish to draw attention is far broader than just the interests of one constituency; it is central to the livelihoods of the many thousands of people whose jobs depend upon a healthy United Kingdom motor industry. Of course, that is principally Austin Rover, but equally important are the components manufacturers,
  1254
  whose fortunes are entirely interdependent with the indigenous motor industry. Those who supply equipment to the industry are in a similar position.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the imbalance to which my debate refers stems from the 1970 agreement entered into between the European Community and Spain, to which the United Kingdom became a party only on accession to the Community. It provided what amounted to developing nation status for Spain, especially in this regard, although the agreement is complex and covers a wide variety of subjects. By a tariff arrangement, the agreement protected what was at that time a nascent Spanish motor industry in a way that may have been thought appropriate in terms of the general relationship between the Community and Spain.
  In 1970 the Spanish motor industry hardly existed. Now, however — one must credit the Spanish Government with having taken their opportunities with both hands—Spain has developed, mostly in conjunction with the American multinationals, a motor industry that in 1983 produced 1·14 million units, of which it exported 56 per cent., or some 641,000 units. The irony, which is not lost on my hon. Friends, is that that is 9 per cent. more units than were produced in the United Kingdom. One must ask oneself whether there remain any of the justifications for developing nation status between Spain and the Community.
  Yet we now learn that, having allowed the Common Market producers in total 15,000 cars on what is called the reduced duty quota—effectively allowing them in at preferential rates—in 1983–84, the Spanish Government have recently announced that the quota for 1984–85 will be exactly the same. Under the reduced duty quota for the year commencing 1 July 1983, Austin Rover, with which I am especially concerned, received an allocation of 972 cars between 1,275 and 1,600 cc at a duty of 19 per cent., and 1,025 cars between 1,900 and 2,600 cc at a duty of 25 per cent. But when the discriminatory impact of local taxes are taken into account, those reductions still leave Austin Rover with a retail pricing penalty in relation to local manufacturers of 37 per cent., which is the equivalent of at least £1,000 for smaller-engined cars. That increases to 54 per cent., or £1,500, at the full rate of duty of 36·7 per cent.; for larger-engined cars the pricing penalty is about 43 per cent., which can mean an increase of more than £3,000.
  Ironically, and despite that, Austin Rover expected to have sold 3,000 units for the year just ended, so about 1,000 of those will have been above the reduced duty quota. The company will have to bear the penalty of the full rate of duty. Unfortunately, it cannot decide to have two prices for one car—one a full duty rate and the other a reduced duty rate—so it is obliged to reduce its overall prices to establish a single level at which the commodity is sold. That means that the profitability of the Spanish market to that manufacturer has almost disappeared.
  Austin Rover is there only—this is not only my view but is readily shared by the company—because it is looking to the Government to do something to alleviate its short-term plight and to ensure that that short-term plight does not become long-term permanence.
  The first question that I have to pose to my hon. Friend the Minister is based upon the recent announcement that the quota is not to be relaxed by one iota next year. Does he think that it is reasonable of the Spanish Government,

  1255
  faced with, we are told, the prospect of accession to the EEC in 1986 and therefore the eventual elimination of tariffs over the transitional period, to refuse to increase at all the reduced duty quota? It contradicts those in this House and on the Conservative Benches who I have heard say that the transitional period will be short and that it is therefore an adequate mechanism for the resolution of the problem. All the indications from the Cortes are that they are not the least bit interested in moving towards transitional arrangements. Indeed, if they were they would now be preparing their domestic market for the onslaught of foreign manufactures by the gradual relaxation, perhaps only to the tune of 4,000 or 5,000 units a year, of the reduced duty quota.
  Although the Spanish domestic market is somewhat depressed, over 500,000 cars are still sold in the Spanish domestic market each year. Set against that number, a quota of 15,000 for the EEC is not a figure which could not be exceeded if there were the goodwill to do so. Will my hon. Friend address himself particularly to that? I sense that several of my colleagues take the view that I now hold that there is no evidence of a desire on Spain's behalf to move towards the circumstances in which a transitional arrangement could take place.
  Let me deal in the short time available with the other side of the coin—Spanish vehicle imports into the United Kingdom. In January this year the tariff on those imported vehicles from Spain was reduced under the general agreement from 4·4 per cent. to 4·1 per cent. Therefore, Austin Rover sales in Spain of 2,068 in 1983 have to be compared with sales of Ford Fiestas and Novas in the United Kingdom of 49,000 units. Broadly, while in 1983 Spanish-sourced car sales in the United Kingdom were not as high as the peak of 70,000 in 1980, it is clear that 1984 will be a big year indeed for the Spanish. If the first three months are at all representative, we are talking of an equivalent annual sales rate this year of over 100,000 units.
  The second recent development is that SEAT, the Spanish Government-owned and highly subsidised motor manufacturer, has declared its intention to set up a network of 250 dealers in the United Kingdom with the objective of selling over a period 30,000 cars a year. That is in addition to those imported by the multinationals. That means, in effect, that in total we shall be taking in the order of 130,000 units a year, every one of which will be imported at the 4·1 per cent. rate. That is the comparison we now have—about 2,000 vehicles and an average duty rate of about 37 per cent. and about 100,000 vehicles at a duty rate of 4·1 per cent.
  My hon. Friend will not be unaware of the points that I am making. I simply reiterate them because they are so stark and so in need of reiteration. I hope that my hon. Friend can see why tonight I am certainly not going to deal with the detail of the distribution of the EEC reduced duty quota.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) has touched on the problem himself in questions. That is a valuable exercise, but, frankly, I am concerned with the real underlying fact that Austin Rover alone could, in a free market, or in the equivalent of a free market, sell not 2,000 or 3,000 cars but 10,000 cars, and, as the market develops, perhaps substantially more. When one compares those 2,000 or 3,000 units at a rate of duty
  1256
  of about 30 per cent. with over 100,000 vehicles on a rate of duty of 4 per cent. one sees the heart of the problem. Frankly, in that context an adjustment of 100 or 200 is neither here nor there.
  At the nub of this is the principle of equity. It has long been the view of Conservative Members, and I am sure that my hon. Friends tonight, to whom I am most grateful for listening to me on this subject, will agree that tariff barriers generally, and protectionist barriers in particular, have no place in a healthy free market economy. I accept that such arrangements should be entered into only when there is a real necessity to do so. I believe—I know that my belief is shared by many hon. Members—that the time has come for us to be far more vigorous than we have been to date to restore the gross imbalance that I have described.
  I would much rather avoid the erection of any barriers to Spanish vehicle imports, and I know that that view is shared by Her Majesty's Government. Austin Rover can and will compete on equal terms with the best in the world, but I must stress "on equal terms". It seems that the actions of the Spanish Government so far, especially the lack of any movement on the reduced duty quota and the announcement from SEAT, show clearly that they believe that they hold all the cards. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will show in his reply that he, too, is prepared to fight for British interests in this vital area and ensure that in this game both players have an equal hand of cards.
  10.46 pm
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) has done the House a great service by raising this topic at a peculiarly appropriate moment. He deserves the congratulations of the House on seizing the initiative and raising the issue at this moment when it is especially hot and important. The Government much welcome the opportunity of listening to him. It is clear from the presence of so many of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills)—that there is deep concern among Conservative Members about the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East has raised an important matter, because the Community's negotiations with Spain about the industrial conditions of its membership are now seriously getting under way. It is a moment which the British Government have awaited with growing impatience. We are glad that our increasing pressure to embark on this subject, which will be a difficult chapter for both parties to the negotiations on enlargement, has now set events in motion.
  There can be no doubt that the prospect of improved, and ultimately free, access to the Spanish market after enlargement cannot come too soon for our motor car industry, for my hon. Friend's constituents who depend on its fortunes for their own livelihood and for the constituents of many of my other hon. Friends who are in their places. That will be the view of the motor car industry and it will be viewed with satisfaction by many other sectors of industry, anxious as they are to have a real

  1257
  chance to compete in a sophisticated market of nearly 38 million people whose prosperity has grown impressively in the past 20 years.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister has talked about the support of his hon. Friends, but will he make it clear in the negotiations that this is not a partisan matter and that the Opposition as well as the Government protest strongly and vigorously against the abuse and endorse the line that the Government are taking? There must be a change in the Spanish Government's policy.
  Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We shall not have the benefit of the Liberal view, because there is no Liberal Member present to tell us, but let us hope that they agree with us too.
  I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East for championing the interests of Austin Rover. He has forcefully put before us the frustration of the company and his constituents with the terms on which they are expected to compete with Spanish suppliers in the Spanish and British markets—a frustration that is increased by the knowledge—shared by the House—of the impressive strides made by Austin Rover in recent years. Now—with the launch of the Montego, built at Cowley—the company has a full range of updated models suited to the markets of Europe. Yet last year Spain imported fewer than 3,000 cars from the UK; indeed, it imported from all sources only about 9 per cent. of its total market. It is small wonder that my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) are deeply concerned.
  The Government share the dissatisfaction with a situation in which Spain enjoys the relative freedom in international trade characteristic of the industry but does not offer it in return, and in which it plans to build on that freedom further to expand its exports, but has so far been reluctant to accept that trade privileges cannot be one way.
  I want for a moment to look at the various factors that distort the opportunity for healthy competition. My hon. Friend raised most of them. First, I deal with the tariff. The current imbalance is an historical anomaly. Spain's protection of its car industry is the highest in Europe. The anomaly originates in an agreement concluded between the original six members of the Community and Spain in 1970—that is, before we joined. Then the expansion of Spain's industrial economy was just beginning. Now the situation is quite different. Today, Spain is Europe's largest shipbuilder, a major steel producer and it boasts a thrusting motor car industry. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the protection enjoyed by that industry from Community competitors includes a 36·7 per cent. tariff. It is even higher against the rest of the world. Yet we are not talking about a struggling infant industry, as might be supposed. As my hon. Friend said, we are talking about an output of more than 1 million units per annum, based largely on heavy investment by experienced multinational companies.
  In the past year our exporters have hammered home the message of the obstacle of the Spanish tariff. The opportunity came in the Spanish concession of a reduced duty quota, which allowed a small number of family-sized cars into its market over a duty of 19 per cent.—instead of 36·7 per cent.—and a rather larger number of cars at the upper end of the scale over a duty of 25 per cent. With
  1258
  the benefit of those reduced duties, our exports increased by about 70 per cent., from 1,556 to 2,379 units. The Government welcomed that Spanish concession, limited as it was. It signalled some recognition in Madrid of our unremitting representations that the unduly privileged position of the Spanish industry could not reasonably be rebutted simply by Spain standing on its treaty rights. We welcomed even more the response of our exporters to show their competitive ability, which they did. We made it clear that we hoped that this year Spain would move further forward to anticipate the reduction of its tariff after entry into the Community.
  It was announced in Madrid last week that those quotas would be rolled forward for another year—with no change in either the level of reduced duties or the numbers covered. My hon. Friend asked me for my view, and I agree with him. I must say that this modest news came as a considerable disappointment. Our hope now is that in the light of the efforts of our own exporters, they will be given the fullest opportunity to build on those efforts within next year's quota.
  My hon. Friend addressed himself to the nub of the issue, and that is what we should concentrate on, rather than on 100 or 200 cars here or there. The most critical matter is the speed with which we can secure agreement on the terms of Spain's entry into the Community, which will provide prompt access for our exporters—not only of cars—to the Spanish market by some rapid cuts in Spain's highest tariffs—quick agreement to provide a certain framework for our manufacturers to plan ahead and rapid cuts to narrow the imbalance in protection embodied in the 1970 agreement. Last week, at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg, I insisted that specific attention must be drawn to the need to deal with the problem of Spain's high tariffs. I am happy to say that the European Community accepted my position in presenting its proposals to Spain for tackling the timetable for eliminating industrial duties. In the weeks ahead, we shall continue to press our determination to find a speedy remedy.
  Mr. Hal Miller: Do I understand that my right hon. Friend thinks that the best way of alleviating this grotesque imbalance—as one of his predecessors described it—is to make a reduction in the high rate of tariffs rather than seek to expand the reduced tariff quotas? Is that the sense of my right hon. Friend's remarks?
  Mr. Channon: I do not want to throw away any card in the negotiations, but that is the nub of the issue. In the long term, we must get the duties down.
  I press on to other problems, apart from customs duty. Spain's discriminatory tax structure and certain other legal provisions distort the market. The current Spanish fiscal structure is complex, as I believe the Spanish Government would agree. In particular, the so-called home compensation tax, imposed on imports, is strictly intended to equal the sum of cascade taxes paid on equivalent domestic production, but it is in many cases set at a higher level and on an artficial basis and it can constitute significant extra protection. When Spain joins the community it will have to abandon this regime and replace it by VAT. That discriminatory instrument will then disappear. That will be an upheaval for Spain, for its business men and for its Government machine. But Spain has already committed itself to that obligation. We hope to see the changes in place before accession.

  1259
  We must not forget Spanish requirements obliging certain car manufacturers to export a high proportion of their production and to maintain a high ratio of Spanish content. These rulings distort competition and are incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. Their removal will be of considerable significance. Spain will have to remove its export ratio requirement on accession and I shall push for a reasonable solution to the local content requirement.
  That is the picture. I hope that I have shown that the Government are not just alert to the facts, and highly sympathetic when our manufacturers ask how long they will have to put up with them, but are active in the pursuance of our car manufacturers' interests in Europe. Mr. Musgrove and his team are in touch wih my Department. If he or hon. Members believe that we have omitted anything, we shall be pleased to pursue the matter further. My hon. Friends will remain active and vigilant. The Government have made their position unequivocally clear to Spain. I cannot complain about the Spanish Government's determination to build up their industrial economy. Why should I? The Spanish Government are entitled to build up legitimate trade.
  The United Kingdom has benefited substantially from the operations of the United States multinationals over the years. We must not be surprised if they invest also in other European countries. These are commercial decisions, which must be for them to make. I know that the multinationals, too, are conscious of the anachronistic trading relationship between Spain and the United Kingdom, and of the resentment that the resulting imbalance causes in the industry and the public here. Mobility of investment in a climate of fair competition is a reality which we should not seek to deny. After all, we have endeavoured to create a competitive climate to attract investment here. We are not going to criticise Spain when it does no more than the same thing by means of fair measures.
  We do not seek to deny Spain the right to healthy export industries competing with our own. We are not asking
  1260
  Spain to accept terms of entry into the Community enabling suppliers from the United Kingdom and other member states to flood its markets overnight. We are not asking anything so unreasonable and unreal. But it is reasonable to ask for rapid movement towards fair competition. That is what we expect the Spanish Government to achieve. Our aim is to put competition on an honest footing in the climate of the mid-1980s and not to spend too much time arguing from an agreement established in the very different circumstances of 1970.
  I do not pretend that easy formulae are available to meet the genuine and proper pre-occupations of all the parties to these negotiations, but I believe that there is a healthy understanding by all concerned—certainly by the British Government and by the House, if I understand its mood, and I hope and believe by the other Community Governments and the Spanish Government—that formulae must be found to meet a clear injustice highlighted in my hon. Friend's valuable speech. I can assure the House that in the next few weeks the Government will do their utmost to negotiate with Spain as part of Community negotiations, to ensure that the formulae will be found in the reasonably near future.
  We all want to see Spain join the Common Market on the date that has been approved. We all want to see the negotiations completed by the date which the Heads of Government reconfirmed at their meeting at Fontainebleau earlier this week. But we must insist on and work towards an agreement that will allow Spain to come into the Community on terms fair to Spain, but also fair to the United Kingdom, fair to the motor car industry and fair to the other industries that have been threatened for so long by far too high tariffs—a burden that would be intolerable for British industry to bear for too long.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall bear in mind the points that he and others have made, both tonight and privately on other occasions. We shall do our best to meet the points raised.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE
  "Real Lives" (TV Programme)
  "Real Lives" (TV Programme)
  Departmental Accounting System
  Departmental Accounting System
  British Aerospace (Dynamics Division)
  British Aerospace (Dynamics Division)
  Tornado Programme
  Tornado Programme
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Oakhanger
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Oakhanger
  REME (Review)
  REME (Review)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
  Merchant Seamen (Overseas Earnings)
  Merchant Seamen (Overseas Earnings)
  Capital Transfer Tax (Stud Farms)
  Capital Transfer Tax (Stud Farms)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
WALES
  Dairy Farmers (Quotas)
  Dairy Farmers (Quotas)
  Bangor Normal College (Transfer of Teachers)
  Bangor Normal College (Transfer of Teachers)
  Maes Gerddi Estate, Porthmadog
  Maes Gerddi Estate, Porthmadog
  Land Authority for Wales
  Land Authority for Wales
ENERGY
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
ENVIRONMENT
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Urban Aid
  Urban Aid
  International Garden Festival
  International Garden Festival
  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Local Government Superannuation Scheme
  Planning Appeal (Ministerial Decisions)
  Planning Appeal (Ministerial Decisions)
  Water Supplies (Nitrate Levels)
  Water Supplies (Nitrate Levels)
  Paris Commission
  Paris Commission
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Private Members' Bills
  Private Members' Bills
  Strangers' Cafeteria
  Strangers' Cafeteria
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Carpet Industry
  Carpet Industry
  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Invest in Britain Bureau
  British Aerospace (Sales Promotion)
  British Aerospace (Sales Promotion)
  "UK Minerals Technology Market Study"
  "UK Minerals Technology Market Study"
  Mineral Projects (Assistance)
  Mineral Projects (Assistance)
  Trade Statistics
  Trade Statistics
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Unification Church
  Unification Church
  Crown Courts (Pre-trial Process)
  Crown Courts (Pre-trial Process)
  Barrister (Instructions)
  Barrister (Instructions)
  Law of Property Act 1925
  Law of Property Act 1925
  Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd.
  Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd.
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Africa (Refugees)
  Africa (Refugees)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Treaty of Rome (Fair Trading)
  Treaty of Rome (Fair Trading)
  Space (International Control)
  Space (International Control)
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  British Residents Overseas (Pensions)
  British Residents Overseas (Pensions)
  United Kingdom (Constitutional Integrity and Territorial Boundaries)
  United Kingdom (Constitutional Integrity and Territorial Boundaries)
TRANSPORT
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Railways (Rolling Stock)
  Railways (Rolling Stock)
  Sealink
  Sealink
  M6 (Gravelly Hill and Witton Viaducts)
  M6 (Gravelly Hill and Witton Viaducts)
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics (London Docklands)
  Labour Statistics (London Docklands)
  Government Communications Headquarters
  Government Communications Headquarters
  Labour Statistics (Liverpool)
  Labour Statistics (Liverpool)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Skillcentre Training Agency
  Skillcentre Training Agency
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Misuse of Drugs (Report)
  Misuse of Drugs (Report)
  Accused Persons (Anonymity)
  Accused Persons (Anonymity)
  Prisoners (Tranquillisers)
  Prisoners (Tranquillisers)
  Industrial Disputes (Protection of Property)
  Industrial Disputes (Protection of Property)
  South African Prime Minister (Visit)
  South African Prime Minister (Visit)
  Released Prisoners (Acts of Violence)
  Released Prisoners (Acts of Violence)
  Prisons (Deaths)
  Prisons (Deaths)
  Police Officers (Visits Abroad)
  Police Officers (Visits Abroad)
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Immigration (West Yorkshire)
  Immigration (West Yorkshire)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  "The Way Forward"
  "The Way Forward"
  Milk Quota System
  Milk Quota System
  Old People's Dwellings
  Old People's Dwellings
  Northern Ireland Tourist Board
  Northern Ireland Tourist Board
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Queen's Birthday Message (Russian Censorship)
  Queen's Birthday Message (Russian Censorship)
SCOTLAND
  Urban Programme Projects
  Urban Programme Projects
  Airports
  Airports
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Schools (Composite Classes)
  Schools (Composite Classes)
  Public Sector Industry (Finance)
  Public Sector Industry (Finance)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Milk Imports
  Milk Imports
  Milk Marketing Board
  Milk Marketing Board
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Playing Fields (Bedfordshire)
  Playing Fields (Bedfordshire)
  Four-term Academic Year
  Four-term Academic Year
  Secondary Schools (Manchester)
  Secondary Schools (Manchester)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Donor Transplant Campaign
  Donor Transplant Campaign
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  NHS (Anti-smoking Treatment)
  NHS (Anti-smoking Treatment)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Heswall Children's Hospital
  Heswall Children's Hospital
  Women's Hospital, Liverpool
  Women's Hospital, Liverpool
  Crofton Hospital, Liverpool (Land)
  Crofton Hospital, Liverpool (Land)
  Health Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Health Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Tinnitus Maskers
  Tinnitus Maskers
  Benefits (Young People)
  Benefits (Young People)
  Limb Prostheses
  Limb Prostheses
  Valium
  Valium
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Photochemotherapy
  Photochemotherapy
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Hospitals (Bolton)
  Hospitals (Bolton)
  Hospitals (Treatment Times)
  Hospitals (Treatment Times)
  Hearing Impaired Children
  Hearing Impaired Children
  Supplementary Pensioners
  Supplementary Pensioners

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester): The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
The Earl of Gosford—Took the Oath.

EEC: Consumer Affairs
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the third meeting of the EEC consumer Ministers indicating what further progress was made on the draft directives dealing with unfair and misleading advertising, product liability and doorstep selling and, in view of the Government's answer on 29th March last (col. 336), whether they will indicate current business outstanding for the next meeting of the Ministers.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my honourable friend Mr. Alexander Fletcher attended the Consumer Affairs Council on 5th June. Progress towards agreement was made on the proposal for a directive on misleading advertising. The directive is not yet ready for adoption, but Community work since 5th June, on the basis of new options identified at the Council meeting, has resolved the main outstanding problems of substance.
Consideration of the proposal for a directive on product liability again centred on the question of whether there should be a financial limit to a producer's liability. There was a wide range of views on this, and compromise proposals for further study by the Committee of Permanent Representatives were identified.
The proposal for a directive on doorstop selling was briefly discussed. There is now general agreement on the text, but adoption is not yet possible because one member state continues to retain its general reserve on this directive.
The Commission has a number of other proposals which it expects to bring before the Council of Ministers in due course, but the only additional item of current Council business outstanding is the completion of consideration of draft directives on the price indication of foodstuffs and of non-food products.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister realise how difficult it is not only for him but also for me when we have Answers that seem to be continually unsatisfactory? Is he aware that my information is that the last meeting of the Council of Ministers made no progress at all on the three matters outstanding, despite the fact that they have been up for discussion on the three occasions that the Council of
1026
Ministers has met during the past year? Can the Minister say whether or not, in the current business outstanding, those three matters—unfair and misleading advertising, product liability and doorstep selling—still have to be discussed or has he told me, and I misheard, that some at least of them have been settled?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is being perhaps a little less than fair in saying that progress has not been made. The noble Baroness will remember that at the last Council meeting, on which I reported in response to a Question of the noble Baroness, agreement was reached and a Council directive was adopted on the early warning system on dangerous consumer products.
I turn to the three particular directives about which the noble Baroness is again questioning me. With regard to misleading advertising, we are in the situation where the draft directive as it now stands would enable us to legislate to reinforce the system of the Advertising Standards Authority on broadly the basis proposed by the Burgh Report in 1980. But this is a matter that needs to be reported back to the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry will certainly be doing that.
On product liability, the situation is as I reported it to your Lordships just now in my original Answer. The matter is turning really on the question of financial limits. There are some compromise proposals that have been worked out. They are being looked at in the Committee of Permanent Representatives and I hope very much that this will put the Council in a position to make more progress next time.
So far as doorstep selling is concerned, we should like to see the directive as it is now drafted put into effect without delay, but there is a reserve from one member state.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that these draft directives have been under discussion since the mid-1970s? Does he feel that the time of civil servants and others spent on these directives has been justified?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that these directives, when they are finally approved, become enforceable under the European Communities Act 1972, would it not be wise for the Government to consider publishing from time to time the progress being made in connection with these various objectives and also to define from time to time the points of difference that have arisen and the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the directives? In that event they might occasionally extend their support for their arguments to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, says. It is important, and probably wise, advice. There are two things that I should say. One of the advantages that

1027
have resulted from meetings of the Consumer Affairs Council is that a flow of information has come to both Houses of Parliament in this country, not least as a result of the questions asked by the noble Baroness. I cannot tell the House today of the date of the next Council, but I understand that there is a possible date agreed for next December.
Of course, we must not forget that the Scrutiny Committees of both your Lordships' House and of another place have a very close interest in these matters. There is no question at all but that what has now very nearly been agreed on misleading advertising has to come back to the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses, which hold very trenchant views on that directive, going back a few years, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, reminded us. I have no doubt also that when agreement is reached on product liability, that, too, will have to come back to the Scrutiny Committees.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, since the Minister says that the one outstanding point on product liability is the financial ceiling, does this imply that there has been agreement on the state of the art defence?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is no final agreement on the product liability directive as yet. The noble Lord knows, of course, the view of Her Majesty's Government about the state of the art defence.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, it was difficult to hear. Did the Minister say that the next meeting of the Council of Ministers would be in September. or December? Following from that, does he think that it would he more helpful if, instead of taking up the time of the House, I were to put down a Question for Written Answer, inquiring as to the progress that has been made in various meetings this year? Does the noble Lord feel that that report, which could be circulated in Hansard, would be of much greater benefit to everyone in the House? If so, is it any use putting it down before December, if it was indeed to December that he referred?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, December was the month that I stated. This would fall within the term of the presidency of the Republic of Ireland. The reason that it is still only provisional is that until, I think, tomorrow, we do not have the Republic of Ireland in the presidency. It will be for the Republic of Ireland to decide whether the next Council meeting will be held then. The noble Baroness asks me whether it would be helpful all round for a Question to be put down for Written Answer. Far be it from me to suggest that I would prefer a Question for Written Answer rather than for oral answer. If the noble Baroness feels that it would be a good thing to put down a Question, I suggest that she should do so after we know when the next Council meeting is to be held. I can perhaps keep in touch with the noble Baroness on this point and let her know when there is a definite date for the next Council meeting.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister may not know it, but I am appreciative of the way in which he tries to help. It is not his fault. I lay the fault at other doors.

NHS Management Inquiry
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy had given notice of his intention to ask the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have received regarding the National Health Service Management Inquiry (the Griffiths Report).
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I have permission to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Molloy?

Redundant Miners: Alternative Employment
3.10 p.m.
Lord Chelwood: 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 why the Coal Board in conjunction with other agencies have not yet announced their proposals to train redundant miners in new skills and to attract suitable industries to the principal mining areas affected: how many men are likely to be involved, area by area: what the approximate annual cost will be: and what the role of the Government will be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, the National Coal Board have agreed to set up a company, provisionally to be called NCB Enterprises Limited, to support work in the coalfields in easing any problems that might be caused where men choose to accept redundancy, particularly in the case of younger men. As a first step, a task force has been set up to examine ways of co-operating with other agencies in order to support efforts to bring new businesses and new employment to the coalfields. The task force is to report to an early meeting of the board, after which we should be better able to answer the detailed points on which my noble friend is seeking information.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, does my noble friend feel that he has gone far enough? Can he not bring a little more comfort, hope and encouragement to miners, many of whom undoubtedly in increasing numbers are thinking of going back to work? Is not 55—I think it is my noble friend's age—very young to retire with very little prospect of finding another job, and will not the problem be accentuated in the next few years—which my noble friend has hinted at—by much younger miners opting for redundancy pay and looking for other work? So can my noble friend perhaps assure the House that the Government have a real sense of urgency about this question?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think we would all welcome what the NCB are doing. Of course, the Government already have their training opportunities schemes. Also, we should pay a compliment to the NCB, who for many years have provided a counselling service for men who are considering taking redundancy. We shall see that the present scheme is pursued as fast as possible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the action by the NCB literally a matter of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted? Would it not have been far better, before the Coal Board announced their closure programme, to have had consultations with the miners about bringing alternative employment to the area and agreeing not to go ahead with pit closures unless and until such employment had been brought forward? Also, may I ask the Minister to prevail upon the chairman of the National Coal Board, and point out to him that instead of announcing—as is apparent from the press this morning—that he would prefer the dispute to go on, apparently until it suits him, he should get down to retaining and returning confidence among the miners that the Coal Board really are interested in the future of miners and mining areas?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government's policy is directed towards the basic objective of the Plan for Coal, as is the Coal Board's. That objective is to have an efficient, competitive coal industry, with a secure long-term future. That is what the chairman is working towards. The chairman has made it abundantly clear that his door is open at any time for discussions with the National Union of Mineworkers on the subject of the present dispute.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in view of the last supplementary question, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that there is not such a thing as a compulsorily redundant miner? It is only voluntary redundancy, and jobs are on offer for any who want to move from one pit to another. To give the impression that there is compulsory redundancy is not to state correctly the case as it stands at the moment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for underlining the fact that at the moment all the redundancies have indeed been voluntary. It might interest the House to know the statistics in relation to pit closures last year. Some 75 per cent. of those miners were found jobs elsewhere.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he does not give any sense of that urgency for which his noble friend Lord Chelwood asked? Is he further aware that this is not a question of redundancy payments or finding jobs elsewhere? If the noble Earl goes to those areas, as I did this last week, he will find that those men talk about the community. It is not just a question of getting an individual job, or redundancy pay. They want a viable community; and to have a viable community one has to bring some new businesses into the area.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am aware of that; and the Government, together with the Coal Board, work towards helping in the community area as well.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that, at this critical juncture in the coal dispute, speedy and imaginative action of the kind referred to in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, might prove a decisive factor in encouraging a return to work by many miners who may now be wavering in their support for this strike?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not wish to be drawn into the larger issues here. One of the problems is the fact that at the moment the miners who want to go to work are being impeded from so doing.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that under previous administrations, when unemployment was a fraction of what it is now, potential pit closures were referred to the Welsh Economic Council and similar bodies in England and Wales? These bodies considered very carefully the position of the communities and the industries concerned, and possible future industries, and then reported to Ministers. Is there not a very strong case now for setting up an independent inquiry to consider a return to this system, and also to consider other urgent matters connected with the mining industry?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and his wisdom for that intervention. So far as I know, the sort of things that he has mentioned are still available and still happen, and discussions do take place. I will bear in mind what the noble Lord said.
Lord Airedale My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? Supposing a pit closes, a village is deserted and no ancillary industry can be brought in, what happens to the ancillary industries in the village, like the village shop, which is likely to suddenly find ruin staring it in the face?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a fairly hypothetical question. If he wants to ask me a specific question I shall be happy to get the statistics for him.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, am I right in thinking that I have a wrong impression when I say that my noble friend's reply did not give me the feeling that the Government have a real sense of urgency about this matter, which surely there should be? If I were to put down this Question again before we rise for the Summer Recess, could I then have a full reply to it?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend is being completely fair. I said to him in my reply that the task force is to report to an early meeting of the board, after which we should be better able to answer the detailed points of my noble friend's Question. Certainly I will offer to do that.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is quite wrong for any community in this

1031
land to be left without hope, and that unless there is greater urgency shown in telling these mining communities that they are on the conscience of this House, of the other House and of the Government, then we can continue to expect trouble? But if hope is held out, that there is greater action along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, asked for, then we can expect a decent response from those good, loyal communities.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, what I have been trying to convey to the House this afternoon is that there is already a number of schemes in existence, operated both by the Government and the MSC, and new ideas are coming forward. I hope this offers a positive future to the mining communities.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that miners know from past experience that what happens in such circumstances is that work is found, not for them but for their womenfolk?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord produces an interesting sideline on which I do not wish to comment.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall the success of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas in generating new activity in run-down areas from which traditional industries have departed? Has he further considered the possiblity of trying a similar organisation in the run-down mining areas—the so-called COSIURBA idea? Does he recall mentioning within the past couple of months that this idea would be considered. and has any conclusion been reached?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the NCB are encouraging new jobs in the mining areas; and the Manpower Services Commission and other agencies, in order to support these efforts, are trying to bring in new business and new employment. This is most welcome. I believe it is further evidence that the board are concerned to ensure that, where men leave the industry, they are given every possible assistance.

Seat Belts
3.20 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in improving and extending the application of seat-belts, especially in relation to long-distance coaches.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the design and performance of seat-belts is under constant development and some potential improvements are being investigated by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The Government are considering possible requirements for the fitting of
1032
seat-belts to the rear seats of new passenger cars and to the front seats of coaches.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that one of the reasons that I put down this Question for a second time was so that I could apologise to him and, indeed, the House, which I now do, for not being in my place when it was arranged the first time, notwithstanding the fact that for the previous half-hour my eyes had been glued to a large clock on the wall which was some 14 minutes slow? I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the precise form of the indications from his department with regard to manufacturers and their production of coaches in anticipation of any possible development along the lines that he has indicated? For example, would it not now be wise not to bring in legislation, but to indicate to manufacturers that there is considerable feeling about the dangers which are unnecessarily incurred by those in coaches without seat-belts and that they might, for example, be encouraged to include in their specification seat-belt couplings and other points such as that which would help the matter forward?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, so far as coaches are concerned, there are a number of very great technical difficulties involved in fitting either lap, or lap and diagonal, seat-belts in all the seating. Her Majesty's Government have placed accent on the encouragement of further research with regard to the construction of coaches, because the majority of accidents occur as a result of the roof crushing in. Within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe the United Kingdom has taken a lead in pressing for international agreements for new standards. We are represented on that commission by my department's chief mechanical engineer. Some agreement has been reached and so results may be expected over the years in the course of new manufacture.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to give us some details of accidents that have occurred with coaches and, bearing in mind the Question of the noble Lord opposite, perhaps he can also give us details of fatalities which have arisen out of those accidents, which is even worse?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, mercifully there are very few coach accidents in this country and, indeed, abroad. In 1983, regretfully 38 people were killed on buses or coaches and that total comprised 3 drivers, 22 passenger occupants, and 13 passengers boarding or alighting from either a coach or a bus. In the last five years the average fatality rate has been 31 a year, against 75 in the previous five years. So the record, while nothing to be complacent about, is not demonstrably very high.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble Lord do what he can to expedite the application of seat-belt regulations to the rear seats of motor cars to protect not only the passengers in the rear seats, but often those occupying the front seats as well? In that connection, is the noble Lord aware that I ask that

1033
question as one who was originally reluctant to support the compulsory application of the seat-belt regulations but who now, in the light of the recent evidence, freely accepts his error?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, my honourable friend the Minister of State in the Department of Transport is giving consideration to possible requirements for the fitting of rear seat-belts. I think that noble Lords will accept that it would be unwise for us to draw any particular conclusion since the compulsory wearing of seat-belts in the front of cars is only 18 months through the trial period. It is being monitored and it would be unwise to draw any conclusions until the experimental period is completed.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Second Reading of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill and the Third Reading of the Cycle Tracks Bill will be taken.

Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I foreshadowed this amendment yesterday when I was dealing with the precedence in the judicial sittings of the House. The amendment is designed to ensure that the arrangements are the same for the Appellate and Appeal Committees respectively. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 82
Leave out paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert:—
"(4) In any Appellate or Appeal Committee the Chair shall be taken by the Lord Chancellor or, in his absence, by the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary present, such seniority being determined in accordance with the Commission for the time being appointing Speakers for the purpose of the hearing and determination of Appeals."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Juries (Disqualification) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
3.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): 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 Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): The Question is, That the Title be postponed?
Lord Grimond: I do not want to delay the proceedings on this Bill, and perhaps I am really rising on a point of information. Do I understand that a Motion to postpone discussion of the Title means that the Government are going to amend the Long Title, and that they are going to amend the Long Title after this Bill has passed all its stages in the House of Commons in such a way that it will cease to be a paving Bill and that important changes will be made in the powers of local authorities? If that is the case, then surely it is a somewhat unusual procedure. I do not for one moment allege that it is an abuse of parliamentary procedure, but surely it is stretching parliamentary procedure rather far to amend the Long Title of the Bill at this stage to make it really a rather different type of Bill?
Lord Denham: If the noble Lord looks into this matter, I think he will find that it is the standard procedure in your Lordships' House as regards every Bill that is taken in this House that the Title is always postponed. I understand that the reason for it is that in this House we are able to amend the Long Title, which I believe is not possible to that extent in another place. This always happens in case your Lordships make an amendment to a Bill during the course of its Committee stage which thereafter entails an amendment to the Long Title. There is nothing sinister in this at all.
Lord Grimond: I did not imply that there was anything sinister about it, and of course I am most grateful to the noble Lord, I fully understand that I am a novice as regards the procedure of your Lordships' House. But this is a very important constitutional Bill and a paving Bill. I just raise the point: is it really the custom not to make minor amendments to the Bill and therefore change the Title, but really to change the nature of the Bill? As I understand it, it is to enable that to be done that this Motion is being moved.
Lord Denham: I have been a Member of this House for a very long time and since I have been a Member of this House it has always been the practice that consideration of the Title be postponed. If the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, thinks that it is wrong—and, of course, it may be—then I suggest that he takes it up with the Procedure Committee, which is the right forum in which to deal with a suggestion of this kind.
On Question, Title postponed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("Commencement of Parts I and II.
. Parts I and II of this Act shall not come into force until a decision by Parliament has been taken on the continued existence

1035
of the Greater London Council and Metropolitan County Councils, and such decision shall not he deemed to have taken place until Royal Assent has been given to an Act dealing with those matters.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 1, which is an all-party amendment which, if it is approved by your Lordships, will, until Parliament has approved, if it so wills, the main abolition Bill, prevent the Secretary of State from ordering the cancellation of elections to the Greater London Council and to the six metropolitan county councils.
It is common ground that the abolition Bill will have no prospect of obtaining Royal Assent in terms of time (indeed, if it ever does obtain Royal Assent) before the May 1985 elections for the county councils which I have mentioned are due to take place. The aim of the first amendment is to ensure that the elections do take place unless and until Parliament—and I say Parliament, not one Chamber of the Parliament —until both Houses of Parliament, decide what is to take the place of the existing councils.
I believe that the amendment will protect the proper constitutional position of your Lordships' House and, additionally, it will ensure the proper parliamentary scrutiny —indeed, in the Commons as well—of controversial legislation. If the amendment is agreed, it will also protect democracy and the rights of electors to local authorities.
Since Second Reading, on which we had a full and, if I may say so, informed and important debate on the Bill, several amendments to Clause I have appeared on the Marshalled List. It may be helpful if I endeavour to identify the differences between the amendments. If I do not do so accurately. I have little doubt that the noble Lords whose amendments they are will put me right when it comes to their time to speak to the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 are in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret.
Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 7, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("Subsection (1) of section 2").
Amendment No. 7: Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 2 and sections 3 to 5 of this Act shall not come into force until a decision by Parliament has been taken on the continued existence of the Greater London Council and Metropolitan County Councils, and such decision shall not be deemed to have taken place until Royal Assent has been given to an Act dealing with those matters.").
These two amendments suspend until after Royal Assent to the main abolition Bill the setting up of the interim councils, which are to take the place of the present county councils. The amendments do not stop the Secretary of State from cancelling the May 1985 council elections as soon as the paving Bill becomes law and before Parliament has dealt with the main abolition Bill. They still allow the power in the councils to pass from the elected councillors to nominated councillors.
Amendment No. 10A is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy.
Amendment No. 10A: Page 2, line 9, leave out ("subsection (2) above") and insert ("this section").
This amendment provides that the order to be made
1036
by the Secretary of State cancelling elections shall be subject to the affirmative order procedures of both Houses. This would at least mean that both Lords and Commons would have a chance to debate the Secretary of State's order. However, I submit that that is in no way a major concession. It would still allow the elections to be cancelled and nominated councils to take office, and in addition, in any event, by long-established convention, this House does not vote on affirmative orders coming before it—not at any rate as a general practice.
What I submit is clear is that Amendment No. 1, which I move, is the only amendment that keeps the county council elections alive. I submit that that is a crucial issue in regard to the running of our democracy. The other amendments have the effect of killing those council elections and denying the electors the right to exercise the vote.
We submit that the Bill as it stands raises major constitutional issues. The Secretary of State has announced that he will not make the order cancelling the elections to the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils until the House of Commons has agreed the Second Reading of the main abolition Bill. When that happens he will make the order.
In my submission, what is proposed is based on wholly unacceptable assumptions. No true parliamentarian, no true believer in the parliamentary process, would take it for granted (as the Government apparently do) that both Houses of Parliament, whatever the majority of the Government party may be, will necessarily pass a measure in the future on the strength only of a Second Reading in the House of Commons—unless, of course, there is all-party agreement to what is proposed, and that is certainly not suggested here. Indeed, we are in the presence of highly contentious matters, and the Committee may think that least of all should the easy assumption which the Government make of parliamentary compliance take place or arise when what is in issue in this amendment above all others is the threatened abolition of local government elections to major local authorities.
I want to make it clear at the outset that, in considering Amendment No. 1, we are not debating in the slightest degree whether the present GLC is a good GLC or whether the six county councils are admirable or bad county councils. That is not the issue which we are discussing. On this amendment we are not discussing whether any of those councils deserve to be abolished or what merits would arise from that. I hope, if I may say so in anxious anticipation, that the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply will not treat us to what he did on Second Reading: namely, a long discussion on a Bill which we have not seen—the abolition Bill—without identifying his usually alert and courteous mind to what we are really talking about.
The difficulty which we would of course, in any event, have if we were tempted to discuss the merits of the abolition Bill is that we have not seen it: maybe it has not yet seen the light of day; maybe it is being nourished in some ministerial bosom ready for production at some date, I know not when, I know not

1037
where. We are in the presence of the great unseen, the great unknown. We have no knowledge of what will be in that Bill or of what is to take the place of these great councils. Indeed, this is why my noble friend Lady Fisher called this the "crazy-paving" Bill: a way is being paved, but to what destination? I am reminded of the famous exchange between counsel and a judge. Counsel said, "My Lord, I hope that your Lordship is following me", and the judge said "I am following you very closely, but where are we going?" That is a question which could well be asked in the consideration of this so oddly called paving Bill—paving the way to an unknown destination.
The only relevant issue that we are discussing in this amendment is whether Clause 1 is tolerable and acceptable within our parliamentary system. My submission is that it is a negation of our proud parliamentary tradition and that it undermines the pillars on which our unwritten constitution stands. It refuses, and indeed rejects, the right of millions of electors in the county council areas to pronounce in due time upon the councillors seeking election, and on whom they wish to elect or not to elect as their local government representatives.
It gives to the Government the power to impose upon local governments and their electorates nominees of different councils, differing in functions and duties from the county councils, elected for a different purpose, and, significantly, of a different political persuasion; different from that which the electorate has seen fit to choose in electing its existing county councils. Indeed, one distinguished Conservative Privy Counsellor and former Cabinet Minister in another place has described, and I think rightly, what is proposed as a flagrant piece of gerrymandering, only he has put it in rather more extreme terms than that.
The right of the electors to the county councils, conferred upon them by laws passed by the Parliament of this country, to choose their councillors will, by this clause, if it is not amended, be swept away. And why? Because the present Government fear that if those electors are allowed genuine choice in elections freely held, their choice will be to reject the Government's policies on these local government issues.
I submit that what is sought to be done in this Bill is setting up a dangerous precedent for our parliamentary system. As the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said on Second Reading:
"If a Government of one party can suspend elections for great areas of Britain by an interim provisions Bill, why could not a Government of another party suspend elections for Great Britain as a whole?" —[Official Report, 11/6/84; col. 964]
We are treading on dangerous ground, my Lords.
What the Government are trying to do is rendering a great disservice to Parliament, and this at a time when parliamentary institutions are losing the certainty they once had, and fears are growing that the House of Commons and the House of Lords are becoming ciphers and that political power has wholly passed into the hands of the Executive. What the Government have done, or seek to do, will increase those fears. It will do so by anticipating the House of Commons supineness in the Session 1984 to 1985 in dealing with the abolition Bill. They have done so by
1038
contemptuously dismissing the role and function of your Lordships' House in our parliamentary system. They leave it out entirely.
The Long Title of the Bill refers in the first few lines to what is proposed as,
"An Act to make provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence"—
not a decision by the House of Commons. What is proposed is in flagrant violation of what is contemplated in the very Long Title of the Bill. I submit—and we shall be discussing these amendments in due course—that the amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, and indeed the three other noble Lords, do nothing adequate to remedy the mischief in Clause 1 of the Bill, and what is the best protection for the democratic and parliamentary system is the passing of this amendment.
In a democracy a government must rule by consent, and must have regard to the proper limits of their own power. Those limits have been far exceeded in Clause 1 of this Bill. Acceptance of the amendment will reaffirm those limits. We need in our parliamentary proceedings to ensure and exert—we from this House in particular —proper scrutiny of legislation. The only amendment to ensure this on Clause 1 is the amendment which I have the honour to move.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Molson: The case for this amendment has been so cogently and clearly put by the noble and learned Lord opposite that what I say on the merits must necessarily be repetition. They, however, are in opposition, whereas I am a supporter of the Government—although a discriminating one. I must therefore explain why I am now supporting not the Government but this amendment.
When we come to the main Bill to abolish the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils I shall vote for the Second Reading. We shall however be deeply concerned as to what is to be put in their place. So far as Streamlining the Cities, the White Paper, is concerned, I think some fairly drastic amendments will be needed, and certainly your Lordships will want to have a rigorous Committee stage on that. The trouble arises out of this paving Bill to authorise the abolition of the councils before we have decided what to put in their place. It is in fact a case of putting the cart before the horse.
I regard it as an uprecedented and unconstitutional procedure for this Bill to come into operation to abolish democratic elections due to take place in May 1985 simply on the passing of the Second Reading in another place of the main Bill. The legislature of this realm is the Queen in Parliament, and this Bill should only come into operation, as this amendment provides, after the main Bill has passed all its stages in both Houses and receives the Royal Assent.
The fact that we have no written constitution imposes on this House a special responsibility and duty. We not only operate within the statutory limits of the Parliament Acts but also respectfully observe those self-denying conventions laid down by the late Lord Salisbury and by my noble friend Lord

1039
Carrington. But that emphasises our duty to safeguard the constitution as it is. That duty we should discharge even against a whipped majority in another place and, let me add, particularly conscientiously should we do so when that is a Tory majority. This amendment will do so.
The main argument against it will probably be based on the timetable and the urgent need to cope with what I agree is inefficiency, extravagance and the misuse of power and money on the other side of the river. The considerations of expediency and convenience should not be allowed to outweigh constitutional principles. The end does not justify the means.
It is wrong that your Lordships' House should, by implication, be deemed not to exist. The assumption is that the unassailable Tory majority in the Commons will act, in the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. as an "elected dictatorship". I was very glad when the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to his writings and lectures when in Opposition. They were familiar to me. I have a great respect for everything that he writes and says.
I quote the political philosophy in Opposition of my noble and learned friend against the Lord Chancellor in office. I am reminded of a story of a High Court judge who was trying a case and counsel said, "I am fortunate, my Lord, in being able to quote your words in a previous case that you tried some years ago". He quoted them. The learned judge said incredulously, "Did I really say that?". "Yes, my Lord, they are in the Law Reports." "Ah", said the learned judge, "They are? Well, with the greatest respect to myself, I think I was wrong".
There might be, if it ever came, as it could not, to a case in the courts, a case called Hailsham v. Hailsham—Hailsham, the political philosopher in Opposition, and Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor in office. I hope that he will show more consistency and more obduracy if his writings are quoted against him. I hope he will say to his colleagues in the Government, "I have so great a respect for Lord Hailsham the political philosopher that I think we ought respectfully to follow his advice".
On the same slightly light note, I should like to quote the quizzical remark of another Member of your Lordships' House of even greater distinction than the Lord Chancellor. I happened recently to meet my noble friend Lord Stockton in that sanctum of Toryism, the Carlton Club. I told him that, largely as a result of his invention when Prime Minister of the Life Peerage, the Government had sustained three defeats on the Housing Bill, but I added that I did not know what would happen to our amendments when they went to the Commons. My noble friend replied, "Ah! The problem used to be the built-in Tory majority in the Lords. The problem now is the elected majority in the Commons".
That anecdote is strictly relevant to my argument in support of this amendment. Words from my noble friend Lord Stockton, even spoken in jest, very often embody great wisdom and experience. The Government have brought these problems on themselves and, let me add, on us who are their well-wishers. It is obvious that neither has the whole
1040
strategy of these reforms been adequately thought through, nor has an integrated parliamentary timetable been prepared in advance. The Government excuse this precipitate and unco-ordinated programme of legislation because the last election was held as recently as 1983, but they had been in power for four years before that.
In answer to the complaint that this extensive programme of local government reform was a hurriedly improvised scheme at the last general election, we had the statement from my noble friend Lord Bellwin at Second Reading that it had been under discussion for years past. Those discussions for those years do not appear to have been very fruitful.
When I was in Government a generation ago we had in addition to the legislation committee a future legislation committee. It planned several Sessions ahead and considered applications by departments for a place for their Bills in the future legislative programme. It planned ahead for the future. I wonder whether that committee thought out the timing, the integration and the co-ordination of this policy with its two separate Bills, or was it bypassed?
I argued at Second Reading that it was wrong to use parliamentary power to replace, in the case of London, a Labour majority with a Conservative one. It will no doubt be said that the present Labour majority on the Greater London Council, which has so abused its power and spent the ratepayers' money irresponsibly, would do so in that extra 11 months of life. Much of the harm it can do has already been done and the rate capping Bill will then be in operation and, I hope, will be drastically applied.
It would appear that the Greater London Council has not used any money unlawfully. It has been used on hairbrained schemes, but it cannot have been unlawful otherwise the district auditors would have taken action. In relation to abuse of its power in general, Parliament can at any time impose restraints by rapid legislation and possibly by this Bill if suitable amendments were made.
I remember what was called, if I remember, the National Economy Act which in 1931 enabled the Government to take wide powers to deal with the economic and financial crises of that time. It passed through all its stages in both Houses in a matter of days. I cannot believe that it is impossible to draft measures well within the constitution which Parliament would pass rapidly without infringing, as I think this Bill does, the spirit and conventions of the constitution. I believe that that pragmatical and constitutional approach would not arouse the public dismay that this Bill in its unamended form has done and which will manifest itself in elections. Can we not have an arrangement which would be acceptable at any rate to Tory Peers who cannot go along with the Government as this Bill is at present drafted but who support the main objective, as I do? But I repeat that the end does not justify the means.
When I agreed to add my name to this amendment, I did not commit myself to all my co-signatories' views. It is only confined to this amendment. On the main issue they, we know, oppose the abolition of the top tier of local authorities while I support it. We are agreed, however, that, as drafted, this Bill deems your

1041
Lordships' House to be non-existent. That is unconstitutional and wrong. I hope that your Lordships will not be unduly swayed by arguments of expediency or convenience but will regard this amendment as a matter of principle and support it.
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: Before my noble friend sits down, I believe I am right in having heard him say that the rate capping Bill could deal with it. Surely the rate capping Bill can only deal with boroughs who raise the rates and the GLC uses the precept from the boroughs. I should like to know how under the Bill when they do not raise the direct rates the rate capping Bill can have any effect on the expenditure or the precept levied on the boroughs?
Lord Molson: I spoke about the general principle raised by this amendment. I suggested that an arrangement might be made. I cannot now go into details.
Lord Hayter: Speaking from this particular section of your Lordships' House, there is a phrase that I cannot use: "We on these Benches…"because we on these Benches never know what our colleagues are going either to say or to do. Indeed, I have been bombarded with notes today because this was talked about as an all-party amendment, which it is indeed; but, as far as the Cross-Benchers are concerned, we have to speak for ourselves. I would say, however, that at the Second Reading quite a number of Cross-Benchers voted for the Government—they did not like the reasoned amendment—but the majority voted for that amendment. I conducted a small, private Gallup poll of my own to find out what was the reasoning behind my colleagues' attitude.
Some had very understandable constitutional scruples about a reasoned amendment on a Bill which came from the Commons. I understand that. Others misunderstood entirely the Minister's final speech in the winding up of that Second Reading debate. I will come to that in a minute. Let us talk about what this amendment is not concerned with. So far as I am concerned, it is not about the GLC personalities, it is not about the abolition of councils, it is not about interim measures—although an analogy did occur to me when we were talking about these interim measures, that, as an elected member of my local, Ashtead, cricket club, one day I might become an appointed member of the MCC! There are occasions when new blood is needed there.
But we can argue about this amendment on a constitutional or a procedural point and, as has been emphasised previously, the phrase used in the Explanatory Memorandum is "pending a decision by Parliament". I learned at school, having done some constitutional history, and I learned even more in your Lordships' House, that a decision by Parliament involves eleven stages—a first reading, a second reading, a committee, a report and a third reading in the House and in the other House as well, and then finally Royal Assent.
This short cut of a Second Reading in the House of Commons is presented by some people as being a presentation of a wrecking amendment. But we did not put those words in. They were put there purposely
1042
and, for my part, I think they meant what they said. It is supposed to be a Government timing problem. Again, we, as individual Members of your Lordships' House, have nothing to do with the timing problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has said, they have apparently been thinking about it for years. So, for my part, "pending a decision by Parliament" means those eleven stages.
Now I come to the other muddle which caused some confusion in the minds of some of my colleagues. When the noble Lord the Minister in his final speech quite correctly said that the main abolition Bill will have to be passed through all its stages in both Houses before the main abolition Bill can become law—precisely so! Well done! Then he went on to say that the passing of this interim Bill in no way changes or diminishes the need for that approval (that is to say, of the main abolition Bill) line by line in both Houses. I agree entirely. It is precisely because I am with the noble Minister in saying that a Bill has got to go through all those stages, that it has got to go through a Committee and be examined line by line, that I feel that this amendment has a great deal to commend itself to your Lordships.
What a curious situation it is that sometimes, year after year. we chide the Government of this side or the Government of that side—and here I am speaking for my colleagues on the Cross-Benches—for passing retrospective legislation. But here we are groaning because they are passing prospective legislation. And there are straws in the wind that perhaps that Second Reading will not go quite so well as they think. But let us get it clear. The Government timing problem is "pending a decision by Parliament". I was reminding myself the other day of Through the Looking Glass, where Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". So far as I am concerned, I hope that the Minister's words will mean more than he said when he talked about pending a decision by Parliament; so I, for my part, individually, support this amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I wonder if I might interject at this stage. I think I would be right in saying that if this amendment were to be passed, all the other amendments that have been put down relating to this particular subject would fall. Therefore, it might perhaps be appropriate if I were to ask leave of the House to speak to my two amendments which are on the Marshalled List today. My noble friend Lord Molson said that he put his name to an all-party amendment, which has been so ably moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I can hardly think that in the closing remarks of his speech he could really be deemed to be supporting the amendment as strongly as others who put their names to it would have liked. He seemed to be on the verge of wavering somewhat—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Mountgarret: I think that perhaps if your Lordships read Hansard you will find that is what he did indicate. But do not let us digress too much on that point.

1043
The other thing that I should like to say is that I regret very much indeed the manner in which this amendment has in fact been moved; because a wrecking amendment is one thing but a total wrecking amendment of a complete Bill is another. I should have thought that we had had a very long, very interesting and very good Second Reading on this whole subject and on this particular point as well; and that this had been passed—admittedly by only a small majority in your Lordships' House. But, having so done, I should have thought that a completely, total, wrecking so-called amendment to the entire principle of the Bill which has already been passed by your Lordships' House was really not quite the right way of going about things.
The purpose of my amendments is to try to find a way—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: If the noble Viscount will be kind enough to give way I would be most grateful. I am afraid I thought that the noble Viscount was referring to somebody else when he said that at the end of his speech he seemed to be wavering. I am astonished that the noble Viscount was referring to me. I stand firm; I do not waver at all.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am very sorry. I do not think I indicated that the noble and learned Lord was wavering in any way. I do not think so.
The purpose of my amendments is to try to find a way in which some compromise might be reached between those who wish. quite rightly, to have this paving Bill on the statute book in such a way that will make the transitional period from May 1985 until such time as the GLC and the metropolitan councils are probably abolished more workable, and those who feel, also quite rightly, that the way the Government have proposed that this should be done is somewhat unconstitutional, to say the least.
The Government do have a mandate for the abolition of these councils and we were told quite clearly on Second Reading that for all sorts of reasons—be they good or bad. which is, if I may say so, at the present moment rather irrelevant to the point at issue—the timetable for such an abolition Bill would take effect from about April 1986. If this point is accepted, which I believe it really should be—one has got to try to look at things in a rational way; it is reasonable for us to assume that this abolition Bill will take place—it cannot in any way make sense to hold elections which in normal circumstances would be due in May 1985. Not only would it be a total waste of money to go through an electoral procedure for councillors to serve a mere 11 months, but bearing in mind the manner in which many of the existing councillors—on the GLC in particular—have reacted to this whole matter, it must be as plain as a pikestaff that the holding of elections, in the true sense of the word, would be meaningless as the platforms for those elections would be used only to stir up emotion against the wider issues and would be ostensibly used to attempt to undermine the Government's case and probably even the will of Parliament.
Therefore, I feel it is a prerequisite that the elections proposed for May 1985 should be suspended by this
1044
Bill, notwithstanding the fact that a Bill to abolish the councils has not even been laid before Parliament. I do not believe that this is unconstitutional; nor do I believe that it could be deemed in any way to deny the people of London or the metropolitan areas their right to elected representation, provided that my second amendment can be taken in conjunction with the first.
The second amendment really tries to deal with what I believe to be the real kernel of your Lordships' great disquiet and unease in this matter; certainly that of noble Lords opposite and, I feel, of a number of my noble friends on this side of the Committee. I do not accept that it can be right in any way for this Government or any other government to be responsible for arbitrarily replacing a body of elected councillors of one political party holding a majority by a nominated body giving a majority of another political party; this particularly when the new majority would be the same political colour as that of the Government in power; especially when there is no Act on the statute book to abolish the councils in question. Having said that, I entirely accept and appreciate that it would make sense to provide for nominated councillors from the boroughs which will eventually have the responsibility for running the affairs of the abolished councils to take charge of those affairs to smooth the transitional path. but only after a Bill to abolish has been passed.
As I said on Second Reading, I am more particularly concerned about the public image of your Lordships' House in this matter. A vitally important reason for our existence is to continue to contain an enthusiastic and very strong Government in power in another place. If matters are brought before us which can be shown quite clearly to be either unconstitutional or gerrymandering—call it what you will—we have. I believe, an absolute, imperative duty to require the Government to think again. We attempted to do so at Second Reading, and although the reasoned amendment was defeated by only a very few votes—which I certainly would not call decisive by any manner or means, although I believe it has been called decisive by others—it was clear that there was widespread unrest and unease in your Lordships' House.
The Government. very understandably, and indeed I would say I myself too, are concerned about what might happen if the existing councillors have their term of office extended for any length of time. It is felt, quite understandably, that a considerable amount of damage could be done by the squandering of large sums of money in a policy of non-co-operation and continued bitterness. But as has been mentioned, the ratecapping Bill, which has been passed or almost passed, should to a considerable degree take care of that; and indeed I think I am right in saying that Amendment No. 67 of my noble friend Lord Bellwin also goes a long way to putting an effective stop to any such monkey business.
We have seen something of the behaviour that might come by Mr. Livingstone attempting to make a nonsense of this whole business by having an arbitrary interim election by resigning his position and then standing for election again in September. All I can say is that I hope very much that the Government will take

1045
note of that one and put down an amendment on Report stage to squash any such nonsense—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Mountgarret: because it is not right for people who hold office and are blessed with power to abuse that power but they must use it in a responsible fashion; and if they do otherwise they must expect what is coming to them.
It can be argued that the measure before us is not as unconstitutional as it might seem because the councillors will have ended their four-year term of office in May and that they are not actually going to be removed. But the point is that they are going to be replaced on the GLC by a majority of the Conservative party rather than what is there at present. I believe that that must be wrong but I should like to suggest a route which the Government might consider taking to try to get out of creating such a rather unpleasant mess. They have been running around for the past week or so trying to find various holes down which to bolt and unfortunately the rabbit seems to have put up the net.
But we have to find one hole that is available to escape down. That I suggest might be this. If the Government were prepared to suggest a scheme—I do not know how they are going to do it and I do not know how it would work, but somebody must think of it—whereby nominated councillors from the boroughs might be appointed to the GLC—the short-term. the interim GLC—who reflect the same political representation as is there now, then I do not think that the objections would be quite so great. This would be more reasonable and might make it more possible for your Lordships to accept. But if that is not possible for one reason or another. I cannot see that we can allow this Bill to go forward in the way that it stands.
Without reiterating all the arguments that were rehearsed on Second Reading, which we all know very well, I hope perhaps that your Lordships will bear in mind the points I have tried to make and, in the light of that, that your Lordships' Committee might feel it right not to support the amendment so admirably moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. If the Government can give some assurance that on Report stage they might be able to adopt the alternative route that I have suggested, I should be very happy to withdraw my amendments. I really do not like my amendments very much. I do not like them, but I positively dislike the Bill as it stands. You have to do the best you can in the circumstances.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The speeches that we have heard so far on this amendment have all been very clearly anti-Government and of course to kill the Bill is their intention; but I do not think the position as it stands justifies the kind of criticism we have heard or that which is contained in the amendments which have been put forward with that as their main intention. The noble and learned Lord, in moving the amendment—and he always does it in such a plausible way that even when he is wrong he frightens me to death because he sounds so effective—said that this was nothing whatever to do with the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan boroughs. We all know it
1046
has everything to do with them. We all know it is part and parcel of that main argument. Without that there would not be an argument. And I feel that while it is very pleasurable, in this Chamber particularly, to approach these matters on the high level of what is a good quality debating club, we happen also to be part of a Parliament that has to do practical things and has to face up to practical things which could be obscured by quoting what has been said by High Court judges in the past, and theorists of that sort.
What is the practical situation? It is this: the Greater London Council and the metropolitan councils (which I know more about than the Greater London Council) were made the subject of the last election in a very big way. At the election, when the whole of the nation were paying attention to all the ingredients and the whole of the atmosphere that surrounded it, they came to the conclusion (and showed it by their vote) that this was an unnecessary tier of government which caused expense, which caused delays and which disrupted business and slowed down general development designed to deal with such things as unemployment, and the electorate felt the time had come, short though its life had been, for such impediments to be removed.
I was prejudiced on that because I thought the extra tier never should have been instigated, and when it was instigated in another place I both voted and spoke against that instigation. All that has happened since has confirmed the fears that I held then; that it was unnecessary, that it would be expensive, that it would put extra obstacles in the way of people running businesses and industries by imposing delay and the consequent costs upon them. All that has been confirmed, and it impressed itself upon the nation to such an extent that at the general election, where this was one of the most important parts of the manifesto, the decision was given that the nation wanted it to be abolished.
Lord Diamond: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I have only just started. The Government since then
Lord Diamond: Will the noble Lord give way? I am most grateful to him. Could he refresh our minds with regard to the simple figures? Would he give the figures of the electorate which could be held to support the proposition he is putting forward and the total figures of the electorate that could be held not to support it?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord ought to drag his mind away from proportional representation sometimes, and I believe that this is an issue which is far enough away from that to be judged on its merits. There is no doubt anywhere—and I think it is accepted on the other side of this Chamber—that the nation by its vote instructed the Government of the day to abolish this tier of government, and they have set about doing it. They have made it very clear how they are going to do it, recognising, as anyone who has played any part in government knows, that these things have to be started very early in the life of a Government, otherwise they cannot be brought to fruition as was intended when the manifesto was brought forward. It is the duty of the Government,

1047
having decided to implement their election pledge, not to allow themselves to be frustrated by parliamentary tacticians, not to allow their intentions to be arrested by perhaps over-presenting what is supposed to be the constitutional position, when in point of fact there is no constitutional principle being breached in this at all.
Nothing is being done without Parliament's approval. Nothing is being asked to be put into operation without both Houses having given their decision. That is the constitutional way of government. And just because we are in the process of getting to the point where we are asking one part of Parliament to give its support does not make it unconstitutional. I believe—and here I am talking particularly to my noble friends who may have had doubts particularly over the way it has been presented—that it is not a bad thing to be practical, impressed though one may be by high-level and sometimes highfalutin' speeches, we must keep our feet on the ground and recognise this amendment for what it is. This is an attempt to prevent the Government of the day carrying out a promise they gave to the electors and for which they had permission.
As regards its being democratic, perhaps I might claim to be in a position to have a view on this. I doubt whether there is any one in this Chamber who has fought more elections than I have. The last was the 19th. I fought parliamentary, local government, European and county council elections, and I have had some sort of contact with the actual carrying out of these things called parliamentary elections and parliamentary approvals. I am not prepared to accept that people who have been elected to a borough council and who are asked to take over the functions of a joint responsibility with other authorities in doing that are being undemocratically appointed. Indeed, for a number of years I was chairman of a joint health service committee which incorporated something like 10 or 12 authorities, although I was only elected by one of the authorities concerned. There is no question of democracy being impinged when the people in a position to carry this out are people who themselves have been elected.
I make no appeal to the opposite side because this is a party tactic and I do not expect them to move away from a party tactic to which they have given a lot of thought. There has been talk about a whipped majority in the other place; but I doubt whether that Whip would be any stronger than the Whip of loyalty that was applied to noble Lords opposite on this issue. But I do appeal to my noble friends that if we keep our feet on the ground we shall perhaps be reflecting the views of the nation much better than these highfalutin' speeches that we have heard where it is being suggested, without any proof and without any real support, that we are breaching some constitutional point, when we are not.
I believe that the people of this country will forgive governments almost anything. They will forgive them adultery, embezzlement—almost murder—but they will not forgive them deliberate stupidity; and the one thing that would be deliberately stupid would be for this Government, having obtained the authority of the
1048
nation to abolish this tier of government, to allow themselves to be frustrated by putting back in office people who have not only said they will set out to frustrate the will of the nation but who have boasted it is their joy that they should do it, and that they will spend the ratepayers' money to do it. For a government deliberately to put a group of people who have made their position so crystal clear in a position to carry out that intention would be dubbed by the nation as being deliberately stupid. That is one thing for which they would not be forgiven. I remember vividly when Mr. Callaghan did not carry out the recommendations on redistribution because it was thought that it would affect the strength of his party by 17 to 18 seats. He did not do it, because it did not suit his book. He thought that it would frustrate what he felt he had the authority of the nation to do and it was not held against him. But it would have been held against him if he had been weak enough or stupid enough, on the arguments of phoney principle and so on, which could not be supported. to move away from something that was perfectly right
Lord Mishcon: Will the noble Lord give way for one moment? I intervene only to encourage him to go on with his speech at greater length, because the longer he speaks, the more I feel that the Committee will welcome the first amendment. But having said that, may I ask him whether he will kindly deal, just for one moment,with his refusal to accept the possibility of an election in which the voters will be able to express their point of view, instead of listening to his eloquence?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord opened with his typical show of smooth arrogance. There was no need for that. We have to listen to quite a lot of what he considers to be the truth, put in his way. If my style is not one that he finds acceptable, that is a pity. But it is the argument that I am concerned with and not the way in which it is presented. I am saying that what is being done now in asking the Committee to approve this paving Bill is in accordance with the Government doing their duty, by carrying out what they told the nation they would carry out and what the nation gave them authority to carry out.
The Earl of Onslow: May I
The Earl of Halsbury: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to slot in at this point, because the amendment in the name of myself and my noble friends is a third alternative between that proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and that proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. May I just make a brief comment on its description in today's copy of TheTimes as, "tabled by Cross-Benchers"? Here I have the same point to make as my noble friend Lord Hayter. It is perfectly correct that all three names on this amendment are those of Cross-Benchers, but more than that must not be read into it. Cross-Benchers generally are in no way involved in it; nor have I discussed it with them as though they were a party whose support I was lobbying.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Spens cannot be here to move his own amendment when the time

1049
comes, for he was its principal architect, but he is—only temporarily, I hope— on the sick list. I am sure that I shall be speaking for the whole Committee if on its behalf I wish him a speedy recovery and express the hope that we shall enjoy his genial and always helpful presence in his usual place in due course.
The amendment that I propose is a modest attempt to be helpful by transferring the powers in Clause 1(4), which apply to part only of the activation process, to that whole process, so that it becomes uniformly subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. The amended Clause 1(4) would then cover the whole of what will be the future Section 1. It will I think have no incalculable side effects and its immediate effects will he transparent.
Its intention is to be helpful and to smooth feathers that were visibly ruffled during Second Reading by the proposal to make the activation process dependent on events in the other place, without reference to your Lordships' wishes here. If our amendment finds favour in your Lordships' eyes, then you will have a second chance to make your wishes known.
I do not want to make a long speech, but I should like to make some very brief comments on the matters which have tended to bulk rather large in people's feelings: and these are two in number. One is the constitutional position and the other is the democratic position. I have to confess that I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor am I a barrack-room lawyer, either; and I think between these two extremes there is a grey area which can be occupied by wishful thinking. The precedents are few and their analogical resemblances are not very similar. I am reminded somewhat of Bradley's dictum about metaphysics, that it is finding had reasons for what you believe by instinct. He added the rider that it is nonetheless instinctive to go looking for such reasons.
I rather feel that on the constitutional issue people have allowed their emotional involvement with local government theory and practice to justify their feelings by reference to constitutional arguments. To some extent I feel the same about the issue of democracy. Local government in our age wears two hats. With one on, it is the agent of democratically elected central government with responsibility for distributing central government largess on behalf of the welfare state. As such, it is appointed, not elected. I do not think that a rebellious agent can defend himself on the grounds that, wearing a different hat altogether, he was elected and not appointed.
Let me come to the democratic aspect of that second hat that it wears. The total failure of all governments to reform local government taxation has worn it rather thin. The electorate consists of those who receive largess from the welfare state, and can be relied on to support any authority which dishes it out generously, however improperly. Those who supply the wherewithal to add to it from the rates are grossly under-represented on the electoral rolls.
I shall not pursue these points further; otherwise, shall make a Second Reading speech. I am content to note that, from the standpoint of this amendment, neither the consititutional nor the democratic issues strike me as having very great dialectical binding
1050
power in the rather "grotty" situation where we find ourselves with rebellious councils on our hands.
I should like to say a last word, if I may, on affirmative instruments. They are not bound by the Parliament Act, so that we here can exercise a wrecking effect on any process governed by them. For this reason, it is common practice to ensure that we know the wishes of the other place before we agree to affirmative instruments. It is none of our business to wreck. But I am advised—and here, again, I have to take advice—that this is more a matter of convenience than of necessity and that, from time to time, to suit the business managers of both Houses, we occasionally consider affirmative instruments here first. There is no reason why we could not do so by arrangement in the context of an amended paving Bill.
Your Lordships therefore do not have to be thought of as rubber stamps. You can get a free vote in case of real need. You might be asked to reconsider it later, but we are used to deferring to the other place in such cases, and nothing new would be involved. It has been done before on the Rhodesian issue. That is what I want to say about my amendments and in due course, if the opportunity arises, I shall move them.
Lord Bellwin: May I just make a very quick intervention and say on that point—of course, I shall he speaking later—that I am glad to confirm, if there should be any doubt, that it is the Government's intention to accept the amendment relating to the affirmative resolution procedure. But I shall refer to it again when I speak a little later on.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: It is perhaps worth making the point that we are not speaking only about the Greater London Council this afternoon. We are concerned for the other metropolitan counties, and perhaps I may speak especially from what I know in Merseyside. It is said that the paving Bill is simply a necessary way of making practical arrangements to tide us over a short interim period. The Secretary of State knows that this next year or two will be a very anxious and important time for Merseyside, and indeed for the other metropolitan counties, and I want to set what I say in the context of this next year or two.
The seriousness with which the democratic process is taken during the next year or two is crucial. We face great anxieties at this moment in Liverpool over making a rate—anxieties which other urban authorities are very likely to be facing next year. We sometimes use the word "alienation" to describe the underlying feelings of many people in Merseyside. We use it rightly, with the sense that they feel that they have no serious part in making the decisions which affect their lives.
Every time the democratic process is weakened or discredited, that alienation is deepened. Talk of commissioners being put in to take over the functions of Liverpool City Council rightly makes us shudder. With all my heart I hope that a legal rate will be fixed in the next fortnight and all the fears of bankruptcy for Liverpool and disqualification of councillors will be ended. We do not want a further shift in the direction of centralised control.

1051
In 1985, the Merseyside Development Corporation comes up for renewal. Personally, I trust that it will be renewed. It is doing excellent work. But I make the same point about the shift of power from locally elected authorities. Merseyside Development Corporation, wielding a great deal of power, is a government-appointed quango.
The Government rightly recognise the reality of Merseyside as a place, its needs and opportunities. There is a Merseyside task force, established three years ago by Michael Heseltine as Minister for Merseyside. There is inner city partnership, as in other urban areas with great human needs. I am very glad that the Government have this involvement, but there need to be locally elected partners in the partnership. Perhaps I may say that I hope that Liverpool City Council will enter more deeply into that co-operation between central and local government which inner city partnership should be about.
It is in this context, where there is an urgent need for reconciliation, that the proposed abolition of Merseyside County Council seems to me to be nothing short of a tragedy. Alongside the bitter divisions of politics which have long dogged Liverpool City Council, the county council is a body in which there is that old and valuable habit of reaching out beyond the boundaries of one political party. It is significant that Merseyside County Council unanimously opposes these abolition proposals. There should be a full, public and independent inquiry into the structure and financing of local government in the metropolitan areas.
In the context that I have described, the way that the interim year is handled is extremely important and its connections with the democratic process are vital. The interim provisions Bill proposes that, instead of an election, county councils should be brought up to number by nominees of the district councils. I believe that there is no precedent in our constitutional history for suspending elections to a group of local authorities and then substituting nominees in the place of directly elected members. These nominees would be those who have been elected to district councils. They would have to squeeze their duties as members of the county councils into their already busy lives as district councillors.
I repeat my point about the importance of the next year or two. Inexperienced councillors, in this sense, in 1985-86 would quite likely be legally required to enforce cuts resulting from a budget which might well be rate capped. I have great anxieties about whether councillors who are accountable to their district councils would give their real commitment to a body which should address itself to the needs of the whole of a county. For example, a Sefton district councillor who came to the Merseyside Churches Ecumenical Council to argue the case for abolition of the Merseyside County Council said that he would not support the existence of a body which "doesn't benefit Sefton citizens within Sefton". But a county council is concerned with all the people in the county.
I notice that my notes repeatedly say "MCC"—Merseyside County Council. For much of my life the initials "MCC" could only have meant one
1052
thing—Marylebone Cricket Club—and for much of my life it would have been equally inconceivable that I should have come to London on this Thursday in June and come to your Lordships' House rather than going to Lord's Cricket Ground. Thinking of other anxious happenings at Lord's, a bishop who is a close friend of mine and an equally enthusiastic cricketer wrote to me last week about a bad event which affected us both and then mentioned at the end of his letter a good appointment he had been able to make. "Oh, well, you win some: you lose some", he wrote. Then, "With England you lose some". In the Cricketer magazine this month there is a cartoon of a group of boys, one black boy and some white boys. The black boy says, "You be England and I'll be Richards".
The MCC has come, for me, to mean quite as often Merseyside County Council. They are initials which mean something very important, for Merseyside is a reality. I chair the Manpower Services Commission's area manpower board for Merseyside—not, as was briefly considered, one of two boards to cover that area. The Department of Employment, like the Department of Industry, knows that economically Merseyside is an entity. If we are to bring about the expansion of industry and commerce which we so urgently need, there needs to be a unified package of information and a coherent process of planning. If the economic decline of the county sadly continues, we equally need such co-ordinated information and planning. The Merseyside Chamber of Commerce and Industry is among the many Merseyside bodies which oppose the proposals of Streamlining the Cities. The chamber of commerce says:
"To abolish the Merseyside County Council is the wrong approach, since it is right for economic, social, cultural and institutional reasons to retain our county council as the natural organ of local government".
We are talking about a very substantial shift of power from local government to Whitehall, and we are taking a significant step in that direction by means of an interim provisions Bill. I believe we need to take great care not to weaken the democratic process during these particularly sensitive years. Executive power should be kept within strict proportion to needs. We should beware of setting dangerous precedents for the future.
We are being asked to comprehend the interim measures in this Bill without proper consideration of what the main abolition Bill may contain. This interim provisions Bill seems to me to ride roughshod over Parliament. I believe it is a proper moment for this Committee to make the Government delay and pause for thought. The other amendments to come before the Committee still allow the elections to be cancelled. I support the amendment now before the Committee.
4.49 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps it might have been better, both for England and for the Government, if the right reverend Prelate had gone to Lord's and had not come this afternoon to your Lordships' House.
I find myself in considerable difficulty over this Bill. The reason is as follows. It has been established by the slightly doubtful doctrine of the mandate and it has been made quite clear that the Government are going

1053
to abolish the upper tier of local authorities. My noble friend Lord Marshall of Leeds set that out in a ruthlessly intellectual case during the Second Reading of the Bill.
I also happen to think that this Government are a very good government. Five years ago I had the great privilege of seconding the Address on the first term of this Government. I said, to hoots of ribald laughter from the Benches opposite, that I thought it looked as though the Government were going to be a thorough-bred government. This Government have shown very high qualities. During the past five years they have achieved many things which many of us thought they were not going to be able to achieve. So when it comes to the Government being caught with their hand in the till, as I suggest to your Lordships they are being caught, by changing the composition of one section of the governing body by what is, to all intents and purposes, a Czarist ukase, I get cross with them—much more than I would with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, or Mr. Callaghan, who did it quite happily and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, it did not seem to matter: they were being tough; they were not being stupid, but they were allowed to cheat, they were allowed to adulterate, and they were allowed to do this—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Onslow: I have a rather higher view of the standard of quality of the government of this country, and it is when it is caught cheating
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: The noble Lord has made some remarks about my noble friend Lord Wilson and my right honourable friend Mr. Callaghan which he may wish to reconsider and withdraw.
The Earl of Onslow: I think that I was agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that when Mr. Callaghan did not do the redistribution, it was certainly regarded as something that was not of the highest standards of British parliamentary democracy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: The noble Earl used words which I do not wish to repeat in this Committe. He knows perfectly well what he said. Will he now be good enough to withdraw those words without equivocation?
The Earl of Onslow: I would say that if I had made a comment that was wrong, impertinent or rude pertaining to somebody's personal honour, then of course I would withdraw it with no hesitation at all. What I would certainly go on to say is that there was justifiable criticism of the Callaghan Government for their behaviour over the boundaries distribution. It is that quality of behaviour, which this Government are exhibiting over the change from a Labour-controlled to a Conservative-controlled GLC, which worries me. It is that which seems to me to be cheating. Because ours is such a good Government, and because it is a Government which I am extremely proud to support as much as possible, I find that I am in grave danger of voting against them.
1054
I may not vote for this particular amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because it may well he that we would be involving ourselves in a referendum. As Burke said, one interferes with the English constitution at one's peril, and one does not tamper with it. A referendum has been, and is, the instrument of dictators. It is too easy to pose a certain question. I would not dream of supporting some of the antics up to which Mr. Livingstone gets—of course not. What I would certainly suggest is that we are here in danger of losing the quality which I hope that this Government and this country always support.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I think it was fortunate that the right reverend Prelate decided to come to this Committee to deal with the metropolitan county councils rather than go to the somewhat similarly-named establishment in St. Marylebone. I would not be so ungenerous as to suggest that the fact that it is raining had anything to do with his decision. This House always listens to the right reverend Prelate with great attention. If he will allow me to say so, many of us listen with great admiration to the battle which he puts up continually for the interests of the people in his widespread and far from happy diocese. I am sure that his admirable speech added very much to the tone of our debate.
If I may return to the amendment which we are at least in form discussing, this is— and is intended to be—a wrecking amendment. It is a perfectly legitimate political ploy on the part of the Opposition; very much on the same lines of thought as the proposed reasoned amendment which the Opposition put forward on Second Reading and which the House decided to reject. Nobody knows better than the noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment that, were it to be carried, it would create a situation involving inevitable and substantial delay in carrying out the policy which the Government were elected to carry out; that is to say, the policy of abolishing the Greater London Council. That is the amendment's intention.
I hope that we may consider this amendment with that practical consideration very much in mind. Our position and our decision has been made much easier by the amendment to which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, spoke and which, as I understand it, my noble friend the Minister has said he will be advising your Lordshps to accept. I was suprised that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who is usually such a master of the English language, referred to his proposal as "the third alternative". There is of course no such thing in our language. The third option—if the noble Earl will allow me, however impertintently, to seek to correct his grammar—does seem to offer a complete answer to one of the two points put by the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench opposite.
The noble and learned Lord commented, and I noted down his words, that the proposal in the Bill as it stands was "contemptuously dismissing" the role of the House of Lords in our constitution. I could not help reflecting, when he said that, that he is a most distinguished member of a party which just over a year ago went to the polls seeking a mandate to abolish this House. There has been no conversion so rapid, and I hope so permanent, since St. Paul proceeded to Damascus. I welcome the noble and learned Lord to

1055
the ranks of those—of whom I can claim modestly to be one, at least for my part in the 1968 Bill—who seek to defend the position and rights of this House.
The amendment of noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, seems completely to deal with that argument. The position will be that each House on the same basis will have an opportunity to pronounce on whether this Bill will be put into operation at an early stage in the discussions on the main and substantive Bill. I for my part find that argument wholly satisfying as far as the status and position of this House is concerned, and that is a matter which has always been of very great imporance to me.
The other argument which the noble and learned Lord presented to the Committee was a slightly different one. He referred to the proposals as being unconstitutional. Indeed, he used one of those elegantly-polished phrases of his about the pillars on which the constitution rests. I have often wondered whether they are any more substantial than the supports on which the roof of your Lordships' Chamber rests. I fail to follow the noble and learned Lord as to why a proposal not to allow the members of an elected body to serve out the full term for which they were elected—because it is the intention to substitute a totally different form of organization—and not to go through what would basically be the farce and mockery of an election should be regarded as unconstitutional.
An election held in May of next year,with the main Bill almost certainly in this House by then. would be a waste of money. I am told that one is talking in terms of £3 million or £4 million. It would be a waste of time because what could the ladies and gentlemen who put themselves forward as candidates offer to the electorate as policies, knowing that in a matter of months their term of office would be over?
Moreover, it could be a great deal more than a waste of time; it could be be a very wasteful process—and I hope that the right reverend Prelate does not mind that I am speaking about London—because it has been made abundantly clear by Mr. Livingstone and his colleagues that so long as they are in office, they will forbid their officials to have any contact with the successor authorities, to supply them with information or to give them any help. What useful purpose would be served by deliberately prolonging for a number of months—and I am told it would be something like 11 months—that wasteful, useless period of time?
And what is the agrument for it? The argument for it seems to be that there is something unconstitutional at the end of an elected body's term of office, when you are making changes in ceasing to go through what would be. frankly, the farce of another election. On the question of what is unconstitutional, I differ from the noble and learned Lord with real diffidence—and he knows I mean this—since I have the highest regard for him, not only because he held the office of Lord Chancellor, but also because he held what to him, and certainly to me I think was the even more important office of Recorder of the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. But, with great respect, I utterly fail to see, I must confess, what is unconstitutional about
1056
taking this action as part of the general procedure for this fairly drastic re-organisation of local government.
Finally, may I come to my noble friend the noble Earl behind me, who used the evocative phrase "hands in the till"? I do not myself see that anybody is making any great profit out of this, but that may be the jaundiced view of a former Treasury Minister. As I understood my noble friend, he felt there was something morally wrong not in doing what is being done in the five other areas (including, of course. Liverpool) but in doing what is being done in London, because when done there in this way it would transform a Labour majority into a Conservative one. This simply reflects the fact that the elections in the boroughs which will be taking over from the GLC took place subsequent to those for the GLC, with the result that those of the London electors who had experienced the joys of Labour rule decided they would rather vote Conservative in greater measure, and personally I do not go out of my way to blame them for that decision. They are all properly elected persons, elected, I know the noble Lord will say, to another body, but properly elected to local government in London. The fact, which is purely coincidental, that a majority of them look like being Conservative, whereas the other five areas will be Labour, does not seem to me to justify a phrase such as "hands in the till".
As one who has some knowledge of our present administration I can in all seriousness say that the fact that this transfer would take place must have caused the Government to give the matter very considerable thought because it is such an obvious line of attack upon them. But if it is intended, as it is, that the London boroughs shall take over the administrative functions of the GLC, there can really be no more sensible proposal than to put them in charge during the interim period. They have then every motive for getting things straight as quickly as possible, for achieving economies. for clearing up the very considerable mess which Mr. Livingstone and his friends will have left behind; and that practical event, with its advantages for the London ratepayers, seems to me to outweigh enormously what many argue could be a political embarrassment—that in one of the six cases there would be a choice of political control.
Perhaps once again I may say that I was very glad to hear my noble friend the Minister state that he would accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. If your Lordships so decide, I think it would be a very satisfactory outcome to these discussions. I am quite sure that if your Lordships do so decide, the ingenuity of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will enable them to think up some other ploy for later stages of the Bill.
Lord Somers: I wish to refer to Amendment No. 1, which is the one which is technically before us, and which has been described as a wrecking amendment. I cannot see that it is anything of the sort. I am not for a moment implying that the third option which will eventually be proposed by my noble friend Lord Halsbury is not a better one, but to call this present amendment a wrecking amendment seems to me to be absolute nonsense. All it is doing is seeking to delay the legislation until a suitable time when it will work harmoniously.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord would allow me, I would point out that he has challenged what I said in this respect. Of course, he is right in saying that the amendment's main effect would be to cause very considerable delay and result in a long period during which the Government in London would be left in expensive confusion, with thereby much damage being done to the Government's proposals for a more economical and efficient system. There are occasions—and this is one of them—when delay can be exceedingly damaging, and I stick to the word "wrecking".
Lord Somers: In that case, I can say only that the amount of wrecking which various Governments must have done during the course of their existence must be very considerable.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Oh, it is.
Lord Somers: However, I dare say that this amendment will disappear into nothingness eventually, but I should not like it to go with that label attached to it.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: I intervene for a very brief moment to make a short point arising out of the speech of the noble and learned Lord who moved this amendment. In former (I shall not say happier) days, when the noble and learned Lord was so formidable a forensic opponent, I used to exercise my ingenuity to try to find him in a point of false logic. I did not often succeed, but I think today I have. It is a point which has been referred to already in characteristically forceful and witty terms by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The central point of the noble and learned Lord's submission to the Committee was, of course, a constitutional one. Your Lordships will appreciate that it is one of the virtues of having an unwritten constitution that almost anything can be said regarding any particular point without its being proved wrong.
But the noble and learned Lord today made as his central point the constitutional impropriety, as he put it, of truncating the legislative powers of Parliament and in effect depriving this House of its second chamber function. To many that might seem a grave and serious charge indeed, but hardly, one should think, to anybody of the noble and learned Lord's political persuasion. I find it difficult to reconcile his warm enthusiasm of today for the principle of second chamber government with the opinions and policies in regard to this matter of the party of which he is so distinguished an ornament.
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, or, alternatively, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is to reply to this debate, may I invite whichever of them we have the good fortune to hear to address himself to the following point. I speak of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with equal respect because, although not ever a forensic opponent, he was kind enough to instruct me professionally from time to time, and that is perhaps an even closer bond. The point is this. It is perhaps an unwelcome, but not wholly improbable, hypothesis that the Labour Party might win an election, having gone to the country on a manifesto
1058
which included the proposition or undertaking to abolish the House of Lords. Let us assume that they introduce that Bill in another place and, with their majority, they carry it. It then comes to your Lordships' House, where the position, as I understand it, is governed by the constitutional convention that the Bill, having secured a Second Reading in the other place and there being a manifesto commitment to which it gives effect, your Lordships' House would be denied the opportunity to refuse it a Second Reading here. Of course, the powers of the Parliament Act would, in any case, enable them to get their way in due course.
How does the noble and learned Lord, or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reconcile that position with what they are saying today? Do they give an undertaking to your Lordships' Committee that in those circumstances—hypothetical, unwelcome, but not impossible—they would then from the Front Bench say that they would have none of this unconstitutional procedure and that they would insist that this House retain its powers which they so eloquently argue in favour of today?
Lord Hooson: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene on this point, If the Government proceed with this Bill and establish the Second Reading in the House of Commons as the proper constitutional decision, as it were, has the noble Lord reflected on what a precedent that would be for a Government such as he describes?
Lord Broxbourne: As always, the noble Lord makes an interesting point in an effective way, but, if I may respectfully say so, nothing that he said in any way answers the point I am making. It may be that an unscrupulous Government would seek to use as a precedent for different and inferior purposes what is set up in this Bill; but that is a far cry from saying that the position in regard to second chamber government can be altered in the way that the noble and learned Lord appears to envisage, according to circumstances.
Of course, if he, or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will say, without any qualification, that it is no longer part of the policy of the Labour Party to introduce single chamber government, and if they will solemnly renounce, and for ever, the heretical doctrine of the abolition of this place and the introduction of single chamber government, I would certainly think that this debate has been far from in vain.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, has challenged me by a question. May I first thank him for his courteous reference to me which, if I may say so, was rather more acceptable than the description of me which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, gave to the Committee. Whenever I had the privilege of instructing the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, he always dealt with the facts of the case with remarkable clarity and did not put before the court any hypothesis which was unnecessary. Unfortunately, he has done that today. We are not dealing with this matter at all, but if he asks me a straight question, I give him the answer.
The Opposition are not challenging at all, and my noble and learned friend did not
Challenge at all the

1059
ability of the lower House to pass an abolition Bill relating to the Greater London Council and the six metropolitan county councils. If they did that and it went through this House, the normal traditions would be followed in this House. Therefore, the noble Lord's point appears to me—and I say this with the utmost deference and kindliness—an irrelevance.
Lord Broxbourne: The—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Broxbourne: I thought that was an intervention in my speech.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Broxbourne: I am sorry, but I cannot let that go wholly unanswered. The question on which I invited the noble Lord to give an undertaking was in regard to second chamber government in principle and the policy of the Labour Party in regard to it. That was the point I addressed to him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: That will be the subject of an excellent debate on a future occasion. I am sorry that the noble Lord has embarked upon what is a total irrelevance to this serious debate.
Lord Ingrow: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to raise one point which does not seem to have had the attention which it might have had. The debate has seemed very much London centred. It might be unfortunate if that was the impression to go out from this Chamber. There is a unique sourness, as it were, in relations in London, but that sourness does not exist in the metropolitan counties and districts. The arguments there are on the merits of the case as seen by the different parties. I believe I am right in saying that, if the Bill were carried through, no control of a metropolitan county would change as a result of having representatives from metropolitan districts. There is no bitter feeling against the leaders of the councils—certainly not in my part of the world.
Moreover, the leaders who run the great city councils—those of all the parties—would never, for one second, accept that they are inferior in ability to those who have been elected to run the county councils. In fact. the general trend in my part of the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean, knows, was that the First XI generally batted for the city and the Second XI went to the counties. They are well capable of doing the job.
I add merely one point. For a long time we had what were called aldermen who were elected by the councillors. They were very similar to what is being proposed in the Bill. It was hallowed for a long time. They were not elected by the people. Sometimes they were defeated candidates in an election, and they were promptly put on the council. There seems to be very little difference in principle. I should hate to think that although in the belief of many people, changes are urgently needed in the metropolitan districts of counties, that should have foundered under the general ill-will of the Greater London Council.
Lord Birkett: Since I see that I am invited from the Government Benches to speak, I shall keep what I have to say as short as it is conceivable to do. I have a practical point to make. It has been suggested that interim administrations will be no more than caretaker administrations. I refer not to the great debate on whether there should or should not be elections, but only to caretaker administrations. I say simply that from my experience of London it will not be the case that they will be merely caretaker administrations paving the way for abolition, whether it comes or it does not. They will have an incredible amount of work to do, ongoing from decades before. Please be under no illusion that any 1985 administration will simply be a paving administration.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I feel I must rise to speak at this point. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, declare an interest as an employee of the Greater London Council. I think that would have been in order. I also declare an interest as an elected member of the Greater London Council.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble Lord indicated his interest on Second Reading.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble and learned Lord. I thought that perhaps many people here today who had not been present on the previous occasion would not know of that and might have though differently about it.
I wish to comment briefly on another reason why today there is such concern about London compared with the other metropolitan counties. It is because £6 million is being spent on the publicity campaign. It seems that in our debate the discussion has ranged in two ways between those who wish to abolish the cancellation of the elections and those who do not wish to abolish the cancellation of the elections but are concerned about the change in political control. I should like to comment briefly on those two points.
First of all. I was concerned about the change of political control, but when I looked into it more carefully I noticed that the local London councils had all been elected much more recently than had the GLC and had gone much more Conservative. Then only last year the London Members of Parliament were elected, and again they had gone very much more Conservative. Therefore I think that it is really quite by chance that the proportion of people who would represent those boroughs would come forward and be more Conservative than Labour. We must not be misled by that point. I think that to create artificially, as my noble friend Lord Onslow suggested, a situation where we would produce an unelected Labour majority would be to reject the views that have already been cast through the ballot box in London in 1982 and 1983.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in particular should appreciate that, if the Halsbury amendment is better, then if he votes for this one he has lost the Halsbury one. If this amendment were passed, we should not be able to have the Halsbury amendment, and I think that it is a much better amendment because it would bring the matter back to this House again for further consideration. That, I must say,

1061
would satisfy me. I want to see an affirmative resolution in both Houses.
5.20 p.m
Lord Bellwin: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in opening said that he hoped that the debate would not widen too much on aspects other than the specific amendment. I think that he would concede that it has done so rather more than he might have hoped. I shall endeavour not to take it wider than is strictly necessary.
The amendment seeks to hold up the election provisions until Royal Assent has been given to the main abolition Bill. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I would point out that, whatever the amendment is or is not, no one, least of all the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, would deny that its effect is to undermine the paving Bill—indeed, I think that he actually said this. I think that it is necessary for me to explain a little more as to why that is.
It is essential that the basis on which the Government are proposing to proceed is clearly understood, and also why it is just not possible to adopt the proposal in the amendment. This requires me—and I shall do it as briefly as I can—carefully to explain the relationship between this Bill and the main abolition Bill. I suspect that even now that may require further clarification.
This amendment is about the time when a commencement order to bring the election's provisions into force will be made. The Government have made it absolutely clear that the timing of such a commencement order will depend upon the progress of the main abolition Bill. Categorical undertakings have been given that the order will not be made unless and until that main Bill is given a Second Reading in another place. But, as I explained on 21st June in reply to a Written Question by my noble friend Lord Nugent, the making of a commencement order will not in any way pre-empt detailed examination by your Lordships of every line of the main Bill. For this paving Bill to come into irreversible effect, the main Bill will still have to go through all the usual stages, both here and in another place, and to be enacted. Every opportunity will be given to your Lordships to consider in detail all the proposals in the main abolition Bill. I cannot emphasise this too strongly.
I have also explained that if at any stage the main Bill were to fall, then this paving Bill itself already contains the means of restoring the status quo. The mechanisms for this are clearly set out in Clause 1(2). My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given an undertaking, which I gladly repeat, that if the main Bill fails, he will make an order under this provision to restore the GLC and MCC elections without delay. This means that if the main Bill were to fail at an early stage, it would be possible to restore the May 1985 elections. If it failed at a later stage—that is some time in the spring or summer of next year—the May elections would already have been cancelled, of course, but new elections would be held as soon as practicable later in 1985. Thus the provisions of the paving Bill would in effect then have been nullified. I hope that that clarifies the relationship between the paving Bill and the main abolition Bill.
1062
Nevertheless, the Government are fully conscious of the concern that has been expressed that even the careful arrangement that I have just explained may not provide your Lordships with sufficient assurance that their views will be taken adequately into account before the commencement order activating Part II of this Bill is made. There is some feeling—which I understand—that it would be preferable if a commencement order were not to be made without allowing your Lordships' House another opportunity to express a later view on the cancellation of elections—even if there is by then a decision in another place in favour of the principle of abolition of the GLC and the MCCs. It is therefore timely that an amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy. That amendment provides that the commencement order bringing Part II of the Act into force must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I should like to confirm—as I said in a brief interruption earlier, and as I have indicated to those who tabled the amendment—that the Government are prepared to accept this amendment. That means that both Houses will have a further opportunity to sanction the cancellation of the elections and the creation of transitional councils.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said—and I jotted it down as he said it—that this is in no way a major concession. I believe that those were his very words. I read in the newspapers that it has even been suggested that this amendment is a minimal change and even that it is purely cosmetic. That I do not accept. It is an important and major modification to the Government's proposals. It has been made in response to the concerns expressed by noble Lords in many parts of the House. How often have I been pressed in recent years to make the implementation of legislation subject to the affirmative resolution procedure! To say now that that procedure is not a major change, or to imply that it does not matter, is surely less than fair, and it makes no sense of the continued attempts that are so often made here to have the affirmative procedure written into legislation. We cannot have it both ways.
It has been said that the Government's proposals are unprecedented. But then never before have a Government abolished an entire tier of local government and replaced it with either a number of existing, wholly-elected bodies, or with members of boards appointed directly by and from those elected bodies. However, what is fully precedented is the cancellation of local elections in anticipation of a major reorganisation of local authorities. This happened in the 1963 and 1972 Acts. The reason for this step is very clear in the present case.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter put it so well. Would it not be an absurdity to allow the May 1985 elections to proceed at the very moment when the main abolition Bill is going through Parliament? It seems to be suggested that it would be desirable for elections to be held at the very time when this issue is being considered by Parliament. Would it not be a still greater absurdity if the electors were being asked to vote for an 11-month transitional council after the main abolition Bill had been given a Second Reading

1063
in both Houses, as could most probably be the case? Of course there are those who would wish to turn the elections into a referendum about abolition; but would that be a proper purpose of local elections? Where would be the precedent for that?
To respond to the point made by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, the choice before the Government was not whether the present memberships of the GLC and the MCCs, having run for their full four-year terms, the elections should be cancelled. Rather it was whether those councillors should be given a further 11-month term of office, or whether they should be replaced by representatives of the local councils who will inherit the upper-tier functions. This choice was available to us because—and this is why arguments based on past precedents are inappropriate and badly founded—uniquely on this occasion, the successor authorities already exist. As to my noble friend's other proposals, perhaps I can refer to them when we come to debate later amendments.
There is a critical, vital and practical reason for the Government to resist this amendment. There has to be some weeks' notice of the cancellation of elections in May. The present timetable provides for the introduction in another place of the main abolition Bill in November followed by Second Reading in December. Allowing for full consideration of such a substantial piece of legislation means that the Bill is unlikely to reach this House for its Second Reading before early April, probably less than a month before the elections would be due to be held. My noble friend Lord Molson said that it is not good enough to pray in aid timetable considerations as justification for the Government's proposals. But such considerations are critical.
I need hardly repeat that the commitment to abolish the upper-tier metropolitan authorities was there for all to see in the Conservative Party election manifesto. The Government proposals are consistent with the manifesto undertaking. They are carefully thought through. The Government are fully entitled to establish a timescale within which, subject of course to the approval of Parliament, their proposals shall be implemented. The timetable for abolition is entirely sensible, practicable and justifiable.
It should now be clear why the cancellation of the elections cannot be tied to the main Bill receiving Royal Assent. The proposers of the amendment surely realise that it would be impossible to complete the detailed consideration of the Bill with the thorough-ness that it merits in time to cancel the May 1985 elections. The only way in which the main abolition Bill could be enacted in time to allow a sensible decision to be taken on the cancellation of the May elections would be to cut short consideration of the main Bill. I am sure that that is not something that anyone is proposing.
The amendment seeks to stop a commencement order being made until the main abolition Bill has received Royal Assent. It is said that this represents merely a prudent means of ensuring that the paving provisions do not prejudge the principle of abolition. In fact, the election provisions do not prejudge the principle of abolition. In spite of what has been said, the movers of the amendment know that the main Bill
1064
will be long, complex and detailed, and that a Bill of that nature could not possibly come to Royal Assent or even to your Lordships' House in time to cancel the May elections.
I do not think that I need to speak at great length or to widen the matter more than necessary. In conclusion, therefore, let me say this. In no way are the Government making what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. referred to as "an easy assumption of parliamentary compliance". To refer to our proposals as a contemptuous dismissal of your Lordships' House is less than the reasonable and fair comment that we have come to know, and which I have always received, from the noble and learned Lord, for whom I have such a great personal regard and respect.
There is nothing in the Bill before us today, there will be nothing in the main abolition Bill when it is presented. which will prevent both Houses of Parliament from scrutinising, debating, and, if that is their will, approving every clause, every line and every word of each Bill before it receives Royal Assent. Nothing—I repeat, nothing—that is enacted in this paving Bill is irreversible. The Government do take the democratic processes seriously. Nothing that we are proposing will weaken that.
Let it be clearly understood beyond all doubt by everyone that this paving Bill contains within itself now the means of self-destruction if it is the will of Parliament that abolition should not proceed. There is nothing in either this Bill, nor will there be in the main abolition Bill, that will preclude the necessity for both Houses to go through and approve the Government's abolition proposals—the noble Lord, Lord Hayter said it, and I repeat it (I said so on Second Reading)—line by line and word by word. It is on this basis that I invite your Lordships to recognise how misguided is the effect of this amendment. I ask you with all the conviction at my command to reject it in the Division Lobby.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Hooson: On behalf of the proposers of the amendment, I have undertaken to reply to the debate. Your Lordships are rightly troubled about this Bill because it does create a very difficult constitutional precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, posed the question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as to what a Labour Government would do or might not do. I have no brief for a Labour Government. I think that I would be in order in quoting what the Conservative Party said in its manifesto about the supremacy of Parliament. It said:
"The British Constitution has outlasted most of the alternatives which have been offered as replacements. It is because we stand firm for the supremacy of Parliament that we are determined to keep its rules and procedures in good repair".
It goes on to say:
"Labour want to abolish the House of Lords. We will ensure that it has a secure and effective future. A strong Second Chamber is a vital safeguard for democracy and contributes to good government".
I wish to dwell on the words "a vital safeguard for democracy". The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in a typical contribution, which we all enjoyed very

1065
much, referred to the farce of an election. Those are very dangerous words. When we talk of elections, it is so easy to ridicule them and to talk of them as being farcical. Once we embark on that road, we do not know where it would lead us. I know that the noble Lord spoke of the farce of an election in the context of elections to the GLC and the MCCs when the ensuing body elected might only have power for 11 months. I suggest that in practice every indication is that they would have power for longer. There would be need for an enabling Bill because of the difficulties of the administrative change-over—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I used the word "farce" deliberately because, unlike the noble Lord, I am quite clear that if these elections were to take place, those elected would serve for no more than 11 months. I would have thought that the noble Lord, as one who believes in democratic government, would think that to go through the process of elections with a policy and proposals put to the electors, knowing that the chopper comes down in 11 months, is a situation to which I could apply a stronger word than "farce", but that would not be parliamentary.
Lord Hooson: All that I can say is that I strongly disagree with the noble Lord. It seems to me that we have in our debate today wandered again from the main issue. We have discussed the merits or the demerits of abolishing the GLC and the MCCs. We are not considering that. We are considering this paving Bill. I stated on Second Reading—I do not want to repeat it—that the use of the phrase "a decision of Parliament", and I had drawn attention to it in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, was, so far as I knew, fairly unprecedented. I noticed, too, although I did not refer to this on Second Reading, that the Long Title of the Bill—the Government must have drawn up the Long Title—deliberately and with the greatest care refers to
"pending a decision by Parliament".
With the aid of our excellent Library service, I have carried out a search to find out if that term has ever been used in legislation before. I find that it has—on one occasion. I find that the occasion it was used, believe it or not, was the Solomon Islands Indepen-dence Order. Section 71 of that Order reads:
"Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, all questions proposed for decision in Parliament shall be determined by a majority"
of the people. That is a decision of the Solomon Islands Parliament. However, it is absolutely unprece-dented in the history of the Parliament of this country to use the term "a decision of Parliament" in any enactment.
Let me remind your Lordships that in another place the Minister responsible gave an undertaking that he would not introduce an order under subsection (1) until there had been a Second Reading of the main Bill in that House. This was surely tantamount to saying, in the context of this Bill, that the Second Reading in another place was a decision of Parliament. That, surely, is a completely unacceptable proposition. It is quite right that no steps should be taken with regard to this Bill before a decision of Parliament has been taken, but surely that decision is taken only when Royal Assent has been given to the major Bill.
1066
Let me come to the basic principles which seem to have escaped many of your Lordships in the contributions some of your Lordships have made today. Let me quote from Erskine May, the current edition:
"Parliament … is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons; these several powers collectively form the legislature".
Of course, it was the great jurist, Lord Hale, who said that when the Royal Assent has been given to Bills agreed to by both Houses, that resulted in
"the compliment and perfection of a law".
A decision is not a technical term. But it is a term that is clearly understood in its normal use. In Stroud a definition that is suggested is, "a concluded opinion". I would commend that term to your Lordships. A concluded opinion of Parliament is obtained when the Royal Assent has been given and when it is no longer possible to amend the opinion of Parliament. It can be superseded, but it cannot then be amended.
In my submission it is totally unacceptable to the House and to the people of this country that a decision of Parliament could be regarded as anything less than that. There are, however, abundant precedents in the courts for the use of the term, "decision of Parliament". For example, one finds in this decade courts constantly referring to it. A decision in the Court of Appeal said:
"Having regard to the recent decision of Parliament to make effective the provisions of a certain Act …".
In the Employment Appeal Tribunal, for example, it was stated that,
"It could be said there is an anomaly in the decision of Parliament to exclude certain classes of people".
On a number of occasions it has been referred to in the Court of Appeal.
I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sitting opposite, not in his customary position. Earlier today noble and learned Lords have referred to his contributions to our political life. If I may say so. he has contributed by bell, book and candle. I will not recall the bell, and I quoted from the book last time. Indeed, I think the book might be his greatest contribution to our political life. But let me now turn to the candle: when he has sought to illumine our law when sitting in his judicial capacity in the famous case of Hyam and The Director of Public Prosecutions in 1975. When he was delivering a judgment of the court he said this, at page 71:
"Such at least is the proper inference to be drawn from the decision of Parliament to enact the first, and the failure of Parliament to enact the second of two draft clauses in the law commissioners' recommendation".
Clearly he used the term, "decision of Parliament", quite rightly, to refer to an enactment. Therefore, I submit to your Lordships that the term, "decision of Parliament", in this Bill, imported as it is into the Long Title, imported as it is into the Explanatory Memorandum, can mean only what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred to it as, in his judgment in Hyam. A decision of Parliament is taken when an enactment is completed.
This amendment is not a wrecking amendment at all. It is an amendment that is couched deliberately out of the terms in which the Bill itself is couched. It is not

1067
a wrecking amendment. It is a significant amendment, because it restores what I believe is the proper constitutional position. In my Second Reading speech I quoted the observations made in 1975 by the noble Lord. Lord Carrington, on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. May I quote again from his speech on that occasion? It might be of great importance, in view of what has been said about what a Labour Government do and what a Conservative Government do.
I quote from column 1741 of Hansard of 11th November 1975:
"Mr. Foot talks about the impropriety of an unelected House challenging the Commons, but he and others who feel like him must make up their mind what they want. Do they want a single Chamber Government? If they do, I, for one, would view that with the gravest possible misgivings. Nor do I think it possible that a single Chamber could adequately manage the legislation brought forward by any Government. I am quite sure that Mr. Foot and those others do not want an elected Second Chamber. Nor do I think that many other Members of another place would wish it, for an elected Second Chamber would have to be given more power and not less, and that increased power would be at the expense of the House of Commons".
It seems to me that the crisis before your Lordships' House is this. When there has been a Labour Government, on occasions your Lordships have passed what have been called wrecking amendments. I can give noble Lords chapter and verse for it; I did so on Second Reading. On the other hand, when there is a Conservative Government, what this House has relied on is, as it were, transmitting the feeling of the House through the usual channels; that is, the Leader of the House has, I think, interpreted to the Cabinet of the day how this House has felt—not, as it were, how it voted. Because of its traditional Conservative majority, this House has always voted with a Conservative Government; but, in fact, the Leader of the House has transmitted to the Cabinet the feelings of the House, although perhaps not reflected in the vote. I doubt whether that process is effective today. I think that probably it is necessary for your Lordships to pass an amendment like this to bring home to the Government exactly how your Lordships feel on this matter.
I want to deal now with the effect of the Halsbury amendment. I think it is quite misleading. I understand perfectly the reasons why the noble Earl and his colleagues put it down. just as I understand why the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, put down his amendment. Clearly they are embarrassed by the position in which the Government find themselves and they have tried to find for them an easy way out. There are no easy ways out in this situation, because the effect of the amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, would be to require the Government to bring in an affirmative resolution.
Let me remind your Lordships of the view of the Leader of this House about affirmative instruments. On 14th May this year, at col. 1268 of Hansard, one finds this Question asked by the noble Lord. Lord Chelwood:
"whether they would regard the rejection by the House of Lords of an affirmative instrument activating Part II of the Rates Bill as consistent with constitutional propriety as well as politically acceptable; and what precedents there are since 1945 for the rejection of an affirmative instrument by the House of Lords".
1068
The Lord President of the Council, Viscount Whitelaw, said:
"There is a well established convention that the House of Lords does not vote against the Second Reading of a mandated Government Bill. Since the House has always exercised restraint in the use of its powers in relation to subordinate legislation, it might be regarded as inconsistent with this convention if the House were to reject an affirmative instrument to implement Part II of the Rates Bill, for which the Government have a specific electoral mandate.
"Since 1945 only one affirmative instrument has been rejected in the House of Lords, namely, the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968. The order was subsequently re-laid and agreed to".
Therefore, what is being suggested, and of course what the Government grasp with both hands, is really a cosmetic amendment. It will have no effect. If they are right about the constitutional propriety of opposing an affirmative order, it means nothing. Therefore, they simply make a concession which is not real in practical terms.
The amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, would extend the life of the present councils. I should have thought that that was objectionable on the grounds stated by the Prime Minister herself in the House of Commons. On 12th June, 1984 at column 768 of Hansard for the other place, the Prime Minister said:
"The issue was not whether the elections should be cancelled. The issue was whether GLC councillors should continue [in Office] for a further year or whether others should continue for a further year. As the hon. Member for South Shields … said from the Opposition Front Bench … he could sympathise with the Government's belief that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. The question was whether we should prolong the mandate of GLC councillors after that mandate had been exhausted, which would have been a wrong precedent which could have been used to prolong the mandate, for example, of the House. That would have been constitutionally wrong".
If the Prime Minister addressed her mind to this Bill and imagined how this Bill could be used as a constitutional precedent for the future, then I think she would be serving the interests of this country better.
To my mind this is not an issue to be fudged and to be dealt with by means of a compromise based on no principles whatever, and which will merely have a cosmetic effect. The attitude of your Lordships' House to what is constitutionally objectionable in this Bill will govern for years the view that is taken of your Lordships' House throughout the country. It is fair to say that especially since the broadcasting of Parliament the public esteem for your Lordships' House has risen and the public esteem for the other place has fallen. That is regrettable, but it is not your Lordships' fault.
Moreover, it is fair to say that the really constructive opposition to the Government has been more manifest in this House and that is because of the workings of "the elective dictatorship" which the noble and learned Lord has so eloquently described in his works. If I may say so to him—because he has been commenting sotto voce on my speech throughout—I wish that he had entered this debate in the light of his writings, because it seems to me that when he is in Opposition he sees the problem of the elective dictatorship crystal clear, but when he is on the Woolsack or sitting opposite he sees it as though through a glass darkly. The truth is that what he has pointed out in his book and the problems he

1069
highlighted in his lecture are coming to fruition through his own Government.
Mention has been made of what Labour Governments do. The Labour Government have never tried to ignore the House of Lords. They have never suggested that a decision—
Several Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hooson: With great respect, I have no mandate for a Labour Government; I would oppose them as much as I would oppose this Government. But let me say this. There is no precedent for a Labour Government trying to ignore the House of Lords by saying that a decision of Parliament is a decision of the House of Commons only.
Lord Boothby: May I ask the noble Lord a question: in the interests of the whole Committee would he now shut up?
Lord Hooson: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord. in his interests I might be prepared to do so, but of course it is not in the interests of the Committee as a whole, save that we are all anxious now to take a decision on this amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: With those words I heartily concur. The Committee I am sure now wants to come to a decision.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 191; Not-Contents. 143.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Chitnis, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Alport, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Amherst, E.

Collison, L.

Ardwick, L.

Congleton, L.

Arran, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Aylestone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Balogh, L.

David, B.

Banks, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Barnett, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bernstein, L.

Denington, B.

Beswick, L.

Diamond, L.

Birdwood, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Birk, B.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Birkett, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blease, L.

Elysian-Morgan, L.

Boothby, L.

Ennals, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bowden, L.

Ezra, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Falkender, B.

Brimelow, L.

Falkland, V.

Brockway, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L

Fitt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Flowers, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Foot, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Fulton, L.

Caradon, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Chandos, V.

Galpern, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Gardiner, L.

1070

George-Brown, L.

Minto, E.

Gifford, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Molloy, L.

Glenconner, L.

Molson, L.

Gosford, E.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Mountevans, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Mulley, L.

Gregson, L.

Nicol, B.

Grey, E.

Ogmore, L.

Grimond, L.

Oram, L.

Hale, L.

Parry, L.

Hampden, V.

Peart, L.

Hampton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Phillips, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Plant, L.

Hayter, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Head, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Henniker, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Prys-Davies, L.

Heycock, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Rea, L.

Hooson, L.

Reilly, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rhodes, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Roberthall, L.

Ilchester, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ingleby, V.

Rochester, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Jacobson, L.

Scanlon, L.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

James of Rusholme, L.

Segal, L.

Jeger, B.

Shackleton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sharp, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Simon, V.

Kagan, L.

Soper, L.

Kahn, L.

Stallard, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Kearton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Stone, L.

Kissin, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strauss, L.

Leatherland, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lever of Manchester, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Tordoff, L.

Lewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wade, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Longford, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McCarthy, L.

Whaddon, L.

McCluskey, L.

White, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Willis, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mais, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mar, C.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Mayhew, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Brookes, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Avon, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Bauer. L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom. L.

Bellwin, L.

Cayzer, L.

Beloff, L.

Charteris of Amisfield. L.

Belstead, L.

Cockfield, L.

Bessborough, E.

Coleraine, L.

Boardman, L.

Colwyn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

1071

Cork and Orrery, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cowley, E.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Middleton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Milne, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Milverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monson, L.

Daventry, V.

Morris,

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Digby, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dormer, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne. L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Dudley, E.

Northchurch. B.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Northesk, E.

Eccles, V.

Nugent of Guildford. L.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Porritt, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Portland, D.

Foley, L.

Radnor, E.

Forte, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gainsborough, E

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodney, L.

Gowrie, E.

Romney, E.

Gray, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rugby, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gridley, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint

Sandford, L.

Marylebone, L.

Selborne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Selkirk, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shannon, E.

Henley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hood, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Soames, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Ingrow, L.

Stamp, L.

Ironside, L.

Strathspey, L.

Jessel, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Kemsley, V.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Killearn, L.

Terrington. L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Vaizey, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Luke, L.

Vickers, B.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Mancroft, L.

Windlesham, L.

Marley, L.

Wise, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.7 p.m.
Clause 1 [Commencement and termination of interim provisions]:
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
[Printed earlier: col. 1035.]
The noble Viscount said: I am a little uncertain as to where we go from here—nowhere! May I ask noble Lords for some guidance? I do not believe that I now have an amendment to move. Therefore, I should like to ask for guidance.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Perhaps I may venture a few words of what may not on first sight appear to be impartial guidance. In the circumstances, perhaps the noble Viscount will think of withdrawing his amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I did not ask for partial or impartial guidance. Perhaps I should have guidance from my own Front Bench.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): Perhaps I shall fail on this occasion, as I failed on the last, because I understand that it is a somewhat complex procedure. However, I think that technically the truth is that the amendment really falls, and therefore it is probably correct that my noble friend should withdraw it at this stage.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful to my noble friend, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Noble Lords: Not moved!
Viscount Whitelaw: I ought to say that I have put it exactly the opposite way round; it should be exactly the reverse of what I said! It is like one of those great things in life which is always so good—it comes to exactly the same conclusion in the end. But my noble friend should withdraw his amendment.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 10, after "may" insert ("and in the event that a Bill for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and for the transfer of their functions does not receive Royal Assent, shall").
The noble Baroness said: I think that this amendment still stands. I believe that we are all a little confused after that tremendous victory. This amendment seeks to insert a guarantee into the Bill that an order will be made to rescind Parts II to IV if the main abolition Bill is not passed. Clause 1(2), as at present drafted, gives the Secretary of State a power to make an order, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. which would repeal the provisions of Parts II to IV of the Bill.
There is however nothing in the Bill which would compel the Secretary of State to make such an order. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, stated that it was the Government's intention to use this power if the main Bill failed in the course of its passage. However, as for the undertaking not to introduce immediately the order to cancel elections, no safeguard exists in the Bill to give force to this ministerial statement. The amendment that has now been passed acts partially as a safeguard.
If the Government resist this amendment I believe they will further undermine confidence in the purposes behind the Bill. The situation could arise where the main Bill could still be under discussion at the time when the interim councillors take over their functions. I am not sure whether this amendment is redundant in view of the amendment that has been passed.
Lord Bellwin: It is a different point.
Baroness Birk: What this amendment seeks to ensure is that the provisions of the paving Bill, including those dealing with the staff commissions and the provisions of Clauses 7 to 9, cease if the main Bill is not passed—this is the core of the amendment—and that the status quo is restored as soon as possible. This procedure would reinstate proper control by Parliament over the actions of the Secretary of State and it would remove any possibility that interim councillors could he appointed or remain in office if the main Bill were to fail. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: I assume that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. The Government cannot accept these amendments. We feel that the amendments would confuse the position. Without going into a great deal of discussion (which I shall do if the noble Baroness would like me to do so), we feel that the arguments and considerations on behalf of these amendments are somewhat academic. Amendment No. 8 is probably unworkable. How can we define when a Bill has not received Royal Assent? We could say that the main Bill has not received Royal Assent today. We could say that the day the paving Bill receives Royal Assent. the main Bill has not received Royal Assent. So the day the paving Bill receives Royal Assent is the day that the Secretary of State must, according to this amendment, repeal it. Even if we are a little more lenient in our interpretation of the amendment, it is still not clear as to what stage a Bill can be deemed to have failed to receive Royal Assent.
What if a Bill simply runs out of time and then has to be reintroduced in the next Session? Of course all these considerations are academic: but the simple fact is that should the main abolition Bill fail, the paving Bill will no longer be necessary, useful, or relevant. These amendments would simply serve to confuse the position, and in those circumstances perhaps the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Did I understand the Minister to say that he is taking Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together? In that case it would be appropriate to indicate our views on Amendment 9.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps I ought to say a little more about Amendment No. 9 because there seems to be some confusion as to what it is.
Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("and") to ("including") in line 3 and insert ("supplementary and consequential provisions as are necessary for the purposes of the order").
This appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the purpose and effect of subsection (3) of Clause 1. Subsection (3) is there to help in restoring elections should abolition not go ahead. It is the means by which elections could be reintroduced to the electoral cycle. For example, if abolition failed at some point after May 1985, it would be necessary to restore elections but with those elected serving less than the normal four-year period of office. For they would serve until May 1989, when ordinary elections to the upper tier would again be due. That is the sort of transitional arrangement envisaged by Clause 1(3).
There is no question of the clause applying outside the metropolitan areas. The transitional arrangements
1074
relate to an order made under Clause 1(2). That clause applies only to the metropolitan areas. The powers under subsection (3) are not unfettered: they can only be used to make such modifications or provisions as are necessary or expedient to achieve two effects: to repeal the Act, and to restore the original situation. Again, I have greater clarification if the noble Lord wishes; but that is the gist of the point as to why I said earlier that we felt that it would simply serve to confuse, and that is why we do not wish to accept it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Minister is speaking to a situation which has been radically changed by the decision of the first vote this evening. I can well understand when a Minister talks about confusion that the confusion is shared by all noble Lords as to precisely the effect on Clause 1. We are satisfied and delighted that our amendment received the approbation of the Committee. An Opposition needs to anticipate situations, and the Minister in saying that these amendments are not acceptable is speaking from the position that he first of all does not like our actions in respect of Amendment No. 1, and as a consequence these follow.
So far as we are concerned quite clearly not only have the Government and the Minister to reflect and to react to the decision that was taken, but the Government have also to come to a view on other matters. It may be that at the end of this debate on this side of the Committee we shall not press these amendments at this stage to a vote, but we are certainly not minded simply to make speedy progress on these amendments at this stage. The points that we raise—I speak particularly in respect of Amendment No. 9—are real and valid.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to strike out of Clause 1(3) the words:
"supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient".
It is the words "thinks necessary or expedient" to which we take exception. In practice these matters will have to go to court. It is clear that at every stage at which this particular piece of legislation makes progress—even though it may limpingly make progress—there is likely to be a challenge. We believe that it would be intolerable to give the Secretary of State any further powers than would be necessary to, what he terms, "clear up the mess" of his own interim arrangements.
We would want to consider carefully before we give extensive powers to the Secretary of State to amend other legislation in a Bill designed to deal with interim provisions. Clause 1(3) says:
"An order under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provisions modifying the Local Government Act 1972 (in this Act referred to as 'the principal Act') or the Representation of the People Act 1983."
The Committee should seriously reflect on this.
I am not saying that the Government are trying to do anything underhanded. By spelling out precisely what they want on the face of the Bill they give me my case. The Committee needs to reflect seriously on what the Government have said all along is an interim relationship. The part to which we take exception says:
"provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient".

1075
We think that that is enormously wide, and we want to challenge and resist making progress in passing Clause 1(3) as quickly—and I do not want to be offensive—as the Minister may have felt unnecessary.
In the course of the interim appointment arrangements, the dismantling of the staff commission and a great many other things. we say there is no certainty in any interpretation which the Minister may care to believe he has regarding the words:
"as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient".
We believe that that is far too sweeping a power to give to any Secretary of State, particularly in relation to this matter at this time in the circumstances of the failure of the main legislation. Recognising what happened here 10 or 15 minutes ago, and recognising what another place may do at the behest of the Government in relation to what happened, we are saying that if there is a failure of the main legislation the Government would have to move quickly to reinstate the elections and to cancel the interim provisions.
I did not hear all that the Minister said, but he certainly said that that would be the Government's intention if the main purport of the legislation was negatived—that is the main Bill, not this Bill—and they would act immediately to put the matter right.
We want to make it quite clear that the supplementary provisions would only be intra vires if they were necessary for the purposes of an order under Clause 1(2). Amendment No. 9 seeks to insert the crucial word "consequential". In other words, they should only be matters which can be seen to be directly related to and which flow from (that is consequential to) the provisions and subject to the following tests: they need to be transitional; they need to be supplementary and they need to be consequential. Amendment No. 9 introduces a safeguard to the order-making powers of the Secretary of State.
I appreciate that conversations are taking place about the best way to make progress in this matter. These are arguments that we have come here tonight prepared to make and which we believe are valid and sensible. We are not satisfied that the Minister has fully assured us either of their invalidity or as to the manner in which the details inside Clause 1 stand, remain and are capable of being activated, or not, in the light of the decision that we have made.
In the ordinary course of events—tonight events have not been ordinary—there are strong reasons why we on these Benches and others in other places would want to be absolutely certain that the Secretary of State has the powers he wants, but we do not want him to have even those. If he has powers in these matters we must ensure that they are circumscribed as tightly as possible and certainly as tightly as Amendment No. 9 seeks to impose.
Lord Monson: Is it not the case that Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 deal with quite separate matters? It is possible to disagree with the first, as I do, and to agree with the second. Is it not therefore extremely confusing to have to deal with both at the same time?
Lord Bellwin: Of course one can always do that, although as always I assume through the normal
1076
procedures that this is an agreed basis for discussion and debate beforehand. I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, makes. I understand his difficulty which I think is regrettable. Clearly it is up to him, if he wishes, to make his observations known; he will have to come to a conclusion on that.
As a response to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, there is not a great deal that I want to add at this stage about this. I made the observation earlier and obviously I will want to read what the noble Lord has said, but for the time being, subject to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, may wish to say, presumably he will have to make his own decision about how he proceeds from here.
Baroness Birk: On Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 I think that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right. In the excitement of the moment when I saw the grouping I had meant to ask to have them dealt with separately. If one does ask Ministers, they are always very agreeable about this, but we did not and as we did not know what effect the amendment that has now been passed would have on it, it made our task difficult. Having said that, we now withdraw Amendment No. 8. If it is necessary when we have all had a chance to go into this matter we will come back with both amendments at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next amendment is Amendment No. 10 and I understand that it is convenient to discuss Amendment No. 10A with it.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("under subsection (2) above").
Amendment No. 10A: printed earlier.
The noble Baroness said: This is a different amendment. It is true that when the noble Earl spoke to Amendment No. 10A—they are identical, except for one word in the drafting—the Minister chose Amendment No. 10A. At that time it was put forward (although we do not see it in that way) as an alternative to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. This is entirely different. I think I am right—if not, the Minister will tell me—in saying that this has not fallen as a result of what happened on Amendment No. 1.
As the noble Earl explained earlier, the purpose is the setting up of provisions where interim control is to be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Under Clause 1(1) the order to implement Part II requires the approval of neither House of Parliament. The Secretary of State has stated that it would be his intention that the order should not be made until after Second Reading of the main Bill in the House of Commons. That has been changed, as of this moment, and is different now.
Lord Bellwin: I think it would be helpful both to the noble Baroness and to the noble Earl if I repeated that what I said on the previous amendment still applies. The Government feel that the amendment in the

1077
name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and his supporters is marginally preferable. We think it achieves that which is desired and the Government are prepared to accept it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I wonder if I may be allowed to intervene. I think we are in the same slight state of "chassis and confusion", speaking for us on this side at any rate. It is now half-past six and I wondered whether we might adjourn the discussion of these matters? There is some intervening business in the dinner hour as I understand it. I am sure the noble Lord knows me well enough not to think that I am making a tactical manoeuvre, but we are in a state of uncertainty about how we proceed. If it is thought that that would be a sensible course to take, I venture to think it would be.
Lord Broxbourne: Before my noble friend replies to that suggestion, may I suggest another course? That is that we pass to Amendment No. 15 which would just nicely occupy the time to a more conventional hour. This amendment deals, uncontroversially, with the City of London and does not touch upon all these difficult and controversial topics.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My point is simple and valid. We have embarked on these amendments; we are in the course of debating them. It would be quite unusual to break off now. My noble friend the Minister has suggested what seems to be a reasonable course: that we should accept these amendments. The Bill, in any event, will have to be looked at during later stages and in another place, in view of what happened earlier this evening. It would, in my view, be very much improved if the noble Earl's amendment goes in. I would suggest, with respect, that whether or not we adjourn when this has been dealt with, we at least finish work we have started on these particular amendments. I cannot see any reason why we should break off at this stage.
Lord Mottistone: May I support my noble friend. It seems to me that what people are forgetting is that there is a Report stage to come. As has been said, there is a lot of room for not moving amendments at this stage (unless they are clearly going to be useful) and bringing them in at Report. I should have thought that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was one which would be valuable, anyhow, but that some of the other amendments might well he not moved at this stage.
Lord George-Brown: Here I am supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. We are now—and I am glad that the noble Viscount has returned—in a state of real confusion here. What happened was not a minor matter, but quite a major thing. Here I am calling into account my experience in the other place, and a lot of us have had that. The obvious point now would be for the Minister to rise and say, in whatever words are used in this place, the equivalent of what would have been said in the other place, which would be that he would move progress and ask leave to sit again. In this Chamber, presumably, we have a different set of words.
1078
As I understood it, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has said, "We will now take supper and then we shall come back". But at the moment we are dealing with things which have been tremendously affected by what has gone before. It would be rather ridiculous to go on with these amendments. We do not know whether the Bill will be the same. May I sincerely ask the noble Viscount whether it would not really be sensible now to let us all take a little break, let the Government consider what they now want to do in the light of what happened earlier, and then let us come back? Personally I should have thought that the best thing would be to come back another day, not to return later this evening. But we cannot go on sensibly
Several Lords: Oh!
Lord George-Brown: One keeps on getting interrupted here. That does not really help, either. If you really want to make enemies out of friends, this is a good way of doing it. Would it not be sensible now to say that that was a watershed, that something significant happened? The Government may want to fight, but they have to think how they will do it. I really suggest that it would be more sensible, in whatever sense is right in this Chamber, to do what I know we would do in the other House, which would be to break off for a while, to let the Government think what they want to do, and then to resume it from there on. I do not know quite how we do it, but I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. At least let us take supper, go away for a short while, and then let the Government consult. The Minister here can, presumably, consult other Ministers, possibly take the thing away for a day or two and bring it back to us when they have made up their minds. But if they really want to fight it—and they are going to lose—then let them do it. We cannot go on like this in a piecemeal way, taking amendments which make no sense in the light of what we have just done.
Viscount Whitelaw: I am most anxious to help and. naturally, I accept that the Government lost a major amendment. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and his noble friends strongly argued a short time ago that their amendment was in no sense a wrecking amendment. If they argued that—which they did argue—I am entitled to say that they are not wrecking the Bill. Therefore, we should continue with our discussion. The logic of that to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, must be complete. I must say to the noble and learned Lord that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, wishes to proceed with his amendment. There are other amendments which noble Lords may wish to proceed with. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I have to say that he must do that because the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, wants to move his amendment. I think we should proceed. The loss of that amendment did not affect every other amendment that we are discussng now. If the Front Bench opposite were to say that it did, they would be nullifying much of what they were saying earlier. They are not saying it; and that is why we should continue discussing the Bill in the normal way.
Baroness Birk: May I say, in answer to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, that he is absolutely right and it is not what we thought at all. But it means that there are certain amendments which are linked to that particular one. I was anxious, not having had a chance to go through the amendment, to make sure that we were not wasting the time of the Committee and going off on the wrong limb by moving amendments which had been overtaken by that. I do not consider that Amendments Nos. 10 and 10A have been overtaken. I was in the middle of moving No. 10, which is the same as that of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. As I was going to say before Amendment No.1, I was slightly upset and felt rather distressed that the Minister had not accepted my amendment (which. in fact, was first on the list) but took the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, from the Cross-Benches. That is a very small point, but in substance it is exactly the same amendment. There is the slight difference of an added word in the drafting.
This amendment would give both Houses of Parliament a chance to discuss affirmative resolutions. I do not go as far as did the noble Earl to believe that this House would turn down, on an affirmative resolution, something which in substance had been passed by the other House. But I still think it is something which ought to be in the Bill because it enables the House to discuss this. The noble Earl said when moving it—and I did not interrupt him, so as to save time—something about the possibiity of some changes in the procedure of the House which would enable us to turn down, or vote against, an affirmative resolution. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 10, and I would suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the noble Earl now spoke to his amendment because we are speaking to virtually the same thing.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): We are on Amendment No. 10. Amendment proposed:
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("under subsection (2) above")
Let us proceed from there.
The Earl of Halsbury: I did not put down Amendment No. 10A to get the Government out of a hole. I put it down because I thought the Bill would be better with the amendment in it. Perhaps I may finish a little bit of unfinished business which arose between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, at an earlier stage on the Bill. I have the authority of Mills' Political Economy to quote the following:
"The three alternatives seem to be: death"—
that is, to drop the amendment—
"or to be permanently supported by other people"—
that is, to pass the buck to the Front Bench—
"or a radical change in the economical arrangements".
I do not quite know what that means. But the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, evidently had something of that kind in mind. On the other hand, with the authority of Mr. Gladstone's Oxford essays, his decided preference, he said,
"is for the fourth and last of these alternatives",
which is evidently represented by the manifest wish of the noble and learned Lord to adjourn for dinner.
1080
Placed between these inescapable and multiple alternatives, I think the best thing to do is to go ahead as planned and say, with respect to Amendment No. 10A, I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: As I was trying to indicate a little earlier, the Government are happy to accept the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Baroness—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): We have not disposed of Amendment No. 10.
Lord Bellwin: In that case, perhaps the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw the amendment in the knowledge that, as I indicated earlier, if an explanation is required I shall be glad to make it.
Baroness Birk: I shall be very happy to withdraw Amendment No. 10, because the substance is the same as Amendment No. 10A. I should like to know from the Minister why he chose the amendment of the noble Earl over mine.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: As I indicated in the debate on the amendment which we were discussing earlier, the Government fully recognise the concerns which have prompted the two amendments which we are now discussing. We accept that both Houses should have a further opportunity to debate the cancellation of the elections before a commencement order bringing Part II into operation is made. In principle, therefore, the Government are wholly sympathetic to the intention which lies behind both amendments. In practice, I have to say that the amendment of the noble Earl is preferred. I am advised that the drafting of the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is the most appropriate means of providing for the commencement order to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. If the noble Baroness wishes to have a debate on the word that is missing, no doubt we can try to do so. But that is the advice which I am given and at the end of the day it really makes very little difference.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We accept the spirit of the words but the Minister ought to note very carefully that these amendments have been needed in order to clarify. The Minister has said that there was no need to clarify and that what had been said by the Government earlier was quite clear. The fact that these amendments were not only required but actually have the approval of the Minister clearly indicates the care with which all members of the House must look at not a confusing situation but a complicated one. We must be prepared not merely to accept—I say this with no disrespect—what is said to us by Ministers but to study with care what precisely are the implications.
The noble Lord. Lord Skelmersdale, who I see in his place, said on 1lth June at column 960 of the Official Report:
"My Lords, if I may make a very quick point, before any order is laid under this Bill under Clause 4(4) there must be an affirmative instrument of both Houses of Parliament".
I say that with respect—not confusion, but uncertainty as to precisely what was meant by the Bill making it

1081
clear that all that was required to trigger this off was the approval in another place at Second Reading.
We understand that we are not going to divide or be in dispute over the passage of Amendment No. 10A. The simple point I am making is that we have to recognise the need to look at every nuance of the clauses and their implications. It is all very well for noble Lords to say that there are other stages of the Bill; that there is Report stage and Third Reading; but if one can get it right at the earlier stages of the Bill one seeks to do so. Certainly, the Government did not get it right in their first writing of the Bill. They certainly did not get it right in the passage of the Bill in another place, because it has needed these amendments which have appeared tonight in order to clarify the position.
Lord Bellwin: We really are making much of this. I do not accept that the Government did not get it right. What the Government have done is to accept certain representations made as improving and clarifying and making it easier for your Lordships to give consideration to matters. That we do accept, but that is not to say that what was there before was wrong. What we now have is something that we accept is better. I always understood that to be the purpose of this as a revising Chamber. But for the noble Lord to say that by accepting amendments that make the Bill clearer in whatever way is in some way going back or whatever, I think is a very dangerous thing.
Lord Diamond: I apologise for delaying the Committee but I am unhappy about this amendment and I shall explain why. I hope that those on the Labour Front Bench will be good enough to listen to the cause of my anxiety because it may be that they will have some anxiety themselves.
This amendment suggests that provided a matter—a very important matter—has the consent of both Houses, separately taken on an affirmative resolution, this will be adequate to meet the present circumstances. The present circumstances have changed. I myself would have thought that the Minister—the business of the House is in his charge, not in mine—would be well advised to consider at some length whether it was right to go on to this amendment in the light of what has happened earlier or to reconsider the position. I should have thought that he would have wanted to reconsider it because some of us may be in some confusion about it.
I have two main grounds for being anxious about this. First, I have not the slightest doubt that the right which the Minister says he is conferring on your Lordships' House is meaningless—totally meaningless. We have established, I hope, beyond any question that where a statutory instrument is passed by another place, this House has no right to vote in an opposite direction. It is frightfully important that we should be clear about this. Certainly it is a convention but it is important that we should be clear about it because, as everybody who has studied it knows, it is not a matter which is included in the Parliament Acts. It is not a matter which the other place, if it did not like what we were doing, could put right after some delay. If a statutory instrument does not pass through both Houses it falls, and what the other House has done becomes of no value at all. For that reason, if we were
1082
to vote against a statutory instrument passed by the other place, we would be in immediate and direct conflict with the other House.
The Earl of Halsbury: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Diamond: Certainly.
The Earl of Halsbury: I did make the point in my speech that there is no statutory reason why it should be moved in the other place first. It could be moved here first.
Lord Diamond: I heard the noble Earl say that, but with the greatest respect to him I cannot see that it makes the slightest difference, because it must be carried in both places. The convention is not merely as it is in other matters—that we do not vote against a Second Reading of a Government Bill coming from the other place; it is not that. The convention on this has to be different because it is not covered by the Parliament Act and if we did not vote in the same way as the other House, we would be in total conflict with it immediately. Therefore I say that what this amendment is giving your Lordships is words only. Whoever said it was cosmetic was using the precise description of what the position is. That is the first reason for my anxiety.
The second reason for my anxiety about this is that we have to consider the future and what will now happen. A major amendment has been made to a Bill which has passed through the other place. The other place will naturally want to consider this amendment very carefully indeed. I have no knowledge whatever of what decision the other place will take about it. It may want to come back here; it may not. If it does come back we may have to reconsider the matter. I am anxious that the other place is not misled—I use that term deliberately—into thinking that your Lordships passed this amendment because it would be satisfied with this as an alternative to the amendment which has just passed. The whole of the Government's statement earlier on was that these were alternative methods of approaching the matter and that this was a better alternative than the alternative which your Lordshps have just passed by a very substantial majority indeed.
I am as confused and ignorant on what is next to be done as are any of your Lordships. I claim no knowledge of this except that I have taken a very strong view with my own colleagues. I have been accused of being the guru of propriety so far as these matters are concerned; for example, I took a very strong view when it came to the question of sex discrimination. There was a statutory order there, and I insisted that we could not vote against it in spite of the fact that all the ladies all over the country wanted us to vote against it. We could not vote against it because we should be going in direct conflict with the elected Chamber in the other place. And who was I supported by?—the Government Chief Whip. I am sorry he is not here because I wanted to say it in his presence. He is taking this view himself very strongly.
He takes the view that this Chamber must not vote against the other place on a statutory instrument. Therefore it would be totally misleading to the other

1083
place if they got the impression that this is an alternative way of dealing with an amendment. We have passed an amendment in your Lordships' Chamber by a very substantial majority, notwithstanding the efforts of the Chief Whip, which we well appreciate, quite rightly, to get as many people to support his point of view as he could. Therefore, I am in very great anxiety about this amendment and I do not think it ought to be pursued.
Lord Bellwin: I think the underlying tenor of what the noble Lord says is extremely far-reaching. I said when speaking earlier that to say that an affirmative resolution procedure is "cosmetic", as the noble Lord himself has just repeated. I assume means that he and his colleagues will no longer in the future attach the importance to it that I have attached to it in connection with the 25 Bills that I have been debating these last five years. Time and time again, I have either had to resist or agree to that procedure going into legislation: and how to be told that it is only "cosmetic" I think is a very startling observation to be made. It is not one to which, in the context of this legislation, I can give the kind of reply which I think would satisfy the noble Lord. But perhaps that is something which will be taken up on another occasion outside this Chamber. Certainly his observations merit that, and I hope it will happen.
But to suggest therefore that we should not proceed with the amendments that we have in front of us now because in some way it is suggested that this is something the Government might see as an alternative—I know no more than does the noble Lord what will be the line to be taken following the earlier vote on the amendment, but I do know that, as we felt before, we still feel that to have this provision in the legislation is something that everyone has considered desirable, other than the noble Lord who has now spoken. Very well then—not as everyone feels desirable, but as I assume most people do, anyway. Certainly it was not a gesture by the Government, as was said earlier, to try somehow to fudge the issues.
I think it does less than justice to the noble Earl and his colleagues to suggest that we brought that forward—not at all. It was a response to an approach made from all sides of the Chamber. There is nothing sinister, tricky or clever in this at all, and I suggest it is up to the noble Earl to decide whether he wishes to pursue it. If he does so wish, the Government have said that we will accept it. I do not think that in any way affects adversely or disadvantages what might happen later as regards the earlier amendment.
Baroness Birk: I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made some points of great importance to this Chamber. It seems to me that we all ought to have the chance to have a look at what has been said and to think about it. It is impossible to divorce any amendment of this type from the amendment which was passed originally. It is also true that, whatever the Minister, with great respect, might say, the noble Earl himself in the debate on Amendment No. 1 put this forward as an alternative. Earlier I was going to interrupt and say that this was really not the same sort of option, but other noble Lords, including, I think,
1084
the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did treat it in this way. I do not think anything can be lost. It may be that we shall all come to a conclusion by the Report stage. I have already withdrawn Amendment No. 10, and I think that if the noble Earl at this point will withdraw Amendment No. 10A nothing will be lost, because it would give us all a chance to look at it again. It can always be brought back and discussed on Report.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the amendment is put into the Bill—and I hope that the noble Earl will press for it to be put in—that does not exclude the opportunity to look at it again at the next stage of the Bill. There will be a Report stage and there will be a Third Reading: and if the noble Baroness thinks it necessary to look at it again there will be ample opportunity. Indeed, it will be somewhat easier to do if it is already in the Bill. I therefore express the hope that the noble Earl will put in what everyone, on the merits—with one or two exceptions over there—regards as a sensible improvement to the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If in fact we are faced with the proposition that there is something not in the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sees no harm in putting it in, with the prospect of taking it out, why put it in in the first place?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: If the noble Lord asks that question, I would not be in favour of taking it out. I think only people with rather limited understanding would want to take it out, but there might be people of limited understanding in this Chamber.
The Earl of Halsbury: I think really the only option open to me is to allow the Committee to decide whether it wants the amendment in the Bill or out of the Bill. If the Government, who are in charge of the Bill, besought me to withdraw it, that would be another matter, but they seem to be quite content that I should proceed with it and so I shall.
Lord George-Brown: Before the Question is put, let us be quite clear. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. has made it perfectly plain that he wants it in so that when it gets considered elsewhere there is an alternative to consider. With great respect, an amendment has just been carried by this Committee by 48 votes: that is no mean majority. Let us not kid ourselves, the Chief Whip on the other side did his utmost. and the arguments I heard deployed were very convincing on both sides. The Committee took a very, very strong view—an unusually strong view—by a large majority. Why should we now mislead the other place, mislead the public or mislead anybody by putting in, with great respect to the noble Earl, something which—let us face it, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has been quite honest about it—will then be put up as a possible alternative? I do ask your Lordships to realise what we are being asked to do. We are in fact being asked, by a subterfuge, to undo
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Denham: I hope the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, will not call it a subterfuge. If the noble Lord

1085
will give way, it is perfectly open. It is on the Marshalled List. The noble Earl says that he wishes to stick to it, and if the noble Earl wishes to ask the Committee's opinion he is perfectly in order. There is nothing wrong about it in any way whatsoever.
Lord George-Brown: I do not know what other word to use except "subterfuge"; but, with great respect, there are noble Lords on the other side of the Committee who do see it in that light. There must be a better word than "subterfuge" and, if there is, I will obviously use it. But it will be put as though we took one decision; we then took another one—if it were to be carried, and I hope that it will not be carried—and then the other place have got an alternative to consider. I do not know that "subterfuge" is a non-parliamentary expression. It is a normally good word. It is a
The Earl of Halsbury: It is an act in which I do not deal.
Lord George-Brown: I am not used to being interrupted this many times. May I put my own point of view, and will the Committee be kind enough to listen to it? It is my point of view—and, with all the background of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I still have a background as well—that this will be seen in this way. It would be better not to move it. After all, it began as an alternative to the amendment. Do not let us kid ourselves—it did begin as an alternative. It was originally put forward as an alternative, so let us be quite clear. If we now go putting it in, we are putting in the alternative to the one we have already carried and we are offering other people a chance of considering two alternatives. If that is not a subterfuge, I do not know what is.
If the noble Earl wants to press it, then obviously he will press it—I am not terribly impressed with him—but I hope that the Committee rejects it, on the grounds that a majority of 48 in favour of the original amendment must rule this one out. If anybody anywhere else thinks that we are carrying an alternative, let one of us, even if it has to be me, declare that that did not in any way reduce the determination of this Committee by an unusually large majority to carry the original amendment. This one has absolutely no status or standing at all. It is more than a face-saver for the Government. It is intended to mislead other people elsewhere who will have to consider our affairs.
The Earl of Halsbury: If the noble Lord will give way, I do not mislead. This is an amendment by my noble friend Lord Spens and Lord Shaughnessy and myself to—as I said in my own words when introducing it—help smooth some rather ruffled feathers left over from Second Reading. We did it on our own initiative, and the noble Lord is really going too far in suggesting that I am misleading people. I do not indulge in that sort of thing.
Baroness Birk: May I say right away that I do not for one moment think that the noble Earl wanted—and he has never done so for all the time I have known him—to mislead anybody. As he has said, he and his noble friends put it down to smooth ruffled feathers
1086
and he was doing that in a completely honest, sincere and helpful way in order to assist the Committee. As he will agree, there has been a great change since then, owing to the winning of Amendment No. 1 which has altered the whole picture. I wonder whether in view of that—if he will ignore for the moment the way things were put, which he did not quite like—he will withdraw it. He will have another chance and he can then look at it.
His own words were that there is no need any more for what he was intending to do. He was trying to find a middle course, which was a most worthy thing to do. Now that is no longer necessary, because Amendment No. 1 has been won by a very sizeable majority and I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said on that point makes great sense. So I ask the noble Earl whether in these circumstances he will give us all another chance to think about it again, when we are not in this rather difficult atmosphere.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Earl responds to that invitation, there are two issues here. One is—as has been very properly exposed by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord George-Brown—the political issue; the question of what political message goes back to another place from having two amendments carried which may or may not be in conflict, which could be our political judgment, or may or may not lead to another political conclusion. We all have to make up our own minds on that political issue. I would not expect to alter the carefully thought-out view of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
But quite apart from our political judgment, there is surely the issue of whether it is proper for this House to send back to another place conflicting signals, and that is a matter on which the Government themselves must state in terms whether or not there are conflicting signals. It must come in words of one syllable from the noble Lord the Minister who is in charge of this Bill. He must say to this Committee, without any equivocation whatsoever, that there is no conflict between Amendment No. 10A and Amendment No. 1, and that the Government would, in terms of the drafting of the legislation, accept with equanimity the passage of a Bill which contained both of those amendments. I know that the Government are not happy with the political import of Amendment No. 1, but we are entitled to have the advice of the Government on the drafting matter and to know whether they would be unequivocally happy with legislation which went on to the statute book with both of those amendments.
Lord Denham: I wonder whether I may make a suggestion. We are at the moment discussing the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I think that is the one
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Denham: That was withdrawn?
Lord Evans of Claughton: May I very briefly say virtually one word to the noble Earl? I am not suggesting that he has misled the Committee or

1087
anything of that nature. In fact, the noble Baroness and I had an amendment down in very similar terms. But would he not concede—and would the noble Lord, the Minister, not concede—that if we pass this amendment now immediately after passing Amendment No. 1 it will be seen as a watering down of the decision made then and that we should have time to consider that before speaking in two voices. As the noble Lord said, surely the noble Earl will concede that it will be seen in another place and outside both Houses as a considerable watering-down of a very clear decision made earlier this evening.
Lord Denham: I am advised that the noble Baroness has not yet withdrawn her amendment. We are on Amendment No. 10. The suggestion which I should like to make to the Committee is that if the noble Baroness will withdraw her Amendment No. 10, which I understand she intends to do, we could then take the dinner adjournment and have a look at this. My advice at the moment is that Amendments Nos. 1 and 10A are not conflicting, but I should like to be absolutely certain of that. I know that the noble Earl considers that they do not conflict, but I should like to be absolutely certain of that. My noble friend would like to give the right advice to the Committee. So I suggest that if the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. we can then take the dinner adjournment and the adjournment business, which will leave the noble Earl's amendment as the first business afterwards, by which time advice can have been taken as to whether they conflict.
Baroness Birk: I appreciate what the Chief Whip has said and I am withdrawing Amendment No. 10. But perhaps, in order to save time after the dinner recess, the noble Earl—there were other interventions and he did not have a chance to answer the invitation made by myself, which was followed-up by my noble friend Lord McIntosh—will, like me, withdraw his amendment, instead of having a rushed discussion during the dinner time. Then, if necessary, it can be put down at the next stage. With great respect, I do not think that the noble Earl has had a chance to say what he wants to do.
Lord Denham: My suggestion was that my noble friend who is in charge of this Bill was asked to make a pronouncement of what the Government consider to be the case. The suggestion which I was making to the Committee was that the dinner adjournment would allow my noble friend to consult with his officials—not to consult with everybody around here—as to the correct advice to give to the Committee. I think that that is a perfectly proper course and if the noble Baroness will accept that then, when she has withdrawn her amendment, I will, with the noble Earl's leave, move the dinner adjournment of this Committee. We can then come back to this point when my noble friend has been able to look at the various things that have been said, to see whether he can properly advise the Committee to accept the noble Earl's amendment, Amendment No. 1 having been accepted.
Baroness Birk: I beg to withdraw Amendment No, 10. but I still say that the noble Earl has not had a chance to say whether at this stage he wants to withdraw Amendment No. 10A.
Lord Denham: If the noble Baroness will forgive me, the noble Earl will have his chance immediately we resume after dinner.
Baroness Birk: Let him speak now.
Lord Denham: The noble Earl was speaking to the noble Baroness's amendment. He has not yet spoken to his own amendment. The noble Earl will have his chance later. This is a fair offer.
In moving that this House do now resume and that our other business should be taken during the dinner adjournment, perhaps it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that we shall not resume the Committee stage of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill before eight o'clock. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): Before I put the Motion, may I remind the Committee that when it does resume it will be on Amendment No. 10.
Lord Denham: No, on Amendment No. 10A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 10 has not been put to the Committee.
Lord Denham: It has been withdrawn.
Baroness Birk: I have withdrawn Amendment No. 10.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My noble friend has already put one Motion to the House: that it should resume. He has not withdrawn it. With great respect, I do not see how we can have a question upon another Motion.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The confusion has arisen because we have been speaking to Amendment Nos. 10 and 10A. I now have a clear indication that the mover of Amendment No. 10 wishes to withdraw it. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill
7.12 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
After such a momentous late afternoon and early evening, it may seem strange and be something of an anticlimax to have to deal with a Bill such as the one I have just moved. However, despite the fact that we have been dealing with great constitutional issues, we must realise that a large number of people will be very greatly affected by the Bill which I am in the process of moving.
First, may I welcome the new Lord Advocate for Scotland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, to the Front Bench for the first time. I hope, as all of us do, that his sojourn here will be helpful and enjoyable and that his guidance to the House, particularly on Scottish affairs, will bear the same relationship to Scottish law as that of the many distinguished Lord Advocates who have preceded him. I should also like to thank my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Alec Eadie, the Member for Midlothian. He asked me if I would introduce the Bill to this House on his behalf after he had secured its passage through another place. I am honoured to have been asked by him to do so. Mr. Eadie was high in the ballot and chose to take this Bill, which was one of the Bills prepared by the Scottish Law Commission on Industrial Injuries.
The title of the Bill may be somewhat forbidding to laymen like myself. Therefore, I am comforted when I look round the Chamber and see that no fewer than two previous Lord Advocates and the new Lord Advocate are present. Although the substance of the Bill is not technical, its wording and our understanding of the Bill call for a great deal of legal expertise.
In introducing his Bill my honourable friend spoke at great length and very movingly on the problems of pneumoconiosis, of which he had very close and personal experience as a mining agent in the Fife coalfield. Other Members who spoke in that debate paid tribute to the great work that is done by miners. It may seem strange, in the situation we are now in, that on 2nd December 1983 Members on both sides of the House said that miners and their families are "the salt of the earth". At times like this, when there are ruffled feathers, we should remember the kind of job which miners do.
Pneumoconiosis is an industrial disease that is very closely associated with mining. The Bill deals with other personal injuries. Asbestosis is an obvious one, but there are many others. One of the interesting points that was made by my honourable friend in another place was that a noisy atmosphere can result in personal injury. Not only a noisy atmosphere, because of the thumping of machinery or other loud noise, causes personal injury. Mr. Eadie said that evidence is emerging from the industrial scene in America that even people who play in symphony orchestras have to bear a level of sound which is well beyond what is permissible.
Because of the distinguished legal company in which I find myself this evening, may I very briefly put on
1090
record the effect of the Bill, as I understand it and as I have been able to follow it from the words of my honourable friend in another place. A prescription is a principle of law that extinguishes completely some claims or rights after a fixed period. There are two forms of prescription. The first is the prescription of heritable rights where, after 10 years, an apparently valid title to heritable property becomes unchallengeable. There are also prescriptions which, after the appropriate period of five or 20 years has expired completely, extinguish the rights and obligations to which they apply.
The word "limitation" also appears in the title of the Bill and may well cause difficulties for lay members. The principle of limitation is that the expiry of a stated period bars the raising of an action to enforce a claim. It is a rule of procedure that does not extinguish the claim but simply prevents it from being enforced. Since 1954 the most important general rule of limitation has been that actions for damages for personal injuries or for death arising from those injuries must be raised within three years. The rule was set out in the Law Reform (Limitations of Actions, etc.) Act 1954.
The need for such rules can be summarised as follows. First, there is the need to protect the defender from being subject to possible claims over a long period. In all fairness, there must come a time when it would be wrong to continue to allow a possible claim to hang over somebody. In other words, there must come a time when the books are closed. Secondly, there is the need to ensure that claims are dealt with as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. The longer the delay, the less reliable the evidence on both sides, particularly when, very frequently, the evidence is eyewitness evidence. We all know what can happen when, after several months or perhaps years have elapsed, people have to try to recall an incident.
The Bill proceeds by way of amending the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Sections 17 to 19 of the 1973 Act deal with the limitation of actions and I propose in the Bill to substitute new Clauses 17 and 18, which are incorporated in Clause 2 of the Bill, for those provisions. Clause 17 of the Bill restates the basic principle but perhaps more clearly. It provides that no actions in respect of personal injuries may be brought after three years from the injury being sustained or the date at which the claimant becomes aware that he is suffering from an injury. The date of the claimant becoming aware that he is suffering from an injury is a substantial definition and an instruction to the courts.
The Scottish Law Commission considered that the expression "act, neglect or default" in the existing legislation was too indicative of a suggestion of fault or blame. The Bill therefore refers simply to an "act or omission" giving rise to an injury. I am advised and assured that this covers all possibilities and is a more acceptable term. The Bill retains the requirement that if the act or omission giving rise to the injury is a continuing one, the relevant date for calculating the three-year period should be:
"the date on which the act or omission ceased".
Noble Lords will appreciate that it is impossible for legislation to take account of each and every

1091
circumstance. The formula adopted will enable the courts, which are best placed to make decisions, to take account of the differing circumstances of claimants and the differing nature of their injuries.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that, although the Bill itself is couched in rather technical, legal terms, it deals with real issues. In clarifying the law and seeeking to remove doubts in an important area of the law, it will be of real benefit. The Scottish Law Commission report made it clear that, while the law is generally satisfactory, there are areas where it can be improved for the benefit of all. That is what I am trying to do on behalf of my honourable friend in another place. I am convinced that we should take the opportunity to effect these improvements and I hope that your Lordships' House will give the Bill the support that I believe it thoroughly deserves. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.)
7.22 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has said, this little Bill is the latest contribution to the development of that chapter of the law which started with the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act 1954. The House is much in debt to the noble Lord for his presentation and explanation of the Bill, as was the other place in debt as far as the contribution of Mr. Eadie, who presented the Bill there, was concerned.
The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to detain your Lordships with a detailed exposition of this branch of the law over the past 30 years. Suffice it to say that, as almost invariably happens when sensible, desirable, and welcome reforms are made, from time to time unforeseen problems present themselves. One is sometimes surprised that the original reformers failed to foresee the changes which might be required. In any event, there is no doubt, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has explained, that if and when this Bill is approved by your Lordships—as I am sure it will be—this chapter of the law will be in a better state than it was before.
The Bill proceeds on the report of the Scottish Law Commission. Occasionally, rude things are said about the commission and occasionally the commission says rude things about politicians who are too slow to give effect to the commission's proposed reforms. But the House is in debt to the commission, and in due course so will be those who are to benefit—because there will be real benefits flowing from these changes. That is all I really want to say from these Benches, in confirming that we welcome this Bill.
The only other comment I should like to make—and I say this most warmly—is that like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I welcome the new noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. It is true that at my age I possibly knew his father a little better than I know him. But there is general agreement at the Scottish Bar and among those who know him. There is not always general agreement at the Scottish Bar, any more than there is anywhere else and it sometimes
1092
disagrees about people and affairs. But I have heard no words of disagreement, and it is anticipated that the Government and this House will greatly benefit from the noble and learned Lord's advice and contribution to their affairs. He combines great charm with dignity and integrity, as we all know, and we must all look forward to his contribution to the work of this Parliament, which it is anticipated will last as long as another four years—although I hope occasionally that it might be shorter than that.
7.26 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, although my name is not on the list of speakers, I hope that the House will allow me to make a short contribution to this debate from the Front Bench. I will begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove for introducing this Bill, and by correcting something that he said. My noble friend informed the House that there were two former Lord Advocates in the Chamber. There is only one, and he is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, who has just spoken. I was a mere Solicitor General—a handmaiden of, and a tool wielded by,another—Mr. Ronald King Murray, as he then was. I want also to acknowledge the contribution made by Mr. Alec Eadie in another place in introducing this Bill and by the Scottish Law Commission—which in effect drafted the Bill which is to become legislation. if it is indeed passed.
From the Front Bench, we support this Bill. We do not seek and would not seek to make any inroads into the principle of prescription which was introduced into Scots law some 30 years ago. What we do, however, is welcome the clarification of the law which is to be found in this particular Bill. It also relieves to some extent the burden upon those whose personal injuries are not of a clear-cut kind sustained on one occasion but are personal injuries, sometimes of an extremely grave character, sustained over a long period of time in one of the ways mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.
I hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate comes to reply, he may mention Section 19A of the 1973 Act, which was introduced by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980. That is a measure which also gives some opportuntiy for those who are beyond the period of three years to raise an action. I hope that Section 19A and the new sections introduced by this Bill can work together in order to improve the lot of those who sustain unjury and who have not had a proper opportunity to raise a claim.
Finally, I join with others in welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom. He may wonder what curious fate has caused him to make his maiden speech on the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Bill during the dinner hour. I remind the House that in October 1976 I made my maiden speech on the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill during the dinner hour. After I had sat down, my speech was greeted with such enthusiasm and warm praise by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. that I wondered whether I had by mistake delivered the Gettysburg Address or even the Sermon

1093
on the Mount. I cannot speak after the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate; I must speak before him. I hope he discovers in this House—and I am sure that he will—the same courtesty and kindness which I have always found from all sides of the House, not least from his most distinguished predecessor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I commend this Bill to the House.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I should first of all like to express my thanks for the most generous words which have been said already by noble Lords. I particularly take to heart what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about speaking in the dinner hour. I know that he frequently speaks in the dinner hour and gives a very sparkling performance. It is nice to think that it was electricity which made him speak in this House on the first occasion.
Moving to more serious matters, I should say at the outset that I am glad to take this opportunity to confirm the Government's support for this Bill. In our view, this is a valuable Bill and we should give it a fair wind and calm waters on which to be launched. I am therefore most grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Camichael of Kelvingrove, for introducing the Bill. The Bill is, as those of your Lordships who have read it will see, what might be called "lawyers' law" and it may not appear as the most exciting legislative measure which your Lordships have been asked to consider—certainly not today. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has made the point very forcefully, and indeed properly, that this Bill is an important measure of law reform. It will benefit those who are involved in personal injury claims by providing a clearer exposition of the time limits applying to such actions.
It also contains within it two other clauses, the first of which deals with expressing in perhaps more proper form from the point of view of Scots lawyers the extention of a right to recover damages from other wrongdoers at the hand of a wrongdoer if he has already been found liable for them. That is Clause 1. Secondly, so far as Clause 4 is concerned, it provides that where a Scottish court is obliged to apply foreign law to any particular situation the foreign rules of prescription limitation should also be applied to the exclusion of Scots law rules. This is a perfectly straight-forward way of dealing with what otherwise might be a complicated situation.
The Scottish Law Commission undertook consultative and very detailed consideration of this area of law before formulating their recommendation. If I may say so, the honourable Member for Midlothian very wisely chose to follow closely upon those recommendations when promoting the Bill in another place. What your Lordships have before you, therefore, is a Bill which does not attempt to tamper with the basic principles of the existing law but which carries out necessary modifications to make those principles more readily understood and workable in practice.
1094
The provisions of the Bill leave untouched the discretionary power of the court to override the time limits if it seems equitable to do so: that is to say, the provision which is contained within Section 19A of the existing statute. Such clarification as is proposed in this Bill is of undoubted benefit to those who might become involved in personal injury claims whether as a pursuer or as a defender.
Conscious of the criticisms which have been levelled against the existing statutory provisions from my own experience in the courts, I am particularly grateful to have this opportunity to commend a Bill which is attempting to clarify (and I trust will) the rules of limitation which apply where an injured person does not become aware of his injuries, or of what caused them, until some time after they first occur. This is a situation to which noble Lords have already referred and which can often arise in cases of respiratory disease such as pneumoconiosis or asbestosis where the onset of the disease may never be exactly fixed and its diagnosis may initially be uncertain.
As the noble Lord mentioned in his opening remarks, there is a need to balance the interests of all parties. The Government are satisfied that the Bill will be of real practical benefit to those concerned in actions to recover damages for personal injuries and to those on the receiving end of such claims. The Bill makes changes in the law which seek to meet the criticisms of the present state of the law made to the Scottish Law Commission during their consultations, and we must be very thankful to them for the care which they have taken in their consultations.
The noble Lord has already explained the main provisions of the Bill and I consider it may be unnecessary for me to go any further on that score. I shall simply assure the noble Lord of continuing Government support for this very useful Bill and, if I may take up the nautical metaphor I used earlier, I wish it a speedy voyage onto the statute hook. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships for its Second Reading.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, may I briefly thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his reception of the Bill. He said that the Law Commission had taken great care when they formulated their report and published the draft Bill. I think that the House should be grateful to him in his maiden speech for having taken such care and courtesy in replying to the Bill and clarifying one or two of the points which certainly I, as a non-lawyer, am finding out more about every time I read the Bill and every time I listen to my own noble and learned friends in the House here.
I do hope—and I say this in no empty way—that we hear a great deal from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in the future, and I hope we can always be as pleased and happy with the decisions he makes as we are with the one he made tonight.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Cycle Tracks Bill
7.38 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Conversion of footpaths into cycle tracks]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 41, after ("highway") insert ("which for the purposes of the 1980 Act is a highway").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak to all three amendments at the same time.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 41, after ("expense") insert ("and").
Amendment No. 3: Page 4, line 40, at end insert ("or a part of a footpath (as the case may be) and, as such, it shall only be maintainable at the public expense for the purposes of the 1980 Act if, prior to the original order taking effect, it constituted a highway so maintainable or, on the order under this subsection taking effect, it forms part of a highway so maintainable.").
When we accepted the amendments to Clause 3(1) moved at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I said that we would need to consider a number of consequential technical amendments. These are the three amendments to which I referred. My first two amendments tie the responsibility under subsection (1) to maintain a cycle track at public expense to the responsibility given in the Highways Act 1980. These are purely technical amendments to meet the requirements of the definition for highways maintaintable at the public expense which appears at Section 329 of the 1980 Highways Act.
My third amendment deals with revocation of footpath conversion orders. When a footpath conversion order is revoked under subsection (9) and the cycle track reverts to being a footpath, it is appropriate that the footpath should be only maintainable by the local highway authority if they previously maintained it. This is what my amendment seeks to do. It also clarifies the position where a revocation involves part of a footpath. I beg to move.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, and I can assure him that the Government accept the need for these amendments and support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 2:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 3. Again, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that their Royal Highnesses,
1096
having been informed of the purport of the Cycle Tracks Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved. That the Bill do now pass.—[Lord Henley.]
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.41 until 8 p.m.]

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Before the Committee proceeds may I ask the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, whether they have had an opportunity to consider all the implications of the vote on the first amendment? The result of the Division on the first amendment has substantial implications for the Bill. As was said from this Front Bench, and I repeat it now, it is not a wrecking amendment, but it certainly has important implications for the Bill. For example, there is a need for clarification as between the first amendment and Amendment No. 10A, and there are a number of other considerations which need to be taken into account. If I may suggest this, it would not be unusual for the Committee to adjourn at this stage in order to give the Government and the Opposition parties the opportunity to consider all the implications to which I have referred and in order that we may all clarify our minds as to the full effect of the result of the Division on Amendment No. 1.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is a parliamentarian who I, and I know all other noble Lords, respect. With his long experience in both Houses. I am sure that he would agree that in circumstances of this nature Governments have been known to defer Bills of this importance for a short period in order that all parties who are interested in the Bill may have an opportunity to think again. I wonder whether in those circumstances the noble Viscount will give us the benefit of his thoughts on this now that he has had time to consider the matter during the dinner adjournment.
Viscount Whitelaw: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for the points that he has put. I think that it is important to seek to proceed in the way that will suit your Lordships best in the particular situation with which we are concerned. First of all, it is true, as he has said, and I accept, that the amendment that has been passed is not a wrecking amendment. I think that it is important to recognise that particular point, because otherwise we shall get into a lot of difficulties. Therefore for me to say at this

1097
stage that it would be right for the House to adjourn altogether for the evening and for the Committee not to consider some of the other amendments (which my noble friend Lord Bellwin is very prepared to deal with) would I think be to admit that; and I think that that would not be good for this House, and I do not wish to do that.
But what I would of course say at the same time is that there is a particular difficulty, and I think that this concerns the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and accepted by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. The Government in no way wish to resile from their acceptance of the amendment from the noble Earl because they believe that the amendment is right. However, there is a question mark as to whether that amendment, Amendment No. 10A, is compatible with the amendment which has been passed, Amendment No. 1.
Therefore, if that was felt to be reasonable, I would suggest to the Committee that, without any prejudice at all to what might be decided later, the noble Earl should not move that amendment, and that we will come back and report at a later stage to the House as to how that should be proceeded with; but that on the general principle of proceeding with the other amendments in the Bill, I think that, for the reasons I have given, it would be reasonable for the Committee to proceed with them. I feel very much indebted to the noble Earl in this position and very much owe to him that we have accepted the amendment that he proposed, but if he would agree not to move the amendment for the reasons that I have stated, it would be reasonable to proceed with other arguments and other amendments on the Bill as they are on the Marshalled List.
The Earl of Halsbury: I am sure that it would be the wish of the Committee that I should fall into line with the views expressed by our noble leader, while reserving the position of my noble friends for a later stage in the Bill, with the possibility of bringing the amendment forward on another occasion.
Baroness Birk: May I thank the noble Viscount for what he said? When we adjourned the Committee for the other business to be considered, the debate on this amendment had reached a slightly frenetic stage. If I may say so, I think that he has given the right advice, and I am delighted that the noble Earl has accepted it. Nothing can he lost by delaying something and thinking about it again.
Lord Alport: Before the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition speaks, I wonder whether I may ask the advice of my noble friend with regard to Amendment No. 18, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. I, and I think the noble Lord, too, regard it as a very important amendment, but of course whether it should be proceeded with depends very largely on the Government's eventual decision with regard to acceptance of the decision of the Committee on Amendment No. 1. I understand that almost in the last few minutes it has been stated in the House of Commons, or, at any rate, if not in the House, certainly by the Minister concerned, that it is the Government's intention to accept their Lordships'
1098
view. I am asking for advice and help. If that is the case, my amendment would no longer apply, but if it is not the case, then I would wish to proceed with it. Any advice that my noble friend can give me would be of great help.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: In the first place, I wish to thank the noble Viscount for his response to my initial remarks, and especially for what he said about Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 10A. I understand the Government's difficulties at this stage. Of course we will proceed with the Bill if that is the noble Viscount's wish, though I am bound to say that in circumstances of this kind I would think very carefully about that. There is a strong case for enabling the Committee to have further thoughts about it.
I was also proposing to make the point which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has just made; namely, there is a report which we have heard that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment has indicated in the Lobby that it is the Government's proposal now to drop Part II of the Bill. If there is any truth in that rumour—and I can call it no more at this stage: but I think that it is my duty to the Committee to indicate that there is a very strong rumour that that statement is being made to the Lobby—may I ask the noble Viscount whether he will find out whether there is any validity in it and subsequently make a further statement to the Committee?
Viscount Whitelaw: I would wish to say to the noble Lord and to my noble friend Lord Alport that I have spoken (and I think that it is reasonable for me to say this) to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment; and I can say categorically to this Committee with all the authority that I command—and I suppose that I command a certain amount—that in fact no decision has been taken as to the future at all. If I may say so, I should have thought that any noble Lord who thinks that I would consent in any way to take a decision about something which was going to happen in the future about an hour after an event such as this would undermine whatever confidence anybody ever had in me. No Government could take such a decision at such a time. Any such suggestion must therefore be perfectly absurd. I have to say that in fact no decision whatever has been taken. On that basis—I understand of course the position of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—I suggest that it would he right to proceed to see how we get on, in a famous phrase. If, as we proceed, there are further difficulties, the usual channels can properly discuss these matters and see how we get on.
To any suggestion that we stop now, without proceeding to some of the other amendments that are coming forward, I have to say, again in view of the categorical assurance that I have given, that it must be obvious to any noble Lord, who has ever been in any government at any time, that a decision taken now, an hour or two after an amendment of that sort has been carried, over what exactly is to happen in the future is, I would have thought, clearly not possible. I can repudiate it totally. On that basis, I would have hoped it was reasonable to see how we get on. If there are further difficulties, no doubt they can be looked at

1099
through the usual channels. But to give up now, I suggest to the noble Lord, would not serve any of us properly.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. May I say first that I accept without question—I am sure that the rest of the House agrees—the categorical asssurance that he has given. I am sure however that he will understand, in view of the report that was received, it was necessary that the matter should be raised in order that the House could be quite clear on the basis on which we proceed. In those circumstances, my noble friends and I are quite prepared to proceed with the Bill. If there is any change, I am sure that the noble Viscount will let us know.
Lord Tordoff: From this corner of the House, as one who has never served in any government but who still has hopes, may I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. One ought to say from this side of the House that the withdrawal of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, must be without prejudice to his future position. We respect that, and we shall support it.
As to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, which also appears in the name of my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, to a certain extent I think we have, as a distinguished Liberal once said, to wait and see. But we agree from these Benches that the Bill can proceed into those areas that are not associated with the amendment that was passed earlier. It is only in the areas where there is an overlap that we have problems. Certainly, from this corner of the Committee, we accept that we should proceed. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House.
Lord George-Brown: As one who has served in many governments but who no longer has any hopes and who fell foul of the noble Viscount over the language that I was alleged to have used, may I say how much I believe that he has done the right thing. I am grateful to him.
[Amendment No. 10A not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause I insert the following new clause:
("Consequence of failure to issue precept.
. No breach of the duty upon a metropolitan county council or the Greater London Council to issue a precept under section 11 of the General Rate Act 1967 shall be held to occur if that council does not issue a precept for the financial year 1985-86 until after the date of an election of councillors to that authority following the making of an order under subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: After the exciting times in the Committee over the past couple of hours. I suppose that this amendment may seem an anti-climax. Whether or not that is the case and whatever view is taken of the result of passing Amendment No. 1, the amendment that I am now moving is still relevant to the Bill. It would enable the metropolitan county councils or the Greater London Council to delay issuing a rate precept for 1985-86 until after the 1985 elections if they are reinstated by the Secretary of State
1100
or if they are continued with. under the terms of Amendment No. 1.
The paving Bill sets a curious timetable for the authorities presumed to be facing abolition. The outgoing councils will be required to fix a precept and to determine a budget for the year 1985-86 for the incoming nominated councillors who would then be responsible for managing the budget. If the main Bill fails—many of us, I suppose, hope that it will—then, between the date of fixing the precept and the introduction of the interim councils, an unacceptable situation could possibly arise. Elections would be reinstated at a subsequent date. The newly elected councillors would then be forced to run the councils within a budget previously determined for the interim councils.
The range of activities likely to be undertaken by democratically elected councils would clearly be very different in many ways from the functions of interim councils whose only brief was to dismantle the operation of which they were now in charge. The new clause would ensure that should this situation arise—after what has happened today almost any situation, I believe, could arise—the making of a precept could be delayed until after elections have taken place to enable the new council to determine budgets that would reflect the policies on which they had been elected and not the policies of an interim unelected council. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: This new clause appears to be intended to waive the GLC and MCCs' duty to issue a precept sufficient to meet their expenditure for 1985-86 by 11th March 1985 should an order repealing this Bill be made and elections held. They will presumably wish to issue a precept after the elections, and I am advised that the amendment as drafted could be interpreted to mean that unless elections were held after the making of such an order under the Bill, there would be no duty on the GLC and the MCCs to issue a precept at all for 1985–86.
The new clause appears to be technically defective, but that is not the primary reason for rejecting it. Frankly, I see no reason for such an amendment. In the normal course of events, authorities frequently have to budget and to issue precepts and rates in advance of elections. If an order was to be made repealing the Bill, we would expect the 1985 elections to go ahead as soon as practicable. But in the normal course of events they would not have taken place until May. The precept would have had to be set by early March. This has never caused problems in the past. Authorities have always managed to make their precepts on time despite uncertainties about the future.
I see no justification for waiving the important duty on the upper tier metropolitan authorities to produce valid precepts for 1985-86 and in good time, whether or not elections have been suspended and reinstated. I would respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that the procedure that the new clause seeks to introduce into the Bill is not appropriate. The noble Lord. with his experience, will know that what I say about the facility and the ability of authorities to do this is so. I wonder therefore whether he will not agree with what I say.
Baroness Birk: This is in the context of a different situation to the whole Bill. Nevertheless, the new clause, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, will ensure that should that situation arise, the making of a precept could be delayed until after elections had taken place to enable the new councils to determine budgets that reflect the policies on which they have been elected. We are in a new ball game here. For that reason, it is important that we should have this amendment. The fact that, as the Minister said, it might he flawed in drafting is not the point, as he said himself. As of this moment, I do not feel convinced by his arguments against the substance of it.
8.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, with his great experience of local government, made a perfectly valid point when he said that outgoing councils which do not know the political complexion of their successors commonly make rates for those successors; there is no doubt about that. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, intended to deny that point; it is very valid.
The point that I understood to be made by the amendment is a rather different one. It is not that the political complexion of the incoming council, whether nominated or elected, might be different—we have to allow for all of those possibilities—but is to allow for the possibility that there could be a difference between a lame-duck council, there deliberately only to run down the activities of the metropolitan county council or the Greater London Council, and, in the event of the main Bill—the abolition Bill—not going through, a council which is intended to carry on its activities, presumably indefinitely.
That is the real difference, and it is not a matter of political complexion, not a matter of the personalities involved. But there must be a huge difference in the kind of budget that is required to run down a council, compared with the budget that is required for a council which Parliament has decided is to continue. If I may say so, I believe that is the point which the Minister has not answered adequately.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I should like to reinforce what clearly is a crucial point. The Minister recognises that, in the light of the decision taken earlier tonight, there is literally no certainty about the Government's intentions. We respect completely what has been said. The Government are looking afresh at the situation. We do not know what the Government are going to come up with next week, in the light of the decision. We do not know what will happen if any changes in the Government's present intentions are tested in another place and a parliamentary majority in that place is successful, quite properly and democratically, and the matter comes back here. In the light of the earlier decisions the whole situation, up to and beyond the rate-fixing time in all local authorities, is in a state of flux.
What the Minister is saying is that, regardless of what happens, the councils in situ at the proper rate-making time shall make a rate. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind the other powers that the Government took in earlier provisions, that is, in respect of the
1102
Local Government Finance Bill, which abolishes the opportunity of producing supplementary rates. What a council has got to do in February of next year is this. It has got to make a calculation, which it is entitled to do, as to whether or not the main Bill will be passed. The Minister may say that councils should put that out of their minds, but as a politician he realises that that is not possible. When a council makes its decisions next February it is invited, in the light of the hiatus—there will be a hiatus until it is all resolved—to decide the amount of money it is going to ask its ratepayers to pay, and, in the metropolitan situations, the precept upon its paying authorities.
Earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who is an officer of the GLC and a Member of your Lordships' House, issued a clear and, in my view, acceptable premise: that if what one is looking forward to in the interim period, however long it might be, is a period of quiescence, and, as the Government would hope, acquiescence, then one is living in cloud cuckoo land. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done. What this amendment is seeking to do is to make special provisions, in the light of a month or two months—it might be a little longer, but it will be a short period—to lift from councillors the responsibility of making a rate in the circumstances. They know that, whatever the circumstances are, they are going to change because it is the Government's intention to change them.
If the Government are thwarted, as I hope they will be, that itself is a changed circumstance. Really, what we are saying to the Minister is, "Please, in the light of what you are intending to do, don't make it more awkward for councillors in having to look forward". That, of course, is the responsibility of councillors. They have their plans, their dreams, their programmes and their ambitions, and the Government have their own measuring rods and yardsticks to say they can or cannot do something. That is all known. But what the Government really are saying is that in the light of a possibility of changed political control, or even changed economic circumstances, they want the authority in situ in February—that is about the time; there may be variations, but February is when the rate is made—to make its rate in that circumstance.
I am quite certain that, whatever happens with the intentions of the Government and the progress of the main Bill, and the triggering-off of this Bill, if that is happening, there is going to be a period of uncertainty. What this amendment is asking for is the flexibility which the Government have said they are willing to introduce. I am very seized of the words of the Leader of the House. Quite clearly, there is to be a period of reflection. We are asking the Government to reflect on this very important point. Councillors are responsible people. Whatever their politics, they will be wanting to do what is best for their people, that is, their local ratepayers.
This amendment is providing the Government with the opportunity to stretch the normal period until the dust dies down—we hope that will happen as quickly as possible—after the elections have taken place. The elections will take place on a date to be determined. We are saying, "Why don't we take this opportunity of removing one of the anxieties and one of the frustrations?" In my view it would he helpful to the

1103
Government, and certainly it would be helpful to the "political" climate—I mean, "political" in inverted commas—if the Government indicated that they were not prepared to burden councillors with the difficult task of having to try to forecast what the rate has got to be, at a time when the reality is going to change, perhaps in two or three months.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I can see quite a problem developing if this attitude is going to be pursued. As I understand the argument—I see the point of it—noble Lords opposite are suggesting that because of what happened an hour and a half ago the thing is completely altered and we have got to pursue all the other amendments on the basis that this will not go forward as the Government intended originally. If that is the way they are going to deal with the other amendments, then I think we shall get nowhere at all. There are many stages through which this has got to pass before we can say whether or not the message of the first amendment's defeat of the Government is going to remain in that form.
From the exchange that took place a few minutes ago between the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the Leader of the House I understood that we were going to proceed on the basis that the Government would be getting their general aim, and in the meantime we could deal with the other amendments which were not connected specifically with that particular decision. But if we are going to presume that that decision means the end of that matter then I do not think we will get anywhere. I think my noble friend's explanation was the correct one, under all the circumstances. Which mood are we going to proceed with—that we are likely to have what the Government had in mind, or something like it, or something completely different, as was reflected in the vote of an hour and a half ago?
Baroness Birk: That seems to be an extraordinary contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He cannot ignore what happened a couple of hours ago. We have to deal with the Bill as it is now. The Bill is now as amended, and this is how we are dealing with it. We are going on and trying to deal with the amendments that are not incompatible with what happened when Amendment No. I was passed. This does not mean to say that we do not take that into account. It would be absolutely ludicrous to expect us to assume that the amendment that was won by 48 votes is just going to disappear. We are dealing with the Bill as amended.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It is just as ludicrous to suggest that the Bill as amended at this minute is as it will be if it becomes an Act. I thought that the arrangement made by the two Front Benches was that we should act on the assumption that more or less what the Bill contains is likely to be the ultimate end. But to work on the opposite basis can only be dangerous.
Baroness Birk: Nothing of the sort was agreed. What was agreed was that where there were amendments which had no relevance to the original amendment, we would go ahead. But even as regards
1104
those amendments with which we can go ahead, my noble friends are absolutely entitled—so am I and so is anybody else—to take into account, where it is relevant, what happened to Amendment No. 1. That is the normal way in which we proceed. We do not pretend in this House or in another place that something has not happened on the basis that maybe it will be changed. I am very surprised. The noble Lord is an old enough hand as a parliamentarian to know that.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I, too, should like to join in the debate on the ground of anxiety, which has also been referred to by my noble friend Lord Graham on the Front Bench. Although the GLC is often quoted in this House. the Bill has to do with the metropolitan counties and the very many millions of people who are living in the metropolitan counties who seem to be completely forgotten. Perhaps they are forgotten because they are all in deprived areas of this country and areas where there is severe deprivation and very high unemployment.
It is important if one is fixing a rate that one takes into consideration the very substantial role played by the metropolitan county councils in the areas outside London—and I think particularly of the areas which are known to me—as regards economic development. I speak with a great deal of experience of the West Midlands. I was born in the West Midlands and I have lived in the West Midlands the whole of my life. I can see quite clearly the impact of a rate upon trying to create further employment prospects in those areas. It devolves upon the fixing of a rate. Anything that will improve the employment prospects in these parts of the country is vitally important.
If we consider unemployment in the metropolitan counties, we find that in 1974 there were 156,000 unemployed and in 1983 the figure had increased to 800,000 in the metropolitan counties. Therefore, anything that affects the rate and that might detract from anything that the metropolitan counties do with regard to development and with regard to increasing employment, must be considered.
Lord Bellwin: Let me say how much I welcome the conversion of the noble Baroness. I remember so well that when we discussed a certain Bill—and I will look it up in Hansard and send the appropriate passage to her—she argued passionately how unimportant rates were, what a low percentage they were of each company's business, and that they just did not matter. Therefore, I am so pleased that now she agrees, as we have said all along, that rates play a very large part indeed. If the noble Baroness doubts me I promise to send her the quotation from Hansard.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: With all due respect, that was a complete exaggeration of what I said previously.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Baroness will know whether it is an exaggeration when she receives a letter from me with the quotation.
Meanwhile, so far as this amendment is concerned, I should like to repeat what I said previously. I wonder whether it is really understood that the existing

1105
authorities—the GLC and the metropolitan counties—in any event, regardless of what happens, will have to make the next rate for the year in question. They will have to do that anyway, regardless of what takes place.
I should like also to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, to what happened in the Rates Bill, because the noble Lord may have overlooked this point. The Government were pressed at the time as regards the position of a rating authority with an invalid precept from a rate limit set previously, and powers were sought for the authority to raise it to meet a later valid precept. We said that we would consider the situation and we did so at the Report stage in your Lordships' House. We passed an amendment that enables a rating authority in receipt of a valid precept after it has made its rate to make a higher substituted rate to cover the precept and to pass on administrative expenses to the precepting authority. Of course this will provide a remedy in any case of a precept made after the relevant rate has been issued. I believe that that point and the other point about what has to take place are really a complete answer to the noble Lord, but he may not have known that was the case.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I do not think that any politician would ever admit that he did not know what was going on. He merely pretends, by speaking round the subject for ages, that he knows more about it than those putting it forward. However, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, made the point that this is a Bill about the metropolitan counties in addition to Greater London. Either consciously or unconsciously the noble Lord the Minister has stirred up those behind him in the belief that they can cock a snook at "Red Ken"; whereas in fact there are many other councils with which this Bill deals, but which perhaps have less high profiles than the Greater London Council. That is a very important point. We must remember that this Bill deals with six metropolitan counties in addition to Greater London.
I do not need to be told that the rates that a council has to implement are very often settled by a previous Administration. Part of the trouble that they are having in Liverpool at the moment is that the Labour Party is having to implement an unworkable—they claim—Liberal budget which, of couse, is a matter with which I totally disagree. So it is not always all sweetness and light between these two Benches; there is quite a wide river at times.
I must say that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is a most important one. Clearly a council that is there to do a job as a caretaker in winding up an authority will have a different budgetary outlook from a council that intends to go on doing things it believes—perhaps wrongly—to be right; for example, taking action to help people suffering from unemployment. Indeed, I am concerned to see what the Government will be proposing later in these amendments as regards Section 137 and the two penny rate. There is a difference between the philosophy of a council that is hoping to go on to ameliorate the conditions of the people in the area who elected it and the philosophy of a council which is nominated purely to wind itself up. That is the basic point of the amendment.
1106
However, having said that, I am more than willing to be reasonable, to look carefully at what the noble Lord has said and to reconsider the matter to see whether, in the light of what he says and the advice that I take, this amendment may be unnecessary. On those terms, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No.12:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Responsibility for paying election expenses.
. All the expenses of any elections of councillors to the Greater London Council or any metropolitan county council held after the making of an Order under subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act shall be born by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a little more difficult in that it deals with the responsibility for payment of election expenses if elections are reinstated following the failure of the main abolition Bill. In the light of Amendment No. 1 which was agreed earlier this evening I must confess that I am not sure at this stage whether this particular new clause still applies. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, must realise that these clauses were put down long before, or some time before, we knew what would happen today. We tabled this clause because we felt that the Government, in a very persistent kind of way, were forcing the cancellation of elections before the decision had been made whether the local authorities, which were to be elected, were to be abolished. That is the gravamen of our objection to this: that the cart has been put before the horse; that we are abolishing elections before we have abolished the bodies to which the elections are taking place.
Therefore, the practical effect would be that elections which would normally be due in May 1985 would not take place, although the possibility would remain (and I submit that that possibility is very much greater than it was when this amendment was tabled) that those elections could be reinstated at a later date—perhaps in October or November—if abolition had not been approved; in other words, if the main Bill had not been carried.
In administrative terms, this is a lot of nonsense and would probably lead to increased costs in every direction within the local authorities concerned. Therefore, because, in my submission the Secretary of State seeks to make changes to the electoral process before that has arisen, he should bear the cost of that proposal if his policies are subsequently reversed and the elections take place. That is the basis upon which I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, would explain what his amendment means. It says:
"All the expenses of any elections of councillors to the Greater London Council".
Is he referring there solely to the administrative expenses which would in the normal way fall on the council, or to what, in the strict sense, one might call the election expenses of the councillors? As he has drafted this amendment, it looks as though it would include both. I can see no conceivable reason why the

1107
Secretary of State should finance the expenses of those people who, rightly or wrongly, put themselves forward for election to the council. Secondly, on the broader point, if the elections, having been previously abolished, are restored as a result of subsequent developments, I can see no reason why their cost should not fall exactly where it would have fallen anyhow; that is to say, on the local authorities concerned. If the local authorities concerned are so anxious to have elections, I should have thought that they should pay for them.
Lord Bellwin: As he always does, my noble friend makes very well the point that I want to make. I am bound to say that I am advised that the new clause as drafted is defective. It could well be interpreted as meaning that the Government would have to pay for every election to the GLC or MCCs from the repeal of the Bill thereafter—no doubt there are some who might find that an attractive prospect, but few would argue that it was equitable. Furthermore, it would make the Government liable even if the May 1985 elections were never suspended—by a commencement order—and went ahead as normal after the Bill was repealed.
However, the intention of the new clause is clear. As has been said, it is to make the Government liable for costs of the elections to the GLC and MCCs which would follow failure of the main abolition proposals.
The timing, form and terms of such elections would depend on when abolition failed and when the order to repeal the paving Bill was made. It may be that elections to these authorities could be held normally. In such a case, I can see no justification for laying the costs of the elections on the Government. The whole purpose of an order under subsection (2) of Clause 1 is to reinstate the former situation as soon as practicable. Part of that former situation is that local authorities pay for their own elections.
It may be that circumstances lead to abnormal costs. It is open to the Secretary of State, under subsection (3) of Clause 1, to include in the repeal order special arrangements to deal with such abnormal costs as there may be. And I remind the Committee that this order is subject—dare I say it?—to affirmative resolution of both Houses. That, quite clearly, is the sensible time for Parliament to decide whether there is a case, given exceptional circumstances, for the Government to pay some or all of the costs of an election.
I shall not go over the points that we were making in the original debate on the first amendment about abolition, the repeal and the opportunities to restore. I do not think that we need to do that again tonight.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister seeks to reassure us that in the circumstances that could well arise and in the circumstances for which this new clause is designed, there is no need to do that. That may very well be so. I have listened with care to the references which the Minister has made to the possibility that when the repeal orders are put forward it will be within the power of the Secretary of State to take into account representations that he has received
1108
from authorities which have been thwarted in holding their elections, say, six months earlier than they otherwise would have.
The Minister quite rightly points out that he cannot govern the parliamentary timetable, although earlier this evening he gave some indication of a possible scenario of time, which clearly indicated that the main Bill could be with us certainly into next spring/summer. Therefore, we are talking in terms of being unable to make arrangements for elections until the end of July, as both Houses have to affirm that. Therefore, we are talking of September or October. So the main Bill will be perhaps six or seven months later.
Furthermore, the cost of inflation is a factor to be borne in mind. The cost of holding elections later will, on the margin, inevitably be more expensive. In addition, certain preparations have to be made. Although it may be only on a provisional basis, one has to book rooms, prepare papers, and so on; and all this takes up time. The Minister may say that those are abortive costs and could be taken into account. If that is the case, this short debate will reassure people.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, makes that one does not want to have a free election simply because the Government have been thwarted by the will of Parliament. The cost of an election that takes place early in 1985 would be borne by the council administratively and by the councillors politically. If that election takes place six months later, the council ought to carry the administrative costs and the councillors and their parties the political costs. In my view there is no intention of seeking to get an election on the cheap or free of charge.
The noble Lord. Lord Harmar-Nicholls, raised the premise upon which we shall proceed: we proceed on the premise that, having won the first major vote, it is possible that we shall win other major votes. There is no certainty at all about that, just as there is no certainty of the Government being defeated on other votes or of winning them, especially in another place, although that is perhaps more likely in another place than in your Lordships' House.
Therefore, if one has to clutch at a straw in the wind as to the final form of the Bill, it is likely to be in line with the will of this House as expressed on the first amendment. That was a free-standing amendment. We know that the independent Members of your Lordships' Committee can take a view which some Members on this side would think is eminently preferable. But they may very well vote the other way. The point of this amendment and others is to try to anticipate the most likely eventuality. It is possible that the orders are made, the elections are cancelled, the Government fail to get their main Bill, and therefore there have to be orders to reinstate.
We have never for a moment on this side questioned the Minister's integrity or his constitutional propriety. He has been fair in spelling out what he would want to do on the face of the Bill, and where we are uncertain he has spelt out particularly the timetable. All this amendment seeks to do is to anticipate the possibility of an additional cost to be borne by the council.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and picked up by the Minister. If the amendment is defective because of ambiguities and

1109
provides the opportunity of taking things two ways, clearly the noble Lord, Lord Evans, will seek time to reflect. This is a continuing drama to the extent that we shall be engaged in this place until the House rises, whenever that may be, in a changing scenario. I take from the Leader of the House that, while he recognised what had taken place here, he was not prepared to give anything away in advance of mature thought, or mature reflection over all the circumstances.
He reserved the right to try, try, and try again if that was the will and wish of the Cabinet and the Government, and he is entitled to do that. We on this side are entitled to recognise that if that is the nature of the situation, well the Government are entitled seek to get their will democratically, constitutionally, and fairly, and I have said nothing against that at any stage of this matter. But in the circumstances we are even more entitled to move this amendment than before the passing of Amendment No. 1 this evening.
Anything can happen, and what we have tried to do is to anticipate the possibility of councils being in hard pressed situations where they are bereft of additional funds, particularly if they have made their budgets earlier and cautiously, and been counselled to he cautious. Now the Minister has spoken and pointed out that it is in the gift of the Secretary of State to take into account any additional burden which they have had to bear because of the delay. In those circumstances I think the Minister has served the Committee well, but I shall listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, has to say.
Lord Evans of Claughton: As I sat listening to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I was thinking that I had been far too conservative in the amendment that I had put down. I should have been more radical and suggested all elections, all costs, administrative and political, and that it should be retrospective for the last 30 years. During that period I fought 18 elections and it would help my budget somewhat if one were to carry such an amendment. Of course, I concede that the chances of carrying such an amendment would be remote.
To deal with the remarks made by he noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am reminded of a passage in one of the more famous P. G. Wodehouse novels where Bertie Wooster says to Jeeves, "Rem acu tetigisti"—you hit it with a needle—and he is absolutely right. The amendment should have stated that this is administrative expenses and not the political expenses of an election.
As your Lordships will know, local authorities plan ahead and say there will be an election on 5th May 1981, or 7th May 1982, 9th May 1983, and so on. They make arrangements for the administration of those elections well in advance. If there is this uncertainty, which is inevitable with the legislation before us, they will have to make provisional arrangements for elections on the appropriate date in 1985—May the something—if the county council elections are to continue. They may well have to cancel those arrangements and possibly introduce new arrangements at short notice, which would be an additional administrative expense.
1110
It is against that kind of eventuality that I was seeking to protect the local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, it is important that this should be aired, because we are in an unknown area of human activity at the moment. We do not know what is going to happen. Local authorities, councillors, and those involved in local government are entitled to know that the matter has been considered somewhere, and debated.
I take the points that have been made that if local authorities are so anxious to continue elections they should pay for them, but the local authorities have always been anxious to continue elections. There is no anxiety among the metropolitan councils or the GLC to stop elections. It is because of the Government's decision that elections should be abolished that the Government should have faced any additional administrative costs that local authorities have to face.
As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, predicted, in all the circumstances I shall ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the amendment so that I can look at it and perhaps take further advice and see whether an amendment which more accurately reflects our wishes can be put down at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Suspension of elections and appointment of councillors]:
8.56 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("before that date").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the issue of by-elections; the situations which occur after the main elections have been held. Clause 2(1) says:
"No election of—

(a) councillors of the Greater London Council; or

(b) councillors for a metropolitan county, shall be held on or after the date on which this Part of this Act comes into force"—

that is most important—
"except an election to fill a casual vacancy in an office where before that date the office has been declared to be vacant or notice of the vacancy has been given under section 89(1) of the principal Act".
The words that this amendment seeks to strike out are "before that date".
The amendment, which seeks to remove the barrier in Clause 2(1) where a vacancy occurs after the date of the order made by the Secretary of State, is clearly contentious. This is particularly so in the context of the Government's determination not merely to avoid by-elections but also to cancel whole elections. It is not possible to view the intention of the subsection without looking carefully at the intention—which the Government have never hidden—to deny to the electors of the metropolitan authorities and the GLC that which they were entitled to look forward to, which was an opportunity to express a political view on the complexion of their council in May 1985.
This provision could have serious implications for the representation of electors in the areas of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. The Secretary of

1111
State is expected to make an order after the Second Reading of the main Bill. That order will name a date in the House of Commons, which could be several months before 7th May 1985, when the interim councils are due to begin. We forget entirely the possibilities which emerge from the decisions made earlier this year.
If the Secretary of State names a date several months before 7th May 1985 he is making sterile the election-making processes for something like 18 million people where there is a death, a serious illness, or where for any reason a councillor who has been democratically elected decides he no longer wishes, for party or personal reasons, to continue.
The purpose of this amendment, besides being probing, is also serious. It is to ask the Minister whether it is correct that if a vacancy occurs for whichever of the reasons I have given, including the death of a member, or serious illness. it could not be filled after the implemention of the order? In other words, if that is the situation we are faced with, we have to ask the Minister why, in no circumstances, will there be the odd opportunity for the electors to declare a view? We recognise that it is not possible to remove entirely the context of the abolition issue from such by-elections, but why are the Government so afraid to provide opportunities, which will not be very frequent, and to allow those electors to have that opportunity? They would prefer to see the electors of a metropolitan authority to be represented by councillors who had not been elected to that metropolitan authority.
As we see it. the subsection will prevent by-elections caused by resignations after the introduction of Part II. We await the decision of the Cabinet and the Government and the announcements of the Minister about the full purport of the decision taken here tonight. The Minister will not be surprised if I say that, faced with the cancellation of elections, it is likely that a number of councillors on metropolitan authorities and the GLC could conclude that by-elections represent the only democratic option left by the Government to allow metropolitan electors to make their own judgment on their councils. These decisions will be taken in the full knowledge that clearly they are purposeful. They are designed for testing not only the will of the people who will be standing, but also the view of the Government that their decisions and their legislative programme has the full support of the people who the Government say they represent.
I am not remotely pleading in aid the mandate which was obtained in 1981 as being more valid than one obtained in 1983. I am talking simply in terms of people having the opportunity at some time late in 1984 to express their will.
Not only will the elections in May be cancelled unless this amendment is agreed, but so will all pending by-elections. Electors will have no opportunity to vote in elections of any kind after the activation of Part II at a time when it is likely that the main Bill will hardly have begun to be considered by Parliament. In other words, we are talking in terms of an order-making date which cancels the possibility of by-elections coming into effect some time in October, November, December, January, February, March,
1112
April and May of next year. We are asking what on earth the Government are doing running away from the occasional test of their view that what they are proposing has the full support of the people of the Midlands, Merseyside, and other areas, never mind, as has been said more than once, the support of the people of London.
The Government may be right. I am one of those who acknowledge, whatever the circumstances and whatever the height of the poll—whether it is as low as for the European Parliament, or as high as for a general election—that if the people are given the opportunity to express their will, we must accept it, warts and all, as their view on that day, in those circumstances. We are saying that if the Government are not prepared to tighten up—not for party political purposes, as some of the forced by-elections may be seen to be, but for genuine reasons such as a death or an illness, which are clearly seen not to be politically inspired—why are they not prepared to allow that possibility to exist within the Bill?
I hope that the Government have some convincing reasons why they are not prepared to strike out the words "before that date". Otherwise, we shall be entitled to the view that the Government are denying not only the opportunity next May, but also the opportunity if it happens in the normal course of events. I have done no research on how often a by-election is caused. The last series of by-elections have not been to the benefit of the Government in political terms in the Greater London area; but that can change. I am simply asking why we deny this opportunity whenever a proper by-election occurs? Why do we not take the opportunity for testing the water? I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Let me say at once that what is proposed is entirely consistent with precedents of earlier reorganisations when by-elections were stopped after Royal Assent to the reorganisation legislation. This amendment seeks to remove by-elections from the provisions suspending elections to the abolition authorities. The Local Government Act 1972 requires a by-election to be held within six weeks of a vacancy arising, except in the six months leading up to the ordinary elections to a council. During those six months no by-elections are held, except those for vacancies arising before the beginning of the period or, if more than one-third of a council's seats are vacant. In the normal course of events those circumstances are likely to arise quite rarely. One would expect, therefore, that no by-elections to abolition authorities would be held after early December 1984. That seems sensible, given the fairly short period of office that would be served by anyone elected at a later by-election.
However, it will not have escaped the notice of your Lordships that some councillors in the abolition authorities have talked about resignations to force by-elections within the six-months period leading to May 1985. One can have a view about that. If the people concerned are determined to resign, we cannot—and would—not wish to stop them from so doing. But I think it would be seen clearly to be what it is. We have had no shortage of gimmickry and distortion in the massive campaigns. Certainly, money will be no

1113
object. The millions that are being spent on these things will be just another part of the whole of this unhappy scenario. I do not see that the Government should try to facilitate beyond that period at present laid down. I hope that the Committee will feel likewise and, if the noble Lord pushes it, reject this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister indicated the normal situation. We are not in the normal situation. Normally, we would know that elections would take place in May 1985. We do not know whether elections will or will not take place in 1985. We know that it is the Government's intention that they shall not take place in May 1985 but we do not know the situation. The Minister takes us very carefully, properly and sincerely backwards. He points out that in the normal course of events, the latest date for a by-election would be December of this year. That is on the premise that the elections, if they had been held. would have been held in May of next year. But we know from the situation, both from the determination of the Government and from the determination of those who oppose the Government, that there is no certainty as to when the elections, if they are to be held, will be held.
To be fair, the Government have made the provision if they fail to get their main legislation, if, in fact, there is that failure to get legislation literally—and, certainly, the opponents would be entitled to make that at the very last possible moment. When is the last possible moment? Do they talk in terms of the end of the next Session? We know what can happen with obdurate governments and obdurate oppositions. There is literally no certainty as to when the elections will take place. What we are saying is that the Minister intends to make an order that no by-election shall take place. It could very well be—it is possible—that it is December. But, suppose that eventually when the Government are beaten (if they are eventually beaten) we are not talking in terms of a delay of six months but we are talking of a possibility that there would be no by-election held or authorised for not just five months from December till May, but 10 months.
It could very well go beyond next summer. The Minister is telling us with certainty that a resolution one way or the other will need to be taken—and, with respect, there are parliamentary opportunities which will be seized upon by the proponents of the Bill (and there are many of those) and opponents of the Bill. I am asking this of the Ministers. Can he not take on board the possibilities? Forget the gimmickry and forget the allusions to the intentions I would have said they were forced to do it to test the water. They are anxious and they make no hesitation about it. The people who oppose the Bill in the metropolitan areas
1114
believe that they have the people on their side. The Government believe that they have the people on their side.
The Government plead in aid a mandate which is now more than 12 months old. That is the general election. We are saying that they could very well have been right then; but we believe that they would be wrong now; that is, in the next four, five or six months. The Government have been very free in suspending, in cancelling, in putting out of court, all sorts of legislation which is not directly related but is germane. We are simply saying in the special circumstances in which (as we would certainly say) without adequate preparations or consultation the Government are doing this, can they not merely (on the basis of tolerating the possibility) understand that a proper by-election would fall to take place after the order-making process?
We are not saying that we have got a right. We think that by taking out these words we are allowing by-elections to take place in January, February, March, April, May if they properly occur. We are really saying to the Government that we are in the business of trying to avoid gimmicks, and we are in the business of trying to provide people, when it properly occurs, with the opportunity of indicating their view on the main intentions of the Government. I should like to hear from the Minister once more.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Lord makes one point to which I feel I currently do not have an adequate answer. His point about an extension of time beyond May in certain circumstances seems on the face of it to be something to which I feel my own response is not adequate. For the other reasons that I gave earlier, I do not like the basic thrust of the amendment as such. I just feel that I ought to and would want to give a better answer than I am able to give at the moment. I would therefore certainly want to study this and come back on the point later. What I will do, if the noble Lord agrees, is to write to him and if I can be satisfied, then at least I will explain to him where the Government stand and he can then perhaps decide what to do. But I do feel that what I have here is not adequate on that very fair point that he makes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is most gracious of the Minister, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In the temporary absence from the Chamber of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, I have been asked by him to say that Amendment No. 14 is not moved.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
9.16 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne Lord Broxbourne moved Amendment No, 15:
Page 2, line 29, after ("councils") insert ("and the Common Council").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Renton. This is the first and key amendment of a fasciculus of amendments extending over Clause 9 and the first two schedules. The other amendments are consequential and designed only to give appropriate mechanical effect to the first and key amendment which contains the pith and purpose of this fasciculus of amendments. This purpose is to add the Common Council of the City of London to the constituent councils which, as your Lordships know, are entrusted with the duty of appointment of councillors for the transitional period.
This is, I hope, an uncontroversial amendment. which is refreshing after all the storms of the afternoon. It is certainly an ecumenical amendment. An amendment was put forward in another place which would have had the same effect of adding a representative of the City of London to the constituent council. That amendment was moved by a Liberal Member of Parliament. It is true that, like so much of Liberal practice and philosophy, the intention was good but the means of implementing it fell a little short. Consequently the amendment as put by him did not commend itself to the Minister, but its purpose and effect was similar to that which I am moving now, even though I am putting it forward on a basis which I think and hope is more likely to commend itself to Ministers and to the House.
While on the subject of Liberal attitudes, I was going to say that I have a kind message of support from the noble Lord. Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who. I was informed, was unable to grace our proceedings today and bring to us his sage counsel and wise guidance —my words, I hasten to say, rather than his. I am very glad to see that he seems to have overcome his difficulties and he is in his place hopefully to speak for himself: and who better?—for though this House is accustomed to Queen's Counsel, an eminent patent silk is still quite something. and hopefully he will testify his support himself.
I put this amendment forward primarily on the basis that the City of London should have a representative on the transitional council on the grounds that it is a successor authority for some of the functions to be carried on. This is a basis which the Minister in another place conceded; or, if that sounds rather a churlish term, proclaimed to be an appropriate basis.
The position in regard to the specific functions of the Greater London Council. which may be taken over and exercised by the City in whole or in part, is not yet definitive in that discussions on this subject are still taking place with Ministers. The City has, however. already agreed in principle to take over responsibility for the Greater London Record Office. Further discussions continue concerning Thames' bridges and tunnels; the Historic Buildings Board: the London History Library; the Scientific Services Branch, including the public analyst service; the Research Library and the London Intelligence Section.
As your Lordships know, the City Corporation also has major responsibilities for the arts in the Barbican
1116
Centre; the London Museum; and the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. There is, therefore, a very clear case for the inclusion of the City in the transitional council in the capacity of successor authority and in compliance with the principle approved by Ministers.
That case is strongly reinforced on financial grounds by the size of the City's contribution both to the Greater London Council and to the Inner London Education Authority. I am sure that your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that that is very substantial indeed. I have to be rather careful here because these astronomical figures are not my everyday thinking, but my understanding is that in 1984-85 the Greater London Council precept and that of ILEA together have risen in total to a staggering £345 million. To put it into more easily comprehensible terms, nearly 90 per cent. of the total levy made by the City Corporation on its ratepayers is exported for the benefit of Londoners as a whole. The precept of the GLC in fact comes to no less than 13 per cent. of that authority's total expenditure. and that of ILEA to a still greater 22½ per cent.
So it is clear on these two important criteria—that of successor functions and the size and scope of financial contributions—that the City should have a representa-tive on the council. There is. however, if I may just add this in conclusion, a more general reason for the inclusion of the City among those authorities entitled to have representation in the Constituent Council for Greater London. That derives from the high standing, the great experience and the unique position of the City of London, combining, as it does. in its small square mile, long history and imperishable tradition as well as being one of the world's major financial centres, with earnings of foreign exchange amounting to about £4,000 million a year.
During the life of the Constituency Council major decisions are likely to be taken on the future adminis-tration of our capital city. It is surely unthinkable that such decisions should be denied, in their preparation and formulation, the unique expertise and informed guidance of the City of London. I will not perhaps go so far as to say it would be a case of playing "Hamlet" without the Prince of Denmark, but it would indeed be a surprising omission from a cast in which all 32 London boroughs figure.
Hopefully. some of your Lordships may find it opportune to express brief testimony in support of this amendment. And outside this Chamber there is support from the great and the good in the City of London itself. These include leading institutions such as the Stock Exchange, the London Chamber of Commerce. the General Council of British Shipping, the British Insurance Association and the Committee of London Clearing Bankers. I will not dilate on the importance and significance of such support. If I were to do so, your Lordships would weary not of their excellence but of my reiteration.
In summary, therefore, I submit to your Lordships that the case is clear. I respectfully submit it to your Lordships, and I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Renton: I should like briefly to support the powerful plea made by my noble friend Lord Broxbourne with, if I may say so, his usual lucidity and persuasion. I think there is only one important fact that I need add to what he has said, and that is this: if your Lordships will turn to Amendment No. 90 on the Marshalled List you will see that we are asking for only one more member to be added to the Constituent Council.
Amendment No. 90: Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
("The Common Council .. .. .. .. .. 1").
For the great City of London to be represented by one councillor is indeed, I suggest, a modest plea. May I just add this: the City has for generations been the workplace, the showpiece, a focus of activity and interest, and sometimes, I think, of loyalty for millions of people living in the London boroughs. Therefore, as my noble friend says, it is unthinkable that the City of London should be excluded from the important discussions which will take place during the interim period and the preparations which will call for achieving a degree of consistency among the future bodies which will govern London, and indeed a degree of liaison in those matters, especially, which my noble friend mentioned. Therefore, we hope for a most encouraging reply from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I should like very briefly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, for the very kind way in which he referred to me in moving this amendment. There is another group of persons who are strongly in favour of this amendment and that is the liverymen and the various livery companies in the City of London. I must declare an interest in giving my support to this amendment. I have been very strongly pressed by my livery company, of which I am a past-master, to support this strong amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne—and according to the traditions of this House I cannot refer to him, as I often do in another context, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Broxbourne—for being kind enough to say that it was a Liberal Member of Parliament who raised this theme, albeit unsuccessfully, in another place.
When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, strongly supporting this amendment, with which I heartily agree, I feel that it would be a novel departure for this Government to decide to penalise the City of London or its individual electors in this way. I have wondered what was the explanation. Perhaps, after hearing those two powerful speeches, the most likely explanation is that the Government have completely misunderstood this Bill in at least one respect. I beg strongly to support this amendment.
Baroness Birk: I find it very strange and somewhat amusing that this Government appear to have forgotten about the City of London. The City of London, with its powerful interests, and with the amount of money that it spends, and which comes to it, is extremely small so far as residents are concerned.
1118
It is also one of the biggest closed shops that I know, particularly when it comes to the election of aldermen. I can only think that the Government must have forgotten about it, because no reason has been given for what is an extraordinary anomaly. It will receive functions from the GLC under the abolition proposals, in a way similar to the London borough councils.
There may have been a Freudian explanation for this. Maybe the Government, underneath the subliminals, wanted to abolish the City of London, but I would not have thought that that would come from this Government. The City contains but 4,500 electors, so it is very small in voting personnel, and they will even be deprived of the right of direct representation on the GLC that is conferred by the Bill on all other Londoners.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that it would be a novel departure for this Government to decide to penalise the City of London or its individual electors. I was rather surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the schedule, which allows only one seat on the council. With 4,500 voters, that is certainly not ungenerous—
Lord Renton: Is the noble Baroness ignoring entirely the vast numbers of people who go from the London boroughs to work in the City every day?
Baroness Birk: No. I am not ignoring them, but that happens in many other urban centres. Unless people are living there and have voting rights they are not considered to be residents and are not electors. We all know that the number of electors is very small indeed. Some of my best friends are electors in the City of London. They are only a small group, but they wield very great power. Perhaps the explanation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, is that the Government have misunderstood their own Bill, because since the GLC boundaries coincide exactly with the parliamentary constituencies of London, as a unit the City of London with Westminster South is represented by a single GLC member. The department must have been under the impression that this arrangement would he carried over into the interim arrangements under Schedule 1, but it was pointed out during the Committee stage in another place that the effect of the Bill would he that City electors would be represented by one of the Westminster appointees, much as under the present arrangement. This arose because Schedule 1 is based on borough rather than parliamentary boundaries.
The Government seem to have misled themselves on this point. What makes it even more amusing is that at Third Reading in another place my honourable friend Dr. Cunningham drew the attention of the Speaker to this anomaly and to two opinions from counsel which the GLC had received. Then they got into the area of possible hybridity. However, the Speaker ruled that the Bill was not prima facie hybrid. However, the issue clearly appears to be embarrassing to the Government. They have consistently argued that the abolition of the elections represents an insubstantial issue because they are to be replaced by indirect representation through constituent councils: yet the Bill fails to accord such representation to a

1119
small but well identified group of electors whose opinions are largely of very considerable interest to Conservative governments. I wonder why, having realised that point, either in another place or here, the Government did not bring forward amendments?
It will be interesting to see whether the Government accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, or turn them down, and whether, if they are turned down, the noble Lord decides to test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Boardman: I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is in favour of, or opposed to, the amendment. I most strongly support my noble friend Lord Broxbourne. I welcome, too, the support of the Liberal Benches. I speak with a declared interest, as the chairman of the largest contributor to the £345 million of City rates. I would correct my noble friend on one other figure. In referring to the contribution made by the City as a whole to our industrial prosperity by invisible earnings, my noble friend referred to the figure of £4,000 million. I believe he will find, after research, that that is the net figure, after taking off the Government "invisibles". The contribution of the City to our economy is even greater than he implied.
Lord Broxbourne: I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to thank him for that very helpful correction. Like Clive of old, I stand astonished at my own moderation.
Lord Boardman: Be that as it may, the point is that the City is a tremendously important part of our national economy. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, it is a question not of the number of electors who are within the City, but of the number of people who go to work there and the people who depend upon the City for their livelihood throughout very large parts of our economy. It would be regrettable and unfortunate if. in the re-formed organisation which is now before the Committee, the City were not to be represented. I shall not go into the arguments, which have been very well put by my noble friends and others. All I would say is that I hope very strongly that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment. If it were rejected, that would be very harshly felt by the City and by those who play such an important part in our economy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find this to be a strange amendment and I cannot support it. I consider that it is almost a case of reinstating the business ratepayer. Surely we have always based all local government, ever since the elimination of the vote for the business person, upon a resident population. There is a very small resident population in the City. I am very impressed by the way that the amendment has been moved and I have every respect for the City institutions, but the amendment would throw out the whole pattern of this interim provisions Bill. I spoke earlier this afternoon on the point that it was just by chance that there would be more Conservative people than Labour people on the council, because of the representation in the parliamentary constituencies.
1120
This pattern would be completely destroyed if one extra person were to be included. If we include one extra person, why can we not include whatever number are required to retain the present Labour control?—a point which has been made by other speakers.
At the moment, the Cities of London and Westminster are represented jointly by one particular person on the Greater London Council. This same person is also an elected member of Westminster City Council. and he is very likely to be one of the two people who will be appointed from Westminster City Council to the interim authority. Therefore, if he is capable of representing the City perfectly well now, as he has done for a number of years, I see no reason why he cannot continue to do so after the interim stage—particularly since it is only an interim stage.
The point has been made in this debate that various duties and responsibilities would pass to the City corporation in the normal way. We are only talking about a period of 11 months. Despite the fact that this amendment has been superbly moved, the danger is that it will destroy completely the argument that we were proposing one person for every parliamentary constituency in London. For those reasons I oppose this amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether she will bear in mind that this is an exceptional case, in that although there are only 4,500 voters resident in the City, nevertheless the people who go to work there earn the rates which enable no less than £345 million to be paid to Londoners in general.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I accept that point, and I know also (although it is a much lesser number) that there is a similarly huge influx of people every day into the City of Westminster. But still it will be only those who are resident in Westminister who will be able to vote and have elected their Member of Parliament. The same is true in the City. The City member has been elected for the Cities of London and Westminster.
9.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In purely rational terms. my former GLC colleague, the noble Baroness, has cut the ground completely from under her noble friends—there can be no doubt about that. Unless this House, with all its notable representative status, is going to say that the City of London should be the precursor of the return of the business vote, and that rateable values should be the criterion rather than one person/one vote in local government, then, as the noble Baroness has said, there is no justification whatsoever for including the Common Council. It is proposed in this amendment that the Common Council should be represented on the new council.
The noble Baroness has not completely told the story about the City of London in London government. It is true, as she says, that the representa-tive on the Greater London Council is of the City of Westminster and the City of London. But on the Inner London Education Authority, there is a direct representative of the Common Council from a constit-

1121
uency which contains, as she has said, 4,500 electors and possibly no more than two or three schools, if that; I doubt whether there are many more.
The noble Baroness has destroyed the case for this amendment in rational terms; but there are reasons for being sympathetic towards the intentions of the movers of this amendment. The first is that the whole of the Common Council is elected for one year only—a 100 per cent. election each year. That is exactly the objection which the Government have had to the proposition that there should be an election in May 1985 for one year only—and yet the City of London, which is perhaps the most venerable of our local government institutions, exhibits exactly that anomaly which the Government consider to be so impossible in respect of London and the metropolitan counties.
The other reason why, emotionally, I am not totally unsympathetic to the City of London stems from my own experience as a member of the Greater London Council. There were times—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone, will sympathise when I say this—when many of us who have positions of responsibility there, and while accepting that there has to be a city government in London, questioned whether it really had to start at County Hall. Is it really possible to chain that huge bureaucracy? Is it possible to turn it around, like a tanker, to fit the needs of the last part of the twentieth century? There were times when I was tempted to believe that a real city government for London ought not to start from the GLC. Needless to say, I returned to the defence of the GLC when it was attacked in such a ruthless and unrepresentative way by the Government who wishes to abolish city government in London; but I did wonder whether County Hall was the starting place. It occurred to me also to think that the ancient traditions of the City of London, the vast wealth of the City of London, its magnificent municipal buildings and its fine banqueting traditions may be a better starting place for proper city government for London. If these wicked Bills go through and we have to start again under a more enlightened regime, perhaps there may be an opportunity for the Corporation of the City of London to play its part in reviving democratic local government for the whole of Greater London.
Lord Bellwin: May I first of all make clear that in addition to Amendment No. 15 we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 86, 89, 90, 92 and 102. I am sure my noble friend Lord Broxbourne is in agreement with that.
Amendment No. 86: Page 8, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 29.
Amendment No. 89: Schedule I, page 9, line 9, column leave out ("Londo borough") and insert ("Constituent councils").
Amendment No. 90: Page 9, line 10, at end insert—
("The Common Council … … … … … … 1").
Amendment No. 92: Page 10, line 8, column 2, leave out ("10") and insert ("9").
Amendment No. 102: Schedule 2, page 14, line 31, after ("borough") insert ("or the Common Council").
Just before I come to the amendment itself, perhaps I can deal with the digressions. Starting at the back and working upwards. can I say to the noble Lord, Lord
1122
McIntosh, who said that we would wish to abolish city government in London, if by that he means the GLC I certainly do not consider that is city government in London, whatever else it may be; but that is for another day.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the Government had possibly misled themselves or maybe we were now embarrassed. Let me hasten to say that we have not misled ourselves and we are not in the least embarrassed about this; there is a perfectly proper explanation. The fact is that the City is a small part in area and population—though certainly not in stature—of the constituency represented by my honourable friend Mr. Peter Brooke. As the noble Baroness reminded us, my figure is about 5,000 (but I would not quarrel) of the 68,000 electors of the constituency who live in the City of London, and the remaining electors of the Westminster City Council area are part of the constituency of my honourable friend Mr. John Wheeler. It was against that background of the preponderance of Westminster voters that it seemed right to allocate both the GLC seats to the City of Westminster.
I have to say that I am sympathetic to the arguments. I congratulate my noble friend on the extremely fine way in which he presented his case. The fact is that of course the City is an authority in its own right. For all purposes of the Bill the City is treated on a par with the boroughs. It will have the power to require information; it will have the right to object to the auditor of the GLC accounts and to be consulted on the GLC's budget, and to be involved with the staff commission. So certainly it is an authority in its own right. We feel on reflection that as the Bill stands the City of London is the only successor local authority not to be represented separately on the transitional council. The arguments which have been put forward are—to say the least—very persuasive, and I am really very pleased to say that we are happy to accept these amendments.
Lord Broxbourne: In view of what my noble friend the Minister has so graciously said, I need only take up 30 seconds of your Lordships' time in replying to thank him for his co-operative attitude, and to thank my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boardman and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for their powerful speeches in support.
Regarding the two speeches in opposition. I am a very charitable person, so I shall make a very charitable comment upon them. I find it remarkable that both of them should have addressed the Committee and not referred for a single second to the main point in which I put forward this proposition of the successor authority exercising functions, the criterion expressly defined by the Minister in another place. But perhaps when they have thought about it a little longer they will join in the general gratification that this amendment is to be accepted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord sits down, in justice he ought to pay tribute to the very serious speech of his noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, rather than appear to think that the opposition comes only from my noble friend and myself.
Lord Broxbourne: I appreciate that in this case, contrary to the norm, my noble friend's reasoning was less persuasive than it normally is when she is good enough to address us.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Again before the noble Lord sits down, and to keep him busy, I presume that he is suggesting that in the usual City tradition this member would be an Independent and, therefore, it would not change the political complexion. As I mentioned earlier, this is one of the difficulties of attacking the argument that the way the representatives appeared was fortuitous.
Lord Broxbourne: I claim no expertise on the political complexion of the Common Council of the City of London. My understanding is that, whatever views they may cherish as thinking citizens, they do, in fact, sit as Independents. If I am wrong, no doubt I shall be corrected by someone with much more experience in these matters than I.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2. line 33, leave out ("1st April 1985") and insert ("one month after the date on which this Part of this Act comes into force").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to bring forward the date by which the constituent councils—the boroughs and the districts—must appoint the people who are to serve as GLC and MCC councillors from 7th May 1985. I emphasise that last point—this amendment does not affect in any way the date on which the borough/district appointees take office. That remains 7th May 1985, when the present GLC/MCC councillors' term of office expires.
Under subsection (4) as it stands, the constituent councils must make their appointments by 1st April 1985, although they can, of course, do so earlier. But that is the date by which they must have complied with the duty to appoint. It will be important that the appointees to the transitional councils are identified as quickly as practicable. The sooner that happens, the longer the time those people will have to familiarise themselves with the responsibilities which they will acquire on 7th May 1985.
We recognise that it would not be proper to require this to happen in advance of the order bringing Part II into operation. As a result of the helpful debates which we had earlier, but which have been overtaken by events, I would have referred again to the affirmative resolution. However, in view of what transpired, clearly I cannot do so now. Nevertheless, if an order, under whatever ultimately is the statutory instrument, is approved we think it right to ask the constituent councils straight away to make their appointments if they have not already started to do so of their own volition. We therefore propose in this amendment to require the appointments to be made within one month of the making of the commencement order. That would mean that all the transitional councillors would have been appointed by early next year—some two months earlier than under the present terms of subsection (4).
This amendment is intended to be of practical assistance to the people who are to serve as GLC/MCC
1124
councillors in the transitional period. It will help by giving them more time in which to prepare themselves for that role. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to agree the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I am very surprised that, in the circumstances, the Minister moved this amendment because it was tabled before the change in the Bill when the first amendment was passed this evening. The Minister talks as though the Bill will be out of the Lords by April 1985, or May at the latest, but there is nothing to substantiate that at all. There is a very great chance that the Bill will still be going through Parliament at the time.
I find this amendment quite out of tune with what we have now done. I invite the Minister to withdraw it at this stage, in the same way as it was agreed to withdraw Amendments Nos. 10 and 10A. The proposal would squeeze the date even earlier. It does not seem to have any validity, except to make things even more difficult for the councils. We are going into quite a different area from the area that existed when the Minister put down the amendment. We are now getting into the area of not just interim councils, but also shadow councils, and it seems absolutely wrong.
On these Benches we feel that this amendment must be opposed. I hope that the Minister will accept the views that we hold and deal with the amendment in the only way that I think is possible; namely, withdraw it for the time being and look at it again, in the same way as with Amendments Nos. 10 and 10A.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I hope that my noble friend will take that advice. It seems that the timetable about which he was speaking just now is most unlikely to be that which is accomplished. I cannot see why, in the light of the provisions of Amendment No. 1, which was passed, and the consequences of working out what the parliamentary timetable might be as a result of that, we have to take a decision upon this matter this evening. As the noble Baroness said, the provisions in this amendment seem to me exactly in line with some of the other matters that have been postponed. I am afraid to say that if my noble friend insists upon this, I shall certainly not support him. It seems to me to be another of the matters that ought to be reconsidered in the light of the earlier decision.
Lord Bellwin: We were bound to move this evening into some areas which would be confusing in terms of what did and did not apply and what is separate from the earlier decison. I think that the key words are:
"leave out ('1st April 1985')".
In the circumstances I think that it would be right for me at least to consider what has been said. If, as I think at the moment, this amendment stands on its own, we can bring it back at another stage. But in view of the concern expressed, not least by my noble friend, I think that it would probably be proper that we should take it away for the time being. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.53 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 16A:
Page 2, line 38, after ("in") insert (", in the case of the Greater London Council, Part I, and, in the case of a metropolitan county Part II of').
The noble Baroness said: This clause sets out the number of councillors to be appointed by each district to the interim metropolitan county councils. The Bill proposes that representation for each district should be cut to half the existing number of county councillors, rounded up to the next whole number. For some reason this same principle is not applied to the GLC, and so in this area there is differentiation between the MCCs and the GLC.
In the White Paper there was no reference to the size of transitional councils. As I understand it, the only argument to be put forward so far by the Government as to why there should be an arbitrary reduction of 50 per cent. in county council membership is that, during its 11 months' existence, the transitional council will not be preparing a budget, as that will have been done by the outgoing elected council. But this proposal appears to ignore a great number of very important factors.
First, there is the workload. The full range of functions will still have to be administered by the transitional councils. That point was made earlier this afternoon when we were discussing the first amendment. Then, additional work will have to be done by the transitional councils on the arrangements to transfer their county council services to joint boards, joint committees, Government departments, district councils, adjacent local authorities and outside organisations.
For district councillors appointed to the transitional councils the county council duties will be additional to their already existing district council workload, and so they will have a very heavy workload indeed. In many areas there is very little relationship between district council wards and county council electoral divisions. District councils will have to produce new groupings of wards with each appointee to the county council representing two or three district wards. It seems a very wide spread.
There is no consistency between county councils in the number of people represented by each district council appointee. This cannot accurately be described as the electorate, as at that point, in the Government's mind, there would be no election. But now, of course, the situation has changed. The average number of people of voting age would be 38,206 in the West Midlands, 37,072 in Greater Manchester, 34,486 in West Yorkshire 23,624 in Merseyside, 20,019 in South Yorkshire and 17,339 in Tyne and Wear. Halving the number of county councillors would cause enormous problems for committee structures with wholesale revision required in many cases. It should not be a straightforward case of halving committee membership because of the inter-relationships between committees—on the basis that many members serve on more than one committee—standing order and financial regulation requirements, and appointments to outside bodies.
What this amendment does is to retain the existing number of councillors. The benefits are that the
1126
number of councillors is as approved by Parliament, that there will be no change required to county electoral divisions, and that committee structures will be unchanged and workload problems eased. This is the reason for the amendment which seems very much fairer to the metropolitan county councils. Unless this amendment, or something along the same lines, is accepted, these councils will be put in a rather invidious position compared with the GLC. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: I have some difficulty with these two amendments. My difficulty with the first amendment, Amendment No. 16A, is that I do not see what useful purpose it would serve. My difficulty with the second amendment—I assume that we are speaking also to Amendment No. 91—is that I see all too clearly what its purpose is. It is one that the Government cannot support. Dealing first with Amendment No. 16A, I wonder whether it is designed to ensure that membership of transitional councils shall be set out in Schedule 1. If that is the case, I have to say that it is an unnecessary provision. Subsection (4) already makes clear that the numbers of members of those councils will be as set out in Schedule 1.
It is also, I fear, an amendment that is technically defective. It would prescribe the membership of the transitional MCCs as being that set out in Part II of Schedule 1, but Part II relates only to Greater Manchester. The other metropolitan county councils are each the subject of separate parts of that schedule. So the amendment is unnecessary and, I respectfully suggest, technically defective.
The effect of Amendment No. 91 would be to double the size of the transitional MCCs. They would revert to their present size. We oppose the amend-ment. It may help if I explain why we believe that the size of the transitional metropolitan county councils should be less than at present. Schedule 1 as it stands allocates one member to the transitional GLC for each parliamentary constituency. This gives a total number of councillors approximately the same as at present. However, a different approach has to be adopted for the transitional metropolitan county councils. In the metropolitan counties, several parliamentary constitu-encies cross metropolitan district boundaries. It would be difficult in practice to allocate transitional council seats in these cases.
Furthermore, the district councils have smaller populations and far fewer constituent authorities. The biggest, Greater Manchester, has 10 districts. My own former council, Leeds, has only five. This compares with 32 London boroughs. So smaller transitional councils still give each district a reasonable number of representatives without being unwieldy.
This amendment would lead to unnecessarily large transitional councils—huge ones. I would remind your Lordships that the main purpose of transitional or interim councils—call them what you will—is to prepare for a smooth transfer of functions, and an over-large membership would only hinder this task. So it seems to me that the schedule, as it stands, strikes the right balance between adequate representation and efficiency. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that there is merit in the real difference that I have explained, and that it is relevant to the amendment.
Lord Evans of Claughton: Speaking as one who was a district councillor and a metropolitan county councillor at the same time and found the workload too much, particularly after I came up to your Lordships' House, I want to say—this is the crux of my support for the noble Baroness's amendment—that the workload, even on an interim, closing basis, that is being imposed on people who are elected as district councillors to look after all the multifarious duties which metropolitan boroughs and district councils have, and at the same time to be representing huge areas on a county council, which in the interim period will still have duties, is requiring people who really are not elected for that purpose at all to carry out duties that are almost impossible to perform if they are to retain their efficiency as councillors.
I was one who objected very much, on the reorganisation in 1972, to the huge increase in the size of wards and electoral areas. I was much happier representing 4,000 or 5,000 people than I was representing 18,000, 19,000 or 24,000 people, because I felt that the contact between the county, local or district councillor and the elector was that much more effective. While I am sure that the figures the noble Baroness's amendment put forward are not perfect, any more than the figures that the Government put forward are perfect, we should be thinking of larger numbers, so that the strain will not be too great, rather than smaller numbers.
I suspect that if one puts a tremendous strain on councillors, in terms of time and so on, one may often find them coming to wrong and silly decisions because of the stresses and strains upon them. Sometimes I think that with the amount of work we are expected to do in this House—it is supposed to be a part-time House—the stress and strain on us may occasionally bring us to make the wrong decisions; although I am comforted, by what happened earlier today, that we are on the right tracks. The Government ought to consider the terrible burden they are imposing on the interim councillors in Greater London and the metropolitan councils.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I feel it is unfortunate that metropolitan districts will not have the same representation on the interim councils as they have on the present councils. I see no real points in any of the arguments that the noble Lord brought forward. The point about the workload has been expressed very well by other noble Lords who have spoken. It is not only the actual workload. The fitting in of the meetings is going to be terribly difficult. In the various district councils of which I am aware, I have made extensive inquiries about this. The question of conflicting afternoon and evening meetings has been well thought of by the districts and the county, so that there is not a conflict of things taking place in different areas.
If one looks at the workload that will be thrown upon the county councils, one sees that it is going to be a bigger workload than in London. We assume that much of the workload is going to be passed over to statutory boards. At present the police are part and parcel of the county councils. That matter has to be decided. We do not know what will happen with the fire brigades. Again, they might have to go to statutory boards.
1128
There are more complications as regards who will take over the responsibilities in the metropolitan counties than there are in regard to the GLC for the very reason that the district councils in the metropolitan authorities are already taking over education and other services because they were the services which they had previously. For example, Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley in the West Midlands area already have education functions at district level. So there is not the ILEA type of example to use.
One must also take into consideration, especially in certain parts of the country—not necessarily the West Midlands—the travelling time involved. In Yorkshire considerable travelling time will be involved for some of the respresentatives on the interim councils. I see no reason why there should be distinction. If the GLC needs the exact number that they have at present to put into operation the passing on of the powers to other bodies or to local authorities, then why is not the same applicable to the metropolitan councils? I cannot see any argument for saying that there should be a difference in the total numbers.
Baroness Lockwood: I should like to add a few words to what my noble friend has said. West Yorkshire is certainly going to be a difficult problem. The Minister knows the geographical area very well, and some of the districts cover a very wide geographical area. So on top of the travel involved and their responsibilities within their own districts, the representatives will have the added problem of responsibility for the metropolitan county services, and on top of that again, as my noble friend has just said, they will have to work out how they will transfer the functions to the joint bodies. So they really have three responsibilities and we are expecting people who were elected for one purpose within a district to take over the whole of those three functions. In my view that is asking too much.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: I explained in some detail exactly why it was that we were proposing this "apportionment"—if that is the right word, which it probably is not. The fact is that there is a tremendous difference between the electorial situations in the two sets of areas that we are considering—namely: the GLC and the MCCs. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, mentioned Yorkshire. She said that the areas for travelling are wide. They are wide, but then those who are on the councils will themselves apportion who will do what. Whatever else may be said, anyone who has served on a large council, as I have, for many years would not say that, for example, out of the 99 councillors on the authority that I worked with—at different times it was 96 and 120—there was not a workload for certain key people.
There are many members of councils who do far less and many who would dearly like to do much more and they aspire to get on to committees which have greater amounts of work to do. In my view they will welcome the opportunity—the opportunity to do what? It is the opportunity to serve for 11 months, at the most, on a transitional council. What will be the role of that

1129
council? I keep coming back to this question again and again. It will not be to make a budget—and that is a big part of being on a council; it will not be to decide new policies; it will be to run down, to hand over, and to keep going.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, earlier on in the day referred to what he considered would be an immense burden. I am the last person ever to belittle either the importance or the volume of work that goes to any councillor. But I respectfully submit that for them it will be a new situation of which none of us has any experience, but which it is not unreasonable for me to point out will be of a different nature from what we have had hitherto. Therefore, although I am not unsympathetic to the point about the workload—far from it—in practical terms I do not think it will give rise to the concern which your Lordships have expressed.
If we then apply that to the other points I have made about the logicality of the representation itself, we reach a situation which I think we have about right. As an aside, those who would support the point of view in this amendment have made no representations on this point. They refuse to discuss the matter. Therefore, they must not complain if matters are decided without their input when they have abdicated the opportunity to make that input.
Having said that, I believe that the balance is about right. I think that it is very proper that the concerns should be expressed. I take them in the constructive spirit in which they were made. I think that this is one situation where the fears which have been expressed by your Lordships will not materialise.
Baroness Birk: I am not at all happy with the Minister's answer on this point. As he has more or less said, he has relied on guesswork because this has never happened. He said that this was a new situation of which none of us had had experience. In a new situation of which one has not had experience, it is always much safer to underdo things rather than to overdo them. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, with his particularly large realm of experience in local government, my noble friend Lady Fisher from the Midlands and my noble friend Lady Lockwood from South Yorkshire all said the same thing. They all spoke from great experience.
In addition, in the areas about which we are talking there are often far greater distances to travel—a point which I did not mention when I listed the heavy workloads there would be. There is no guarantee—certainly not now—that it will be eleven months at the most. It could be considerably longer. Even if it were not, to push this quite different type of workload on to people who are not used to it, and who are not necessarily prepared for it, would be very wrong. It would not only be wrong for the individuals because it could result in a great deal of stress and overwork for them, but it would be wrong and bad for the running of local government.
I must confess that I do not think that the Minister made out a very good case for resisting the amendment. I would suggest that as we are all pretty tired, he should take it back and have another look at it.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The noble Lord extended the number of representatives on the GLC interim body by generously including the City of London. Would he do the same for the counties? He has made an exception in an exceptional case. Those of us who come from the counties are saying tonight that there is an exceptional case and we should like him to look at this again.
As I mentioned previously, the unemployment problem in the areas concerned will affect men and women getting extra time off work. Although they will be in a run-down situation, I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister would not want run-down councillors. He will want the type of councillor who, at the end of the day, will come to the right conclusions. Therefore, it is important that we do not have councillors who have time on their hands, but that we have good representatives, and I am sure that he would want that.
Employers these days are very loath to give more time off work because of their capital situation. If this debars men and women from participating, I would ask the noble Lord to give as good considerations to this matter as he did to the London situation on a previous amendment.
Lord Bellwin: I give consideration to everything that is mentioned and raised. I think that today after the somewhat traumatic earlier happening it cannot be said, all else apart, other than that I have been willing to consider, to take away, to postpone, such matters as I thought were proper. I am not without sympathy to the underlying theme of what is being said, but I feel that the fears that have been expressed will not turn out in practice to be justified. I understand why they are expressed. The noble Baroness in referring to the bona fides of her colleagues who have spoken on this, I am sure would not take away from me my bona fides in terms of knowledge and experience of exactly the kind of situation.
If I felt that this was going to be an intolerable burden upon them, I would have to be concerned. I really do not feel that that is the case. I will read carefully what has been said and talk with colleagues, but I could not undertake, as I stand here now, to do anything about that. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will know, if I say I will read something you know that I will do that: but I certainly cannot give an undertaking.
Baroness Birk: I hope that when the Minister takes it back he will look at it all again, and not necessarily accept this amendment but see that there is a big problem here which could be exacerbated and become a much bigger problem. We have got to the stage where the noble Lord says, "I think it will be all right", and we are saying, "No, it will not be all right". There is a limit to how long one can go on like that. In the circumstances, in the hope that the Minister will come back with something that is more realistic and practical for the metropolitan county councils, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 16B:
Page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the gerrymandering subsection in the Bill. For the benefit of the Committee I shall read what we consider is the offending Clause 2(5):
"Each constituent council shall, so far as practicable, exercise its power to make or terminate appointments under this Part of this Act so as to ensure that the balance of parties for the time being prevailing in that council is reflected in the persons who are for the time being members of the Greater London Council or of the relevant metropolitan county council and for whose appointment the constituent council is responsible".
In London, the net effect of this would be to change the Labour control of London affairs from a majority of four to a Conservative majority of between 12 and 18. There is no way in which the Minister or the Government can justify that on democratic grounds. Although the metropolitan counties are not likely to change political control, it is a fact that the current Labour majorities would be drastically reduced, in some cases in political terms down to dangerous levels.
The Government have argued that in the GLC case the situation is an accidental outcome of the interim provisions. Some of the borough elections in 1982 produced a majority of Conservative controlled councils. In our view that argument is disingenuous. It ignores two facts. First, that the interim structure which the Government have created is an unprecedented one in local government. There was nothing to prevent the Government from allowing the 1985 elections to proceeed and limiting the terms of elected councillors in the main abolition Bill if necessary. Secondly, the 1982 borough elections which the Government rest upon as an argument, took place in the shadow of the Falklands war at a time of high Conservative popularity. Without in any way denying the validity of the results that took place at that time, we would maintain that the elections in London would produce vastly different results. If one studied the results of the local elections throughout the country less than two months ago one would find that there had been a remarkable turn-round between 1982 and 1984. The Conservative manifesto contained no reference either to the transfer of political control or to the abolition of elections. In these circumstances, the validity of any claimed mandate is considerably reduced.
Briefly, I should like the Committee to understand some of the circumstances which, in our view, reveal the nonsense of the situation. In my own London borough of Enfield, for example, at the moment there are three councillors, one Conservative and two Labour. The current intention is that that be altered to two Conservative and one Labour. If there is any argument it is resting on the 1982 election results which, in my experience, without forecasting too much, would be different if the election were held now. In Ealing the situation is that one Conservative and two Labour would be changed to two Conservative and one Labour. In Hillingdon there are two Conservative and one Labour: that would be three Conservative. In London we see that this is a grave attack upon the intentions of the people of London when they elected their councillors some four years ago. We are looking forward with great interest to the
1132
Government justifying Clause 2(5) which this amendment seeks to delete. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to add significantly to what my noble friend has said, but as a non-lawyer I have one or two questions to put to the Government. Am I right in thinking that this is the first time in legislation that the word "parties" referring to political parties has appeared? If so, what definition is given for "political parties"? My noble friend referred to the London borough of Hillingdon. He referred only to the balance between the Conservative and the Labour Party, but a significant part of the council of the London borough of Hillingdon is the ratepayers' association. It does not call itself a political party. Is subsection (5) supposed to permit representations to the Hillingdon ratepayers who would deny the existence of a political party? What happens to independents? They may not be common in the GLC or in metropolitan counties, but I wonder whether we are not enshrining into legislation, almost by the back door, a concept which we all recognise of political parties. Many of us would not be here unless we did: I say that carefully. But is it right in this way, without recognition of all the implications of the constitution of political parties, to introduce this now into this legislation for a period of only 11 months?
10.24 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wonder whether the noble Lord opposite has fully appreciated the effect of his amendment. As I read it, if subsection (5) is taken out it would be free to every local authority concerned to choose, completely freely, its own representatives from the new central body. There would therefore be nothing to prevent any council with a small majority of one party or another confining its representation to representatives from that party. As in the case about which the noble Lord is complaining, that of the GLC, the majority of the boroughs have a Conservative representation, the effect of that would be a much larger Conservative representation on the new authority than there would be under this clause. Therefore, it seems to me that the noble Lord has misapprehended the effect of his own amendment and it also makes even more unjustifiable the phrase which personally I very much resented—though I am sure it was used lightheartedly—that this was a "gerrymandering clause".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: May I quickly say that I was echoing the words of former Cabinet Ministers of his own party in another place who used the word "gerrymander". As far as the noble Lord—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the noble Lord will not expect me necessarily to respect the utterances of one or two of those gentlemen.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am quite certain that they would disclaim the utterances of the noble Lord in the same context. The Minister tempts me to say that I ought to accept the fairness of the Government's gerrymander as opposed to the possible gerrymander of Conservative councils. In other words, the

1133
Government are trying to be fair. It is fairer, for instance, in allocating the representation for London than, for instance, would be the collective views of Conservative councils. I think the noble Lord is right that councils certainly would be not as fair as the Government in numerical terms. But our objection, frankly, is to the whole Bill. Our objection is to the intention of the Government to seek to change. The issue is not whether the Government's option is a better option than the other one. We are opposed to the Government's option.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord has given away the whole case for his amendment. He admits that the effect of the subsection is, to his point of view, better than leaving it to the councils, yet he proposes to delete the subsection. He really has made a nonsense of his own amendment.
Lord Evans of Claughton: If I may interrupt what has become a dialogue, I think it would be churlish of me as a Liberal who has bored your Lordships over many months and years in talking about proportionality—which I shall go on doing so long as I have breath to do so until eventually we get proportional representation—to say that this is the first attempt I know of in legislation to introduce an element of proportionality, however ineffective or rough it might be. My worry is that the proportionality will be proportionality related to the number of councillors in each London borough rather than the numbers of votes acquired by the political parties in that area.
My second concern would be the minority parties—and the minority parties are not always the Liberals or the Social Democratic Party; I am happy to say that in many areas of this country the Labour or Conservative parties are the minority parties. But whichever is the minority party will be in some difficulty and would be likely to suffer in almost all the arithmetical calculations that are made. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned two Conservatives and one Labour. Very often there is the case where there are, say, 40 Conservatives, 41 Labour and 4 Alliance. How many councillors on the new authority are the Alliance Party going to get? There are no prizes for guessing. The answer is zero. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that Clasue 2(5) is better than nothing; because I remember the good old days when they had joint boards on the Mersey Tunnel Joint Committee where the party in control just took all the seats. There would be, say, 23 Labour councillors, 18 Conservatives, one Liberal. There would be five Labour representatives on the board and zero for everyone else. It is an improvement in that sense. But I still think that this Government, with all the talent available to them, could have done a better job in arranging proportionality than this clause has done. I think they ought to have another try at it.
Lord Bellwin: Of all the people who should have been opposing this, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, is one, as he made out rightly in his latter remarks. His party has probably suffered more on this than most. I am frankly amazed at the attitude of noble Lords about this. Here the Government set out genuinely to
1134
give an opportunity for there to be a proper and fair balance in relation to the prevailing balance of the constituent councils, and they do not like what is proposed. I entirely agree with my noble friend, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I, too, object to the use of the word "gerrymander." If you want to gerrymander, you do not go about it in this way. The noble Lord knows very well what that is all about. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, no, it is not the first time that there is a reference in legislation to "party". I would have to remind him that the Labour Government brought in the Scotland Act in 1976 which of course referred to the word "party".
One has to look carefully at what is proposed. It calls for the appointing council to appoint only those who are required in applying this subsection who are members of the constituent councils so far as is practicable. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to Hillingdon where he said there are two Conservatives and one Labour and henceforth there will be three Conservatives. I am not quite sure to what he was referring there but certainly that is not the kind of situation that will pertain.
This Bill sets out to do exactly what it says; to enable all parties to have a representation even when they are minorities. The Government could very easily have turned their back on this point. I object very strongly to the accusation of trying to manoeuvre something, because the intention is exactly the opposite. The intention is to give to the minorities a chance to have at least a word, a say, a person present to represent their point of view—something they have not had in the past mostly where Labour authorities have dominated, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, rightly pointed out. They have much to answer for in this respect. It is not wrong that we should try to give the minority parties a voice. It is right and I would defend this and fight it all the way.
Baroness Birk: I think my noble friend made clear at the beginning of the debate that in any case this is meant to be a probing amendment, so I do not think the Minister need exercise too much passion on it. I do not think that he has as yet answered the points put by my noble friend Lord McIntosh about groups which would not be called or recognised as political parties—groups of ratepayers or other groups of people who would not consider themselves politically minded.
Lord Bellwin: This is not an easy area. We have had to think very carefully about this. Because the authorities concerned deemed that they did not wish to talk, they themselves have had no imput into this. So they must not complain if they do not like what is finally decided for them because they do not want to have any part in deciding it with anybody else. It is not an easy area to try to get right. I think that I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the particular point that he raised. We have talked about it but I think I should like to dilate on it and give him a chance to consider what I say.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. I wonder whether he would try to do it so that it could be considered before Report stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do intend to withdraw the amendment but certainly not the charge of gerrymandering. It is a proper word. It may be objectionable. It may be refuted by noble Lords opposite. They make the charge about members of my party in certain circumstances and we would deny it as well. My interpretation of the word "gerrymander" is that, by a non-elective process, the electoral control of an authority is changed. If the Minister is telling me that there is no intention that the collective government of London will have other than a Labour majority after the provisions of the Bill become law, I shall be very surprised. From all that we have seen and read it is intended that the present majority of four for Labour will be changed to a minority for Labour. The Minister is entitled to say that he has tried to do this in the fairest possible way; it may well be the fairest possible way, but, in trying to do it in the fairest possible way, one has to come up against the position that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and others.
Let me give the Minister the illustration of Hammersmith and Fulham, where one is going to try to apportion three seats in the fairest possible way. The Conservatives at Hammersmith and Fulham, jointly with the Liberals, control the council with a total of half the seats. Labour also has precisely half the seats. How does the Minister intend by promulgation to divide those three fairly in a case like that? However he does it (and it is his intention to do it, not ours) there is bound to be somebody who—does the Minister wish to intervene?
Lord Bellwin: It will be the authority, the people, who will do it. I quoted the words of the legislation: "so far as is practicable". If there is a situation such as the noble Lord describes, the authority themselves will decide how to do it. I can think of ways in which I would deal with a situation such as that. I would say: "Right: we will toss a coin for the spare seat that exists". But I suspect that may not be what others would do. I shall make one more comment after the noble Lord has finished, since at the moment I am only intervening.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate that the political reality is that where there is an alliance such as that in Hammersmith, and the council collectively is able to determine the situation, although the Minister might say it is one to Labour and one to the rest, and then he would spin a coin, in fact you might very well consider giving one to the Conservatives, one to the Liberals, and one to Labour. That in fact would not be fair because there would not then be an equality of seats among the three parties. All I am pointing out is that in trying to give effect to what the Government intend to do one comes up against a situation of that kind.
Let me give another example to the Minister; it is that of Waltham Forest. Labour and Conservative each have 44 per cent. of the seats on the council, but there are three seats to be filled. If the Alliance were allocated a seat, they would have only 12 per cent. of council seats. However that is resolved, there will be unfairness. If either one of the two major parties takes two seats, that will be unfair to the other, and if there
1136
is a division of one to each, in effect 44 per cent. will be made to equate to 12 per cent.
At Brent the Conservatives control the council with 49 per cent. of the seats, but Labour have 47 per cent. and the Alliance 4 per cent. There are three seats to be divided. Whatever happens there, there is going to be a squeezing out of the tiny party, and the party which has just an odd percentage point more than the other will get the opportunity of taking two seats
So far as we are concerned, we do not like the Bill and we certainly do not like the intention to change the political control, for however short a period, of the affairs of London in a manner other than by the views and the decisions of local people. If I used a word which is offensive to noble Lords opposite, I recognise the import of it and I plead in aid no former Cabinet Minister. I indicated simply not the genesis of the word, but the free use of the word in another place by someone whose views I share at the moment. but on other occasions I do not. I use it because it suits my purpose at this particular time. No doubt the Minister has a word comparable to "gerrymandering" to describe my principles in that situation. But so far as I am concerned, it is quite clear that in the totality of the Bill this is a part of a package which we do not like. As my noble friend Lady Birk has said. this is a matter which, particularly at this time of night, we should not wish to press. Before I conclude, I believe that the Minister wants to say a word. after which I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bellwin: I am not sure that I shall say anything further because I suspect that when we come to the next amendment, when we shall be discussing not totally dissimilar matters (although it will not be tonight) we shall be going round this track again. So maybe I ought to keep some of my powder dry. I have a great deal of it, mark you, but I think I shall keep it dry for that occasion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.39 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert—
(" ( ) Any question which may arise under subsection (5) above as to whether in any case the balance of parties has been reflected shall be determined by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: I shall try to move this amendment briefly. I am aware of the lateness of the hour. I should like to say at the beginning of my remarks that the word "gerrymander", which has caused so much offence, is not a word of disapprobation in the United States of America. but is a great compliment. I would beg your Lordships to remember that the successful gerrymanderer wins the elections there.
This amendment, taking into account those subjects which were discussed on the last amendment, seeks to give the noble Lord the Minister's right honourable friend additional power. I should have thought he

1137
would have welcomed this amendment, if for no other reason than that it seeks to place a responsibility for resolving the disputes that will inevitably arise under Clause 2(5) in his hands.
There is no proper procedure under the Bill for resolving the political difficulties which are bound to arise as a result of this subsection. The difficulties will be caused by the desirability of achieving a political balance, which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, mentioned in the last debate. As anyone who looks at the results in the counties or in Greater London will see, there will be areas of dispute and dissatisfaction, mostly, but not entirely, from among the minority parties, as again the noble Lord has indicated. But the minority parties will inevitably feel on many occasions that they are being under represented or not represented at all. The noble Lord the Minister says that the local authority must make the decision, but the noble Lord has perhaps never been a member of a minority in a large council, very exposed to nasty bullying tactics by the noble Lord's party and the Opposition party.
I gather that right honourable friends of the noble Lord the Minister have said in another place that the recourse of minorities who feel badly done by is to go to the courts. But I do not think that the courts are the right place to resolve what will essentially be political disputes, because the courts are not equipped to deal with political disputes. The very purpose and the whole foundation of our legal system is that it is not political. In spite of the belief of many members of the party opposite the noble Lord the Minister, it is not a political organisation and heaven forfend that it ever should be. Therefore, it is difficult to envisage how any court could consider overturning a decision of a council, unless it was totally capricious and against natural justice, and yet a decision could be made by such a council which was not capricious but was still unfair.
Again, I do not wish to tire your Lordships' Committee by detailing a whole list of areas where such an unfairness could happen. I hope noble Lords will accept that there are many metropolitan counties and London boroughs where such an outcome is almost inevitable. Therefore, since the Secretary of State is imposing a system which on those terms is unworkable, or, if not unworkable, unpopular, and which will leave unhappiness and great areas of dispute, it seems to me that these being political differences the Secretary of State should take upon himself the responsibility for resolving those disputes, and should not opt out in what I believe to be a rather irresponsible way, saying that the courts must settle them, because the courts are certainly not equipped for that. The Secretary of State being a political figure, and taking into account all the problems of the political parties of this country, is the right person to settle such a dispute. I should have thought the noble Lord would welcome such an additional responsibility on behalf of his right honourable friend. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: May I put the record straight at once? I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that I have indeed been a member of a minority in opposition. I have been through all the four permutations. I have
1138
been in control, I have been in opposition, I have been in minority control and I have been in minority opposition. You cannot have any more permutations than that. So I know exactly what it is all about and what it is like. In fact, one of the factors that led us to the present situation is precisely that I have been in those positions, and precisely that I know how difficult it is for the minorities to have a say and how easy it is for them to be blocked out totally and completely. It is that very fact which has led us to the point where we want to give the minority parties a voice and a say.
We are making a big meal of this and missing the underlying point: what is it that these transitional councils are going to do? We know for how long they will do it. It will not be for a year. They will not be making policy. They will not be making budgets. They will be ticking over and handing over. If one wanted to gerrymander—what a term to use, despite what the noble Lord says—would one take the situation of seven authorities and allow six of them to continue to be Labour controlled, with one of them not Labour controlled?
What will they be doing for this period of 11 months? They will be doing what I have just said. This is overlooked again and again. There have been accusations of juggling and of manoeuvring in some way, when all that we are suggesting is that the authorities should appoint their own people, so far as is practicable. There cannot be more flexibility than that. We are attempting to give to minority groups the chance to have a say and an appearance. If we are making all this fuss about that, I can only say that I am surprised.
This amendment will not do, either, because it would be quite wrong to involve Ministers who, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, pointed out, are politicians. Therefore, they should not be asked to adjudicate upon what should be the political balance of other politicians. That is the last thing one would want them to do. I understand why the noble Lord is anxious not to have a court requirement but if, at the end of the day, when it comes to appointing representatives for 11 months to the transitional councils, the councils cannot sort out a reasonable representation, they are not very worthy, in the way in which I happen to think that they are.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I am not suggesting, and I have not suggested at any stage, that I regard the proposals as grotesquely unfair. All I am suggesting is that they could be made fairer in the way that I have suggested. The noble Lord the Minister gave us a moving description of the various capacities in which he has served in local government, but he has never been in the position in which I have spent most of my political life: that of 47 Conservatives, 42 Labour and 3 Liberals. That is the kind of situation I am concerned about. I am sure I could bring tears to the eyes of your Lordships in considering the treatment which has been meted out to us over the years. I would rather have the fate of a minority party in the hands of the Secretary of State than in the hands of a provincial Labour or

1139
Conservative party. I say that with some bitter experience.
Having said that, I concede that the Bill as drafted will take much of the bullying out of it. However, in those peripheral cases where a difficulty is left, either because there is almost equality between two parties or because a third party has got a significant number of councillors but not a large enough number to justify a place, there may be disputes. I would rather have the fate of the position left in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is a politician and who knows about these things, than left in the hands of the courts, which essentially and by definition do not know about these things. However, the hour is late and it is time, in the circumstances, for me to say that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. with much reluctance and a great deal of sadness.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: We have reached the point at which it was agreed that we should adjourn. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Denham.)
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: May I make one short, personal comment in order to keep a friendship outside the House, if it is at all possible. I believe in robust debate but I certainly do not believe in personal attacks which make for unpleasantness. Earlier in the debate when I was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I interpreted part of his remarks as suggesting, rather snidely, something about my eloquence. As a riposte I said that he exhibited a "smooth arrogance". It has been brought to my attention that the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, feels that there could be an interpretation put on the word "smooth" which is not pleasant.
All that I wanted to make perfectly clear was that while I will cross swords in as robust a fashion as you like on the merits of any case, there is certainly no question of my wanting to introduce personal remarks of an unpleasant kind; certainly not in this case and certainly not so far as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is concerned.
I wanted that on the record because it has been drawn to my attention that the noble Lord has those feelings, and I wanted to dispel them. That is not my mood and I do not think that in the long term it is the mood of the noble Lord. I would not have liked the debate to end without that being made perfectly clear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eleven o'clock.

  NATO AND THE WARSAW PACT: COMPARISONS
  NATO AND THE WARSAW PACT: COMPARISONS
  DRUG MISUSE: ADVISORY COUNCIL'S REPORT
  DRUG MISUSE: ADVISORY COUNCIL'S REPORT
  RESIDENTIAL CARE: CODE OF PRACTICE
  RESIDENTIAL CARE: CODE OF PRACTICE
  NHS CONSULTANTS: MERIT AWARDS
  NHS CONSULTANTS: MERIT AWARDS