Sitting of 5 March 1984

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

    Housing Improvements
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for improving housing conditions in Wales.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The most pressing need is to improve the condition of the existing housing stock, of which 40 per cent. was built before 1919. Housing improvements have been carried out at record levels over the past four years, and the total capital available for local authority housing will exceed £150 million in the coming financial year.
    Dr. Marek: I must thank British Rail for its excellent effort after the points failure at Chester this morning. I missed my connection but was taken to Crewe and the waiting train then arrived early at Euston.
    Although it is necessary to repair existing housing stock, the Under-Secretary must realise that local authority new building is far below even his expectation. Can he put forward a programme allowing local authorities to build new houses during the 1984–85 session, over and above any present programme?
    Mr. Roberts: As I have told the House on a number of occasions, there has been a long-term decline in public sector house building. For example, during the period of the last Labour Government between 1975 and 1979 there was a decline of about 59 per cent. in local authority house building.
    Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the zero rating of value added tax on alterations and extensions to houses would be a retrograde step?
    Mr. Roberts: That is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Anderson: Even though there was a decline in 1979 from the 1974 figures, Welsh people wanting housing definitely want those 1979 figures to be restored. Does the Under-Secretary of State still hold to the view he expressed in September 1982 to the Council for the Principality that, on a conservative estimate, Wales needs 12,000 new buildings each year for 20 years?
    Mr. Roberts: That is certainly one way of looking at our housing needs, but the current emphasis is on rehabilitation. I am glad to tell the House that the outlook is nothing like as gloomy as Opposition Members would
    588
    have us believe. Since the 1982 Budget, local authorities have received a total of 107,000 applications for housing grants, not all of them qualifying for the enhanced rate. About 69,000 have been approved and 43,000 have been paid.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if councils such as Newport were to speed up the sale of council houses, more funds would be available for home improvement grants?
    Mr. Roberts: We are dependent on progress with rehabilitation and, in housing generally, on the sale of council houses. The added benefit is that we shall increase the number of home owners. I am glad that since 1979 the proportion of home owners in Wales has increased significantly.
    Mr. Wigley: Given the emphasis that the Under-Secretary claims he is giving to renovation, how does he explain the fact that thousands of people in Wales who expected to obtain improvement grants this year must wait four, five and six years before they obtain the money that is badly needed to improve their homes?
    Mr. Roberts: As usual, the hon. Gentleman exaggerates his position. Exaggeration has never proved a case yet. Many authorities are readjusting their policies in view of the announcement of their housing allocations for next year. I have already given the figures. of the 107,000 applications for grant, 69,000 have been approved and 43,000 have been paid.
    Mr. Hooson: Will my hon. Friend estimate what proportion of the houses that were classified as unfit in 1980 are no longer unfit as a result of the excellent improvement grants?
    Mr. Roberts: The 1981 survey showed that there were about 91,000 unfit houses. About 40,000 repair grant applications have been approved, so we have made an impact, which will show up in the next housing survey.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: 'Will the Minister inform the House why local authorities in Wales built fewer private houses in the public sector in the 1980s than in the 1970s?
    Mr. Roberts: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means, but I think that he was referring all the time to the public sector. It is entirely up to the local authorities whether they build, but it seems fairly clear, looking at the last decade, that they, like us, are moving towards rehabilitation. For example, today I have approved three new enveloping schemes to be carried out by Cardiff, Rhondda and Ogwr district councils, under which 443 houses in urgent need of attention are to be enveloped.
    Mr. Raffan: While housing unfitness is principally a private sector phenomenon, does my hon. Friend agree that council house maintenance is a very important responsibility of borough councils, and that, if such maintenance had been carried out properly in the past 20 or 30 years, boroughs such as mine in Delyn would not now have to spend upward of £1 million a year on extremely expensive rolling programmes of improvements?
    Mr. Roberts: If my hon. Friend looks at an answer that I gave at a previous Welsh Question Time he will see that local authorities have spent significant amounts on

    589
    repairing their dwellings. He will also know that the Housing and Building Control Bill introduces a right to repair that will enable council tenants to carry out repairs themselves and claim reimbursement from their landlords.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Under-Secretary understand that more than 3,000 skilled building operatives and tens of thousands of construction workers in Wales are out of work? Is it not the case that his programme offers them no chance of work?
    Mr. Roberts: Our housing programme, with expenditure of about £150 million, is a significant programme, and should give employment to many unemployed people.

    Severn Crossing
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received, pursuant to the decision to survey the requirement for a second Severn crossing, relating to such a second crossing; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): Following the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 7 February about a study of a second Severn crossing, I have received representations from the Welsh office of the Confederation of British Industry, other commercial interests and local authorities. Those clearly show a welcome for my right hon. Friend's announcement, and I know that those sentiments are widely shared in Wales.
    Mr. Adley: I confirm the latter point in my hon. Friend's comments, but in view of the problems that we seem to be having, not just with the Severn bridge but, recently, with Hammersmith bridge, both of which are road bridges, and in view of the lack of problems with rail tunnels, including the old one under the Severn, will my hon. Friend assure the House: that a tunnel alongside a bridge will be considered as a possibility? Secondly, has he cleared his mind of any possibility of the second crossing being a rail crossing, and might it be possible to combine rail and road in one crossing?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: As the House will know, the terms of reference of the feasibility study are being drawn up with all speed, and they will be announced in the not-to-distant future. A two-year timetable was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The question of a tunnel will be taken into consideration. I know my hon. Friend's addiction to railways, and I commend him for that. All factors will be taken into account before the final terms of reference are decided.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman want to see a second crossing of the Severn?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: There is no doubt about the Government's commitment to maintaining a first-class crossing of the Severn into Wales, in the interests of the Principality in general and of south Wales in particular.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the terms of reference will be as wide as possible and will embrace the alternative mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), and will even contemplate the possibility of a barrage?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I can give an assurance that the terms of reference will be wide, but I must make one proviso clear. We do not wish to delay the study, and therefore the barrage must stand or fall on its ability to generate electricity. That is the first priority. Other than that, it will be possible to take it into account in arriving at our conclusion.

    Pupil-Teacher Ratio
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools in Wales at the most recent count; and how this compares with the ratio in 1978.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The ratio was 16.5:1 in January 1983 compared with 17:1 in January 1978.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show a satisfactory improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio? Does he think that they are reflected in improving standards in secondary schools?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I think that the trend is satisfactory, but I stress that the pupil-teacher ratio, although important, is only one factor in improving standards. Generally we must always seek further improvements in standards, and improvements in the pupil-teacher ratio can contribute to that.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio stems largely from the reduction in rolls? Will he further accept that the Government's public expenditure programme will eventually mean that standards in Welsh schools will fall and that the pupil-teacher ratio will get worse?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: Falling rolls are obviously a factor, but they are not the only one. The allocation of resources is a matter for local education authorities, and there is no substitute for good management, which also plays an important part in the improvement of standards.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of youth training scheme places in Wales will be funded under mode A and mode B, respectively, during 1984–85.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that in 1984–85 it plans to fund 74 per cent. of the youth training scheme places under mode A and 26 per cent. under mode B.
    Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 30 per cent. reduction that he is requiring the MSC to impose on mode B schemes will mean that 90 highly qualified staff will be sacked in the counties of Mid-Glamorgan and South Glamorgan this month? Is he also aware that last month there were 370 wholly unemployed young people in the Rhymney valley and not one unfilled vacancy? Will the Secretary of State press the MSC to ensure that there is no cut in mode B schemes, at least until the commission is satisfied that adequate alternatives exist under mode A schemes?
    Mr. Edwards: The choice is one for the MSC, as I made clear in the Welsh day debate. However, the hon. Gentleman's point would be more effective but for the fact

    591
    that in Mid-Glamorgan and South Glamorgan there is an increase in the proposed provision of mode B schemes — from 2,491 to 2,520 approved entrants. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Rhymney valley The ratio there is 56 per cent. mode A to 44 per cent. mode B, because the MSC is clearly taking account of local conditions, Where there is a shortage of employer-led schemes, it is adopting mode B.

    School Visits
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many school visits he made in 1983; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: During 1983 I made seven such visits, four to secondary schools and three to primary schools.
    Mr. Jones: As about 20,000 people work in the school meals service in Wales, and as the service is to be affected by public expenditure cuts and ratecapping, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that the price of school meals will not escalate sharply, that there will be no job losses in the school meals service and that there will be no cuts in the hours worked by those employed in the service?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I can give no such guarantees, but I shall bear in mind the points behind the question and keep a careful watch on the circumstances.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio has been matched by an equally dramatic reduction in the number of unqualified school leavers, down from a high of 13·4 per cent. under the last Labour Government to 8·3 per cent. now, and an increase in the number of school leavers going on to further and higher education, up from 23 per cent. under the last Labour Government to 29 per cent. now?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: My hon. Friend's question is a clear demonstration that standards are improving and that the Opposition's allegations that our cuts are harming education are entirely unjustified.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that his recent answers to me show that the training and updating of head teachers is a major contribution to the development of curricula within schools, and is he satisfied that his Department's funding activity in Bristol meets the needs of the training of head teachers in Wales?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: This is an important matter, and we are making every effort to introduce schemes in Wales that will help head teachers, because they are vital to the success of a school.

    WINvest
    Mr. Mark Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the progress of WINvest since it inauguration in April 1983.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: WINvest has made a very positive start to its operations. The different bodies involved in inward investment have been welded together into a unified, effective and professional organisation, well equipped to sell the considerable attractions that Wales has to offer to potential investors.
    Mr. Robinson: How many overseas companies have recently shown an intention to set up in Wales, how many
    592
    overseas companies have recently shown that they are expanding their operations in Wales, and how many jobs are involved?
    Mr. Edwards: As I said in the recent Welsh day debate, since 1 April, 18 overseas companies have announced their intention to set up in Wales, providing nearly 2,000 jobs. In the same period, 10 existing overseas companies have announced expansion projects, creating a further 350 new jobs and safeguarding almost 2,000.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in his recent study, "Overseas Investment in Wales", Professor Glyn Davies of Cardiff said that the most important consideration for these companies was the availability of regional development grants? In view of the Government's intention to save millions of pounds by cutting these grants, does not the Secretary of State fear that there will be less investment in Wales in the future?
    Mr. Edwards: Undoubtedly, regional policy has a part to play, and we shall continue to have an effective regional policy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been considerable waste of grant on large capital projects that would have gone ahead in any case. I speak as the Member for a constituency that has benefited considerably in that respect because of the large number of oil refineries.

    Schools (Modern Languages)
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Wales what actions his Department will take in the light of Her Majesty's inspectors' education survey 11 on the teaching of modern languages in schools in Wales.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The consultative paper "Foreign Languages in the School Curriculum" aroused great interest and much discussion. The findings of the Wales survey will further inform efforts to formulate, for the first time, a national policy for foreign languages in schools.
    Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend as alarmed as I am at the low standards that were revealed in this report on language teaching in Wales? Does he agree that it shows the disservice to the young people in Wales in economic as much as in cultural terms?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: There is room for some disquiet and for further efforts to improve the position. The report brings out clearly the importance of head teachers and of heads of departments in the matter.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister draw to the attention of teachers in Wales the valuable work that can be achieved through language awareness courses and the need to extend language awareness across the curriculum, not just through teaching languages but in terms of subject areas?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: That is a helpful suggestion and I shall look into the matter.

    Farming
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he makes of the economic prospects for farming in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The measures needed to reduce surpluses and control Community expenditure on

    593
    agriculture are bound to affect farming incomes in Wales as elsewhere; but I believe that Welsh farmers are well capable of adapting to the changes.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State not aware that many Welsh dairy farmers are very worried that the agricultural and horticultural development scheme will not have a roll-over provision for them for the six months from 1 January? Given that many farms in Wales are mixed, how will it be possible, for the purposes of the scheme, to differentiate between the dairy farming and the non-dairy farming elements in respect of investment in soil improvement, fencing and general work of that type?
    Mr. Edwards: At the moment, existing schemes are being rolled over because agreement has not been reached on future provision. In view of the complications of the current negotiations, it is a bit early to speculate exactly how farmers will have to deal with matters which have not been finally settled.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State in favour of introducing a quota system to dissuade Welsh farmers from producing extra food from the land?
    Mr. Edwards: I am certain that a large number of Welsh farmers and farming interests believe that a quota system may be the best way to protect individual farms in a time of change. The current negotiations in Europe lead one to the conclusion that some form of quota system may emerge, even though Her Majesty's Government have advocated a system based on prices. It is right that we should be discussing with the unions the form that a quota system should take.
    Mr. Hooson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great satisfaction in the hill areas of Wales at the Government's success in obtaining an extension of the less-favoured areas definition?
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the announcement that we have been successful in the negotiations on marginal land will be widely welcomed. It has been fought for over a long period and I know that it will make a considerable contribution once we have been able to introduce the new arrangements.
    Mr. Cambell-Savours: Should farming prospects in Wales be so dependent on the loss of historic sites as outlined in the article in The Guardian last Friday, in which a journalist bitterly attacked the Secretary of State for Wales for allowing the uncontrolled decimation of historic sites in Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer from the Dispatch Box the accusations levelled in that article, because it is farmers who are benefiting?
    Mr. Edwards: There is no truth in the suggestion that there is uncontrolled decimation of sites. The article is riddled with inaccuracies. Certainly there is no truth in the suggestion that farmers are profiting in this way. It is an absurd invention, and I reject it entirely.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the growing unease in the dairy sector in Wales, especially amongst those farmers with a dependence on the milk cheque from, say, only 40 or 50 beasts? Does he have in mind any major initiative by his Department? Does he accept that there is a parallel between the dairy farmers and those who distribute the milk and that in the latter case many thousands of jobs ultimately are at stake?
    Mr. Edwards: I understand the concern. I represent a very large number of milk producers. I have been speaking extremely frankly to them about the changes that will be needed. But they understand the need to deal with a situation in which we are producing surpluses at excessive cost, and many of them will be beginning to look at their farming systems to see whether they can reduce their input costs.

    Pig Industry
    Sir Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received concerning the state of the pig industry in Wales; and what measures he plans to deal with them.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have received representations from both farming unions in Wales and many producers about the state of the pig sector. Support arrangements for the industry are currently being considered as part of the 1984–85 common agricultural policy price negotiations.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate any improvement in this sector in the months ahead?
    Mr. Edwards: It is always rash to forecast trends of that kind. As my hon. Friend knows, at the level of the European Community we have pressed for the early introduction of aids for private storage when the pigmeat market has shown signs of weakening, and we have secured the reintroduction of such aids. We have also pressed for export refunds to be maintained at appropriate levels. We are encouraging and helping the trade to open new markets. All those measures will help the industry.
    Mr. Rogers: Will the Secretary of State say how many pig farmers, or, for that matter, other farmers, are unemployed in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: That is not the way in which the system works. People either withdraw from agriculture during a period of change, as many have done during the past 20 or 30 years, or they switch to other forms of agriculture in which they can make a profit. We have an efficient industry which, consistently over a long period has reduced the number of people employed and increased productivity.

    Countryside Commission (Meeting)
    Mr. D. E. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Welsh committee of the Countryside Commission; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: I met the chairman of the committee on 22 February to discuss national park matters.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am glad to hear that that meeting has taken place. Can the Minister tell us whether, in his discussions with the chairman, the consultants' report on the so-called efficiency of national parks was discussed? Can he assure the House that no crude standards will be applied to national parks, in particular to the essential study centre at Tan-y-bwlch in my constituency, which is threatened by the alleged efficiencies proposed by the consultants?
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The Countryside Commission, which sponsored the report jointly with the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, is now awaiting the responses of the national park authorities and the local authority associations. The Countryside Commission committee for Wales will be fully involved in considering those responses and in making recommendations to the Government. I have noted the specific matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. At the last meeting, in the light of what I have just said, there was no real purpose in having an in-depth discussion on the subject, because the review is coming forward and we shall have further consultations.

    Welsh Language
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Wales what financial provisions were made by the Welsh Office for support of the Welsh language in (a) 1979 and (b) 1983; and whether this represents an increase after taking into account pay and price factors.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Welsh Office support for the Welsh language has increased substantially in real terms since 1979. Grants totalling £709,071 were approved in 1979–80, and £2,666,236 will have been allocated in 1983–84.
    Mr. Hooson: Do not those figures demonstrate the absurdity of current allegations about cuts in financial support for the Welsh language? Can my hon. Friend estimate how much of the budget for the coming year will be applied to computer-related studies?
    Mr. Roberts: On the latter point, I assure my hon. Friend that some of the grants offered in the education sector reflect the growing importance of computer-related studies. Authorities will be able to purchase equipment and to prepare and translate a variety of programmes in Welsh. I cannot quantify the exact figures, but my hon. Friend is right when he says that this support makes nonesense of any talk of cuts. Moreover, it makes nonsense of the exhortation that we had recently from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the president of Plaid Cymru, on St. David's day, to his followers to take action outside the law.
    Dr. Roger Thomas: Is the Minister prepared to give financial support to those local education authorities in Wales which are now prepared to start teaching certain subjects through the medium of the Welsh language in schools which are not designated as bilingual but are regarded as the counterpart of bilingual schools, the so-called English comprehensive schools, and for more Welsh teaching in those schools which have not been segregated into bilingual and English?
    Mr. Roberts: Local authorities are at liberty, and are in fact encouraged, as are other bodies, to apply for section 21 grants; and we give every application the requisite consideration.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the promotion of the Welsh language relies largely on the enforcement of the law in this respect? Does he accept that those who call for breaches of the law, like those hooligans who demonstrated against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales the other day, do much to damage the cause that they seek to serve?
    Mr. Roberts: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those who try to advance the cause of the language by denying free speech, as some did to my right hon. Friend at the weekend, do great harm to the cause that they seek to serve and undermine much of the good will that exists towards the language.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that, after the Conservative Government broke their election pledge on the fourth channel in 1979, the only way to remind them of that pledge was for people to break the law by refusing to pay their television licence fees? Will the hon. Gentleman now take the opportunity to repudiate what was said by two of his hon. Friends this morning—that the mere £2 million that has been spent on the Welsh language is a waste of money? Is that the attitude of Conservative Back Benchers in England?
    Mr. Roberts: We are giving over £2 million towards the Welsh language, which is four times as much as was given by our predecessors, whom the hon. Gentleman supported.
    The hon. Gentleman's other points simply confirm our opinion that, in supporting those who attacked my right hon. Friend, he has proved himself a bad egg and as rotten to the core as much of the stuff that was thrown at my right hon. Friend.

    Local Government (Employees)
    Mr. Raffanasked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the increase in local government employment in Wales since September 1981; and what the cost of this increase represents in terms of rate poundage.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Between September 1981 and September 1983, the most recent date for which figures are available, local government manpower in Wales, in terms of full-time equivalents, rose by 763 or 0·6 per cent. However, between September 1982 and September 1983 there was an increase of 1,140 or 0·9 per cent. full-time equivalents. Had this increase not occurred, ratepayers would have saved up to £15 million, equivalent to 5½p in rate poundage terms.
    Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that extremely worrying upward trend in local government employment is costing jobs in manufacturing industry and that counties such as Clwyd are destroying wealth-producing jobs in the private sector by increasing their staff by 413 in the last quarter? Does he further agree that if those increases in local authority staff in Wales had not taken place, instead of rates increasing in the current financial year they could have fallen; and can he tell the House by how much?
    Mr. Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend about the damage that is being done. If Clwyd's manpower had not been increased by 1·5 per cent. between September 1982 and September 1983, which was well above the average, the county council's rate increase might well have been down to a record 5 or 6 per cent., or even lower, instead of the 9·5 per cent. that it now proposed.
    Mr. Rogers: As the Secretary of State and his Ministers are projecting a fairy godfather image this afternoon, will he tell the House in what areas that increase in local government employment took place?
    Mr. Edwards: They vary widely from local authority to local authority. One of the arguments put forward last

    597
    year was that it arose from the increase in house improvement grants and that much of it came from the county councils.
    Mr. Barry Jones: There are 25,000 people out of work in Clwyd. How many people are out of work in Wales?
    Mr. Edwards: That does not arise from this question, but more people are out of work in Clwyd and in Wales because of the high rating decisions by local authorities.

    Elderly Persons (Accommodation)
    Dr. Roger Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales if the availability of part 3 accommodation for the elderly in Wales has kept pace with the increase in numbers of potential clients for the residential service.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: There is no generally agreed definition of the potential clientele for residential care. However, since 1979 the population aged over 65 in Wales has increased by some 4·5 per cent., while the total number of residential places provided for elderly people in local authority, private and voluntary homes has increased by almost 16 per cent.
    Dr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware of the great difficulty of local authorities in receiving patients who have been discharged from geriatric hospitals? There are not enough rooms in local authority homes for people who have been discharged. The result is a log-jam and people have to be kept in geriatric wards, which excludes others who need urgent admission.
    Mr. Roberts: Yes, I am aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. That is why we have always stressed to local authorities the continuing need for available resources to be concentrated on those services which support people in their homes in the community. Furthermore, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the county authorities have increased their spending on personal social services for the elderly from £22 million in 1978–79 to £40 million in the current year, so they are doing their best to tackle the kind of problem to which he refers.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that the cuts that his Department has imposed on local authorities make it very difficult for social services departments and healh authorities to cope with the demands of an increasingly elderly population? Does he not recognise that this should be a key area in terms of funding, not just in terms of policy pronouncements?
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: It certainly is a key element in both. That is why I said that we had drawn particular attention to the increasing numbers of elderly people and asked local authorities to give them high priority.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate on what date he intends to meet the chairman of the National Coal Board to discuss the subject of pit closures in Wales.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Although I have numerous informal meetings with Mr. MacGregor, I have no immediate plans for an official meeting to discuss pit closures.
    Mr. Powell: I regret that the Secretary of State has given me that reply, because since 1979 in my area we
    598
    have had the closure of the Caerau colliery and the Coegnant colliery. On 7 January this year the Wyndham Western colliery was closed. The St. John's colliery in Maesteg has geological problems. Is the increase of imported coal one of the main reasons for MacGregor wanting to close collieries, and does it have anything to do with the fact that his banking interests are concerned with the country of origin of the imported coal?
    Mr. Edwards: That is a disgraceful suggestion and typical of the sorts of remarks made in the House by the hon. Gentleman. I last met the chairman in December, when we had wide-ranging discussions. As I made clear in the Welsh day debate last week, it will continue to be necessary to close grossly uneconomic pits. I know about the geological problems that have been encountered at St. John's. I understand that the management and unions are considering its future with a view to reporting in the next few weeks. In the circumstances, it would be wrong to speculate.
    Mr. Franks: Is the Minister aware that at a recent reception Sir Walter Marshall, the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, stated that if the board were free to import coal the price of its fuel could be reduced by 25 per cent., and electricity prices by between 10 and 15 per cent.?
    Mr. Edwards: That is the sort of conflicting interest that must be taken into account when considering these matters. I am glad to say that in the south Wales coalfields Aberthaw has been able to take a substantially increased uptake this year, which has meant that there has been a lifting of stocks in the area.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church Sites (Sale)
    Mr. Rentonasked the hon. Member for Wokingham as representing the Church Commissioners whether he is satisfied with the price, speed and purpose with which the Church Commissioners are selling disused and surplus church sites.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir. Each case is viewed entirely on its merits, and takes account of planning and pastoral considerations, as well as any practical difficulties that may arise in dealing with churchyards.
    Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is this not an area in which the Church is very much torn between God and mammon, for is not the impression often given that the Church Commissioners are usually interested only in selling, often after long delays, for the highest price, without any consideration of the purpose to which the disused church or its site will be put? Could he, therefore, give a clearer statement of policy from the Church Commissioners?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Delays are often, although not always, caused by considerations that the House is keen the Church Commissioners shall bear in mind, namely, the architectural merit of the building or of its contents, and finding alternative suitable uses. The Pastoral Measure gives power to the Commissioners to dispose of redundant churches, and their sites, as they

    599
    think fit. They are not necessarily bound always to go for the best price, although they must have regard to the dioceses and redundant churches fund's requirements.
    Mr. Watson: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not just the disposal of old church buildings that can be the subject of delay? Delays can occur in transferring old church primary school buildings for wider community purposes. Will my hon. Friend do what he can to speed things up?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I answer questions here, as you know, Mr. Speaker, only on matters for which the Church Commissioners are responsible. With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the cases he has in mind are matters for the diocese. If he would care to write to me, I shall make sure that his letter goes to the right place.
    Mr. Ryman: The hon. Gentleman answers questions only for which the Church Commissioners have direct responsibilities, but is he aware that the Church Commissioners have enormous influence in many spheres? In that capacity, has he any views on the absurd speech made by an obscure junior Minister about the political speeches of bishops?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Of one thing I am absolutely clear. I am not responsible for my hon. Friend's speech. During Lent, I think that one should try to give up something that one would miss rather too much.
    Mr. Greenway: It is, of course, Ash Wednesday during this week, so Lent has not quite begun, which makes my hon. Friend's remarks the more interesting.
    Would my hon. Friend say for what reasons a church is taken out of use, and whether those reasons have changed over the past 20 years?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: It is not possible for me to give a truthful and accurate generalised answer to my hon. Friend about an innumerable variety of different circumstances. However, generally speaking, it is because the church is pastorally no longer required. If my hon. Friend has any special case in mind, I shall be happy to do my best to answer his question in more detail.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In relation to the sale of stained glass windows from disused churches, is it not true that Great Britain has developed a formidable trade in the export of what is our heritage? Why does the Church not intervene to prevent those exports and ensure that the stained glass windows are fixed to other buildings in the United Kingdom?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: I should indeed be worried if I thought that valuable, ancient glass was not being made use of or put into careful storage. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in mind, I should be happy to look into it.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend take a little time during Lent to instruct certain people on how to answer questions?
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Generally, Ministers are more fortunate because, on the whole, Mr. Speaker, you keep supplementary questions for Ministers rather more under control.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Staff (Overseas Visits)
    Mr. Colemanasked the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, for how long members of the staff of the House have been required to report intended visits by them to some Communist countries to their departmental heads; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Beith: Specific guidance to this effect was first given in January 1982.
    Mr. Coleman: Was that requirement first reported to the House? Why is it necessary for this limitation to be placed upon the staff of the House; and, further, what special reasons are there which require staff in their own time to be treated differently from right hon. and hon. Members?
    Mr. Beith: The matter was first brought to the attention of the House in a question by one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, to which I gave an answer just over a week ago. The purpose of the requirement to inform departmental heads is to ensure that staff have access to advice which may be useful to them when travelling to certain countries where experience suggests that difficulties for them may arise from their status as employees of the House. I am confident that it is in the interests of staff that they should be given that advice.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this ruling applies to former Officers of the House? As the only former Officer of the House who is a Member of the House, why should I not have my summer holidays in Albania without asking the permission of the Clerk of the House?
    Mr. Beith: Neither present nor former staff are in any way precluded from visiting any of the countries concerned. The procedure is to ensure that they are given advice that may be useful to them.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it thought that the KGB may be trying to find out about our parliamentary procedures — adjourtunents, Question Time and the rest — and that therefore it is necessary to have the type of security arrangements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?
    Mr. Beith: The procedures of the House are well known and readily accessible. I am sure that the House would not wish me to go into more detail as to why it is in the interests of the staff that they should have the advice to which I have referred made available to them.
    Mr. Cormack: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that it has nothing to do with the fact that the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee represents Cheltenham?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Williams: Why has it taken 14 months for the House to be informed of this change? Could we not perhaps limit the intrusion into the liberty of the servants of the House by confining the requirement to those who, historically, have been shown to be most at risk, thereby automatically excluding those of our cleaners, clerks and others who have not attended the best public schools?
    Mr. Beith: It is the duty of the Commission to keep such arrangements under review. I shall make it my

    601
    business to ensure that such a review takes account of the views expressed by hon. Members today. The right hon. Gentleman may underestimate the significance of working in this building and the status of members of our staff.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Were staff representatives consulted on this matter; and, of so, on what date?
    Mr. Beith: As I said earlier, the matter has been known to staff since January 1982. Full opportunities for staff representations have existed throughout that time.

  THE ARTS

    National Portrait Gallery
    Mr. Tony Banksasked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the arts what discussions the Minister for the Arts has had concerning the construction of a new national portrait gallery on the South Bank.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): My noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has had no such discussions yet.
    Mr. Banks: Is the Minister aware that the Greater London council has specifically ruled out the sale of any land on the South Bank for the new national portrait gallery? That being so, will he investigate the use of Battersea power station, or a site in Docklands, for the future development of the national portrait gallery?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Originally, the GLC had no objection to the designation of the site as a potential site for the new national portrait gallery. Discussions are at an early stage, and it is for the trustees to consider the possible sites. They are also considering an extension to the present gallery.
    Mr. Buchan: Regardless of the site, will the Government publicly confirm that they intend to adhere to their financial obligations and that there will be a new building for the national portrait gallery? Does the Minister agree that the work is at present seriously handicapped?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As yet, there is no agreement by the Government. If the trustees come forward with proposals, these will undoubtedly be discussed by the Government within the existing constraints. However, no agreement has yet been reached.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the arts if the Minister for the Arts has now decided how he plans to make up for the anticipated loss of grants to the arts following the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council.
    Mr. Waldegrave: As I have recently told the House, my noble Friend is now considering most carefully the many representations made to him during the consultation period. The pattern of funding for the arts in the affected areas after abolition will depend on the outcome of my noble Friend's deliberations.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety of the Bournemouth symphony orchestra and its parent body, Western Orchestral Society, because it has
    602
    not been shown the national and international recognition that it deserves in my noble Friend's consultation paper? Will he assure the orchestra that it will not miss out because of any shortfall of public funding resulting from the Government's proposals?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Bournemouth symphony orchestra was not directly involved in the proposals. That is why there was no direct reference to it. If consequential changes to the arts funding affect the Bournemouth symphony orchestra, my noble Friend will take that into account.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that London is the arts capital of the world, that it is a tremendous national asset and that it attracts many visitors to this country? Is he further aware that many of us who strongly support the abolition of the GLC wish to be certain that the arts can continue to flourish in London? Have the Government taken on board the extent of the anxiety on that matter?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government understand the concern, and my noble Friend has made it clear that he will bring forward proposals to meet it.
    Mr. Murphy: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many in the home counties also look towards London as their arts capital? Will he also take into account the interests of those living in the home counties, particularly in areas such as Hertfordshire and in my constituency?
    Mr. Waldegrave: In so far as the Arts Council and the general taxpayer contribute to the funding of organisations in the London area, those taxpayers are already contributing. However, I shall report my hon. Friend's comments to my noble Friend.
    Mr. Cormack: Did my hon. Friend read the leader in The Times on Saturday? Does he accept that many people feel that the Government have made a grand political gesture without thinking through its consequences? Will he ensure that his noble Friend produces a consultative paper when he has had a chance to consider all the various representations that have been made about the decision's implications?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I read the leader and thought that it bore all the hallmarks of one that had been produced by a committee, as there were several different strands running through it. It covered most of the issues, which are certainly well known to the Government. However, I believe that my noble Friend will be bringing forward a paper in response to those points.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if the Minister for the Arts is discussing with the chairman of the Arts Council the future of more local funding of the arts in London, in the event of the abolition of the Greater London council.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend the Minister for the Arts is presently reviewing his proposals on the future pattern of arts funding in London after the abolition of the GLC. The Arts Council has expressed its views, which will be fully taken into account. My noble Friend will no doubt discuss these views further in his regular meetings with the chairman.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the leader in The Times spoke for many Londoners when

    603
    it said that the last thing they wanted in the event of the GLC's abolition was a joint board of councils with power to precept boroughs. for an arts element? Does my hon. Friend agree that if the GLC is abolished, some of the major arts functions should be taken over by the Arts Council? Will he consider the proposal that some of the minor functions could be taken up by the boroughs if the RSG settlement contained some element to cover arts expenditure?
    Mr. Waldegrave: If we wanted the boroughs to take on a larger role in arts funding, it would be reflected in their rate support grant settlements. My own view is that the least satisfactory solution for the arts would be a joint board.
    Mr. Buchan: How many of the 500 or so representations made on this subject by arts organisations approve of the idea? Has the hon. Gentleman listened to the points made today by Conservative Back Benchers? Is he aware of the anxiety that exists in the theatrical, musical and literary spheres about what is happening in the metropolitan authorities and the GLC? Will the hon. Gentleman pass on the view that no decision should be made before a debate has been held on this issue in the House? Hundreds of people, including Sir Laurence Olivier, Brian Rix, Bruce Forsyth, and even the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), have made representations, so the hon. Gentleman must pay attention to them. There is no reason for going ahead, and all those in the arts are telling him not to do so.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The leader in The Times was correct to say that it would be absurd to defend a particular local government structure simply because of funding the arts. I was not very impressed by the signed advertisements produced on behalf of the GLC by a public relations firm. However, if Mr. Roland Freeman needs the money, that is his job. Nevertheless, I certainly respond to the genuine concern felt by both Opposition and Conservative Members, and my noble Friend has made it clear that there will be no intention on the part of any future local government organisation to damage the arts.
    Mr. Freud: Irrespective of whether the Under-Secretary of State was impressed by the advertisement, will he place in the Library the 500 or so representations that his noble Friend received so that we can judge their value?
    Mr. Waldegrave: No, Sir. In response to other questions, we have said that we will put the list in the Library. It is not right that we should undertake the publication of other people's documents.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if the Minister for the Arts will be having discussions with the Arts Council before bringing forward proposals arising from the arts consultative paper which accompanied Cmnd. 9063.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend has regular discussions with the Arts Council about this and other matters.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister provide for the chairman of the Arts Council, if he will not provide them for Members of this House, copies of all the submissions that he has received?
    Mr. Waldegrave: No. I think that that would be even sillier.

    Arts Body (Funding)
    Mr. Freudasked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts how many applications the Minister for the Arts has had for consideration as an arts body of national significance to be funded outwith local authorities.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Representations have been received from a variety of sources that 12 named performing arts bodies should be added to the list of candidates for central funding in paragraph 8 of the consultation document on the arts. Similar suggestions have also been made for some museum services, but often without naming the particular institutions which would or might be affected.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Minister accept that, by having a national list, one is creating a two-tier system in the arts, and that it will be very difficult for a locally funded theatre, museum or art gallery to compete with one which need look only to his Department for support?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I suppose that in a sense there has always been a central list. There are aspects that the Arts Council supports. My noble Friend has suggested that there are a number of organisations of such importance that we assume that the Arts Council would want to take responsibility for their support. However, there is real point in what the hon. Gentleman says, and that is why we do not want to extend the list too far.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to an earlier question—
    Mr. Speaker: Yes, provided that the hon. Member is not seeking to get an extension of Question Time. In other words, it must be a matter for me, not for the Minister.
    Mr. Buchan: I am not seeking to get an extension of Question Time, Mr. Speaker, although that would not be a bad idea. My point of order is about the propriety or otherwise of placing in the Library the details of representations that have been made to the Government. In this case, is it not a fact that every organisation that has made representations would be willing—sadly, none has said that it would not — to have its representations deposited——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman because I think that he is doing what I was hoping he would not do. He must, on a point of order, raise a question that I can answer. It is not a matter for me whether documents are placed in the Library, unless they are papers laid by Act and the like.
    Mr. Buchan: That is precisely why I am raising the matter with you, Mr. Speaker. You have the care not only of the interests of Members of this House, but of the practice of the Government in relation to. hon. Members. On this occasion, documents which come from the Government — unless, presumably, they are marked "Secret", and these are not—would be appropriate for depositing in the Library. Without those documents being so deposited, the wellbeing of hon. Members will be at stake, in that the information and knowledge that are necessary for Back Benchers on both sides of the House will not be available. I hope that you, will make the

    605
    necessary representations to the Government on our behalf. You have eyes to see and ears to hear. I should be grateful if you would also have a mouth with which to speak on our behalf and have those documents placed in the Library.
    Mr. Speaker: The point that the hon. Member raises is not one for me, unless, as I said, he is referring to documents laid under an Act. If the Government voluntarily decide to place in the Library only a list of representations, that is a matter for them.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that you look after the welfare and interests of Back Benchers on both sides of the House? Surely a central part of that interest must be the free and unfettered access by Back Benchers
    606
    to information when they are to be asked to make important decisions arising out of a series of Government consultations.
    You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that I have been to your office on a number of occasions to find a formula by which we might have access to such information. The reason why the Minister will not let us see the information on this occasion is that it does not support the Government's case, either in the arts or in terms of streamlining the cities. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, that if you would put pressure on Ministers, so that we could have access to the information, we should be able to come to a considered opinion rather than one based on being kept in ignorance by the Government.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I am bound by our Standing Orders. I have only limited powers in this respect, and not over the matter that he raises.

Fowl Pest
3.35 pm
Mr. Mark Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the recent outbreaks of fowl pest, also known as Newcastle disease, and on the steps being taken by the Department to contain and control the outbreaks.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Two outbreaks of Newcastle disease in poultry have been confirmed, the first in Shropshire and the second near Thirsk, north Yorkshire. In accordance with the Government's policy, the poultry in question have been or are being destroyed. Compensation is payable by the Minister and will be reimbursed under insurance arrangements made by the industry.
All possible steps associated with the slaughter policies are being taken by the state veterinary service to prevent spread of the disease, including declarations of infected areas, movement restrictions and tracings. It is not possible at the moment to determine the likely course of the disease.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I apologise to the Leader of the House. I was led to believe that the outbreak near Shrewsbury was in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), but I am now told that it is in his constituency. I apologise for not informing the right hon. Gentleman that I intended to ask a private notice question relating to his constituency.
Is the Minister wholly satisfied that there is no relationship between the two outbreaks? Is she satisfied that there is no external overseas source of infection? Will she undertake to keep the House closely informed of further developments, because only 14 years ago the British poultry industry lost about 44 million head of poultry in such an outbreak? Will she ensure that everything that can be done will be done?
Mrs. Fenner: I most certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that everything that can be done will be done. I am mindful of the industry's good record. Of course this is a matter of concern. Both origin and connection are
608
under the closest investigation. If necessary I shall come to the House with the latest news because this is a matter of such concern to the House and to the poultry industry.
Mr. Tony Baldry: The chairman of the National Farmers Union poultry committee is one of my constituents and owns a large poultry farm just outside my constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that many poultry farmers are concerned in case the outbreaks are directly related to the large number of chickens imported from our European partners? Can the Minister assure us that every effort will be made to ensure that there is no connection between imports from the EEC and the outbreaks of the disease?
Mrs. Fenner: Of course I can assure my hon. Friend that every investigation as to the origin is being and will be made. I recognise the concern of my hon. Friend's constituents. My Ministry will do everything possible to discover the origin of the disease.
Mr. Derek Conway: I am grateful to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) for advising me that he was asking this private notice question. As he said, the outbreak is in the constituency represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the Leader of the House, but the rest of us in the area are anxious that the outbreak should not spread further. We are grateful to the Ministry for acting so quickly in Shropshire. I spoke today to the county NFU officer, who assured me that the action was swift.
Mrs. Fenner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that we will do everything possible to restrict the outbreaks. Following confirmation of the disease, infected area restrictions were imposed covering a 10 km radius in each instance. The first, in Shropshire, came into effect on 29 February and the second, in north Yorkshire, on 3 March.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What is the Government's position on vaccination?
Mrs. Fenner: The general application of vaccination by owners will have to be considered as an option if the slaughter policy is thought likely to fail. Vaccination under Ministry control around the outbreaks is another option. We shall be investigating the outbreaks closely and one hopes that they will not spread further.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Mr. Speaker: I have selected for debate the two amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his hon. Friends.
3.39 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee
1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 20th March 1984.
Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of the day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3. —(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on the allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted day
7. If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three
610
hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to adecision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded,

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on the allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal
12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on

611
Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
I am not clear about the conventions when an English Member addresses the House on specifically Scottish legislation for the first time.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Don't do it.
Mr. Biffen: I am in exactly that position. Time has marched on since I joined the House. Of the 72 current Scottish Members, only the formidable quartet of the right hon. Members for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) and the hon. Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) were elected when I first became a Member of Parliament. They flourish still to remind me of my parliamentary childhood. After such a long period of non-involvement, I am not sure whether to count it a fortune or the reverse now to be plunged into a controversy over Scottish rating. I am, however, more than pleased to open my remarks in a mood of measured conciliation.
The Government have given careful consideration to the amendments which stand on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). In a spirit of co-operation and reasonableness the Government are happy to accept those amendments, and I hope that that will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is only a week since I moved a similar motion designed to ensure reasonable progress on the Rates Bill which applies to England and Wales. While there are significant differences between the Rates Bill and the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, the aims underlying the two Bills are similar. In view of this, and of the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal in some detail at the end of the debate with the need for the legislation, I hope to be tolerably brief in my remarks about the substance of the Bill.
The Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill will help ratepayers in a number of ways. It will enable the grant reductions of individual local authorities, following a general abatement of grant, to be directly related to their overspending. This removes the unfairness of the present system where there is no such link, and it is generally welcomed. It will also enable the grant pressure on high-spending authorities to be increased. Lower expenditure is, of course, the key to lower rates.
612
The Secretary of State for Scotland already has power to reduce the rates of individual authorities planning excessive and unreasonable expenditure. It is hoped that this power, together with the improved form of grant abatement that I have described, will be sufficient to bring local authority expenditure and rates under control.
Mr. Dewar: I hope that I have not interrupted in any unpleasant way the right hon. Gentleman's extremely careful flow of reading. He was good enough to mention some of the Bill's merits. Has he addressed himself to clause 2? Under that procedure, matters dealing with the allegedly excessive and unreasonable expenditure of individual authorities—perhaps three or four at a time—will all potentially be taken in a debate lasting one and a half hours, and the House will be unable to vote on the respective merits of penalising one authority against another. As the Guardian of the rights of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman really approve of that?
Mr. Biffen: As I wish to encourage brevity, I must reply, "Yes."
If not, the Bill contains a reserve power under which the Secretary of State can set a general limit on the rates of all local authorities. Local authorities will still be free to decide rate levels within the limit and to decide their own spending priorities. It will, however, protect ratepayers from exorbitant rate levels should that he necessary as a last resort.
As with the Rates Bill, this Bill would introduce a statutory requirement on local authorities to consult non-domestic ratepayers before fixing their rates. Non-domestic ratepayers pay more than half the rates but have no say in the level of a tax, which can have a big Impact on their financial operations. This power will ensure that local authorities are fully aware of the impact of rate levels on the wealth-producing sector before they fix their rates in any year.
As housing authorities, district councils may contribute to their housing revenue account from their rate fund. In this way it is possible for them to use rates to keep down the level of local authority rents. Contributions of this kind account for about one third of the rates of district councils. Control of these payments will obviously be of benefit to ratepayers and ensure the more rational planning of housing finance, with the tenant not being unreasonably subsidised by the ratepayer. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to impose a limit on the contributions that local authorities make to their housing account.
The second part of the Bill makes a series of changes to the valuation legislation in Scotland, which will both improve the structure of the system and remove individual anomalies. These measures will be welcomed by many ratepayers.
The Bill received its Second Reading on 5 December, and discussion of the Bill in the Scottish Standing Committee started on Tuesday 17 January. For the first three weeks the Committee sat in the morning only, but following a sittings motion approved on Thursday 2 February, the Committee started to sit both in the morning and in the afternoon. So far, there have been 21 sittings of the Committee, lasting 82 hours in all. Despite these protracted discussions, however, it has so far completed only seven clauses. There are 17 clauses in all, as well as a number of new clauses which have been tabled and have

613
still to be discussed. All the clauses so far debated have been examined in considerable detail. In particular, clauses 3 and 6, which I think are generally regarded as the most controversial clauses in the Bill, have been discussed for 25 hours and 17½ hours respectively.
I think the House will therefore recognise that the most contentious provisions of the Bill have now been passed and have had very full discussion without any limitation. There are, however, still important clauses to come—those dealing with valuation. Very large numbers of amendments have been tabled to these clauses. It seems clear that without a timetable motion it will not be possible to make orderly progress with the remainder of the Bill. To fail to achieve that progress would be to delay the coming into operation of provisions which the Government consider to be of important benefit to ratepayers.
It is proposed that the fairer method of relating grant penalties to overspend should be used in respect of the 1984–85 financial year. This requires that the Bill receives Royal Assent in the summer, and delays in the Bill will mean delays in this fairer approach to grant abatement. It is proposed also that consultation with non-domestic ratepayers should take place in respect of the 1985–86 budgets of local authorities. If this is to happen in a useful way, the power to require it will need to be available in good time. And these are only two examples. All the provisions of the Bill have a contribution to make to improving the lot of ratepayers, and any delay is to their disadvantage.
In order to ensure that the remaining provisions of the Bill receive the careful consideration they deserve within the remaining time available, I ask the House to agree that the Bill should be reported by 20 March, with Report and Third Reading to take place on one allotted day. Under the terms of the motion before the House, the Standing Committee can meet to consider the Bill for five further days, allowing seven further sittings if the Business Sub-Committee decides to continue morning and afternoon sittings as at present. Bearing in mind that the Bill has so far had more than 82 hours' discussion in Committee, I am sure that the House will agree that this proposal is not unreasonable.
The Bill has been introduced against a background of continued local authority overspending and the failure of authorities to bring their spending into line with the Government's plans. The people who have suffered are the ratepayers, who have had to cope with massive rate increases. For instance, for two years running Scottish ratepayers saw their rates increase by more than 30 per cent. The Government owe it to the ratepayers to take action, and to take that action without unnecessary delay. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
3.49 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph 2(1), leave out, 'Ten o'clock' and insert 'Midnight'.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment (b).
Mr. Shore: The fact that today's debate is essentially a re-run of the debate last Wednesday, when the Rates Bill was subjected to a guillotine motion, may enable us to
614
make shorter speeches than we did then. However, the length of our speeches in no way diminishes the strength of our objection both to the content of the Bill and to the timetable motion moved by the Leader of the House. Like the Leader of the House, this is the first time that I have participated in an essentially Scottish debate, but, unlike him on this occasion, it is a pleasure for me to perform the duty of opposing what I believe to be a monstrous imposition upon the timetable and the possibilities of free debate on an odious measure.
I confess to having listened to the speech by the Leader of the House with considerable disappointment. As on last Wednesday, he has shown surprising insensitivity about the Bill and has failed to recognise its constitutional significance. After all, we are talking about a fundamental change in the relationship between the Government and local authorities, between the powers of Parliament and the powers of elected local councils. Scotland and England have their different traditions, but the freedom of elected councils in Scotland to determine, within a wide area, their own public expenditures, and to take their own rating decisions, is as firmly established as it has been in England and Wales. Set forth in the Bill, now to be guillotined, is a battery of powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I refer to the principal clauses. Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State not simply to report to the House on the alleged overspending and misdemeanours of a single council and to seek to curb it but to bring forward offending authorities in batches to be dispatched in a single debate and upon a single vote. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to deal with whole classes of authorities, under the general power that the Government know they will seek to exercise sooner or later.
The safeguards on the use of that general power was one of the matters raised in the debate last week on the Bill affecting England and Wales. The Secretary of State for the Environment made much of the point that the power could be triggered only if there was an affirmative vote in Parliament. In my remarks I had referred to an affirmative vote in the House of Commons, saying that that was normally after a debate lasting one and a half hours, but the Secretary of State, with his notorious pedantry, sought to make much of the fact that the affirmative order needed the voting consent not only of the House of Commons but of the other place. I doubt whether in practice that makes very much difference. If it does, what a curious commentary it is that the unelected Chamber should be more sensitive to the democratic rights of local councils than the elected majority in the House of Commons.
Be that as it may, one of the few distinctive features of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is that the affirmative order procedure is limited to a proceeding in the House of Commons. If the Secretary of State for the Environment thinks that an affirmative order in the other place really matters, perhaps the Minister who winds up will explain why that necessary additional safeguard for England and Wales does not matter, when it is not available for the legislation affecting Scotland. One thing that we have learnt from the Bill is the practical effects of the transfer of ratemaking from the 65 major councils in Scotland, manned by many hundreds — perhaps 2,000 to 3,000—of councillors, to the Secretary of State.

615
The Bill says that the manpower implications are an additional 10 bureaucrats in New St. Andrew's house in Edinburgh, to take over the functions of all those elected councillors. I have no doubt that the civil servants involved in decision making will be conscientious and able men and women, but it is ludicrous to imagine that they have the knowledge of the circumstances of the different councils throughout the length and breadth of Scotland that the thousands of elected councillors possess.
The Bill is deeply opposed, as Scottish Ministers and the Leader of the House well know, by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has a right to be taken seriously when it gives its considered opinion on the White Paper and the Bill which is based on it. The Convention said:
"The proposals, if implemented, would constitute virtually total control by the Secretary of State of local authorities' expenditure and rate levels, and for the first time the Secretary of State would take complete control of local authority rent levels. Such novel concepts constitute a serious erosion of the democratic basis upon which local government is built and if implemented would, in fact, make local government the administrative arm of central government."
The Government are getting very near to the abolition of local democracy. We have to search far and wide to find any comparison with what the Government are introducing. In France, the centrally-appointed préfets have until recently, dominated the provision of local services. They have been the provincial and local representatives of central Government. Their whole tradition is profoundly different from our own. In England and Wales, we have to look back to the days of Cromwell's Commonwealth, when major-generals were appointed to administer the different regions of England, before we find anything approaching what the Government are doing to the powers of local government.
One heartening feature of last week's debate was the evidence that our criticisms of the Government's attack on local democracy continue to be shared by a significant section of the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) put it well when he said,
"On the general question of the timetable motion, nothing could epitomise more clearly the perils of the elected dictatorship under which we now work."—[Official Report, 29 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 288.]
In most respects, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes is a strong supporter of the Government.
What makes the timetable motion especially odd, as well as objectionable, is that substantial progress has already been made in Committee. Indeed, the major clauses, dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State in the making of grants, selective ratecapping, general ratecapping and rate subsidies for housing rents, have already been debated and passed. In the 82 hours referred to by the Leader of the House, the seven major clauses of the Bill have been passed. There are important matters in the remaining part of the Bill, but they are not of the order of magnitude of those that have already been discussed.
I can find no explanation of the rush to impose a timetable and a closing date for the Bill except the general tendency towards authoritarianism, which has marked the first phase of the Prime Minister's second term of office even more strongly than it marked the term between 1979 and 1983. It is as though the Prime Minister, contemplating her 147 majority, has been murmuring to herself, "I, as Prime Minister, am the master now"—or is it the mistress now? No one must be allowed to stand in her way. Those who disagree with her in Cabinet are
616
summarily dismissed. Cabinet government appears to be in partial suspense. Major decisions are made, if not by' No. 10 alone, by small coteries of Ministers, without the knowledge or the backing of full Cabinet.
Just as Cabinet must not be allowed to stand in her way, Parliament, too, cannot be allowed to halt or hinder the Prime Minister's programme. Moreover, Bills are introduced to attack such centres of influence and power as exist in our society outside Parliament. That is why further trade union legislation is being pushed through, why the powers of local government are to be so radically reduced, as they are by this Bill and by the Rates Bill, which was guillotined last Wednesday, and why a whole tier of local government in England is later to be abolished.
We have noted the acceptance by the Leader of the House of our amendments, which I now formally move, and we are grateful to him for that small mercy. We also note the right hon. Gentleman's determination to insist upon the guillotine of this important Scottish Bill. a Bill that affects the practice of democracy in Scotland. Because of that, we shall strongly oppose this timetable motion in the Lobby today.
Mr. Speaker: As we have heard that the Leader of the House has accepted the amendments, it may be for the convenience of the House if I put the amendments now, so that the remainder of the debate may be on the timetable motion, as amended.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: (b), leave out paragraph 7 and insert—
'Extra time on allotted day
7. — (1) On the allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours. '.—[Mr. Shore.]
4.2 pm
Sir Hector Monro: It is usually my luck to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in Scottish debates. Therefore, it is a welcome change and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). It adds to the geniality of the occasion, but in no way changes my profound disagreement with what the Opposition say. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, we have had 21 sittings and 82 hours of debate to pass part I. If, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, now is all plain sailing to the end of the Bill, and that is only a few sittings away, one raises one's eyebrows at the immense number of new amendments that have been put down on part II and part III.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who was mainly involved in tabling those amendments, perhaps does not realise that we have reached the end of part I; if he did not wish to have the timetable motion, he should have pressed on rather more quickly. When one accepts that parts II and III should be wholly acceptable in broad principle by both sides of the House, why should amendments be put down to every dot

617
and comma in part II? This brings back memories of Lord Ross of Marnock arguing whether the word should be "may" or "shall" or "shall not" or "will not" and the rest of it on amendments that were tabled as dilatory tactics by the Opposition, with no hint that they would speed up progress on the remaining stages of the Bill. That is why I am pleased that we have the timetable motion, so that the Bill can be discussed properly in its later stages.
Under the timetable motion, it would be unnecessary to go on sitting through the night to proceed clause by clause, one every four of five hours. That is not the way for Back Benchers to find out from the Government what clauses stand for. There is no publicity and nobody knows what the Opposition have been doing at 3 am or 4 am. It never gets into the papers, so why on earth do it? Why do not the Opposition take the constructive course of questioning the detail of the issues of the Bill?
It is sadly obvious that the Opposition set out from the start, jollied along by members of the Liberal party, to drag out the proceedings as long as possible. They did so by speaking at great length on the amendments that they put down, with the intention, certainly in their attitude to part I, of preventing the administrative arrangements for 1985–86 from beginning to take place within local authorities later this year. They were obviously prepared to scupper part II if they could to prevent part I coming into operation in time for the local authorities to prepare the administrative work for next year.
I particularly criticise the Opposition's attitude to the parts of part II that deal with valuation, which we would have reached long ago if the hon. Member for East Lothian had not procrastinated and put down an infuriating number of amendments on nothing so that he could drag things out as long as possible.
Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of order, or is the hon. Gentleman disagreeing with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)?
Mr. Maxton: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise another hon. Member for a legitimate parliamentary practice—tabling amendments to a Bill?
Mr. Speaker: It is very frequently done.
Sir Hector Monro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was going to intervene in my speech.
Mr. Maxton: No.
Sir Hector Monro: That is a major disappointment. It will be surprising if the hon. Gentleman does not pluck up courage before I finish.
In no way have I criticised the tabling of amendments if they were to be debated succinctly and rapidly so that we could get the answers from Ministers about the point of the amendments.
Mr. Dewar: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is complaining about the amendments that led to proctracted debate on part II. Would he like to tell us — he will obviously know, having made the point at such length—how much time has been spent on part II and how
618
long was spent on clause 7 in particular? That is the only part of part II that we have so dealt with, so that must be the point on which he is resting his case.
Sir Hector Monro: I have been here long enough to know that when out of the blue 50 new amendments are put down to a part of a Bill this is a series of amendments intended to drag out part II as long as the Opposition can.
Mr. John Home Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman has initiated a vicious attack on me for tabling probing amendments, will he answer this point? I realise that he may have been busy with his correspondence last Tuesday evening during a sitting of the Committee, but he may have noticed that two of the amendments about which he is complaining at such length were probing amendments that were answered relatively satisfactorily by the Solicitor-General for Scotland and disposed of in a matter of minutes. What is wrong with that?
Sir Hector Monro: Two out of 200 is not a bad start, but there are still 198 to go.
I am pleased that we are discussing this motion, because those who have tabled amendments to part II and new clauses will have an opportunity to have them debated in the next sittings. They will be properly discussed in a brief and respectable time and we can hear the Minister's answers and then decide whether to proceed with the amendments. If we did not have a timetable motion such as this, those of us who have put down amendments and take seriously the valuation provisions in part II would not have an opportunity to raise the matter in Committee.
Many of the issues in part II are vital, and I hope that discussion of them will give the Minister an opportunity to spell out the very important changes proposed by the Government for the valuation of sports stadia and race courses in Scotland, which at present are treated extremely severely when compared with their opposite numbers in England and Wales. I should have thought that all those issues would be of interest to the Opposition, especially those right hon. and hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies with such stadia as Ibrox, Parkhead, and Hampden Park, whose rates are double or even treble those of equivalent size stadia in England. I should have expected right hon. and hon. Members to be eager to hear the Minister spelling out the procedures to be adopted. The opportunity to do that in the near future must please them and make them look forward with keen anticipation to the discussions that we are about to have.
There will also be valuable opportunities to move amendments about amateur sports clubs, mandatory derating and other subjects affecting, for example, the Royal Highland Agricultural Society which I should have expected hon. Members on both sides of the House to want a chance to discuss in the timetable programme. We shall also want to have a reasonable period to debate the new clauses dealing with a number of these issues.
When we deal with valuation we shall also have a chance to discuss such matters as caravan sites and reed beds. Perhaps the Opposition are against reed beds. But even it they are not against the Government on valuation, we know that basically their opposition is to part I. Here again, with their tactics of spinning out our discussions of the Bill, the Opposition have shown that they are against the ratepayers in Scotland, and for the high-spending local authorities. They are against the interests of the ratepayer,

619
the industrialist, commerce and shopkeepers. They have been thrown aside by the Opposition, who want only, for doctrinaire reasons, to stand up for certain high-spending local authorities.
The Opposition appear to think that a timetable motion is a new idea. They forget the Transport Bill of 1967, on which Mrs. Barbara Castle brought in a timetable after only 20 sittings and 70 hours — far less than this Committee has been sitting. She was prepared to timetable a Bill which had 123 clauses. The precedents come from the Labour party of yesteryear, yet the Opposition pretend today that they are against timetables.
Finally, I suggest that it is important for the House to consider fairly soon the valuable suggestion by other hon. Members in recent years that we should think again about our procedures generally. It is obvious that the passions felt by the two sides of the House in timetable debates are not what they used to be. I can remember when a timetable debate was a great occasion. Today, we have a relatively empty House, because the passions are no longer there. It is accepted that we must timetable some Bills if we are to make progress, whichever Government are in power. The sooner that the possibility is looked at in the broadest terms, the better. If it can be done, an informal timetable should be drawn up for every Committee and Report stage so that we can make reasonable progress at reasonable hours and right hon. and hon. Members can attend to their duties on Select Committees and other Committees of the House in which they are involved.
All in all, the Government have adopted the right course in introducing this timetable motion so that the Bill can be discussed fully in the remaining sittings of the Committee that have been agreed by the Opposition and the Government and so that we can have full answers from the Minister on the important issues that we raise. I support the Government strongly, and I want to make certain that we all get a fair crack of the whip in the remaining sittings of the Committee.
4.15 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is in danger of getting into the habit of being put up by the Government to give a respectable front to some of the exceptional measures that they are trying to put through the House. In recent Scottish debates he has been called early to make the Government's case in the hope that the real skulduggery behind the scenes will not be seen. The hon. Gentleman said that as there was no publicity for Committees sitting at three or four o'clock in the morning he could not understand why the Opposition insisted on doing it. That seems to say something about the futility of debating Scottish issues in the House.
As the hon. Gentleman said, timetable motions are not new. However, this one is of a different calibre from past ones. This Bill goes to the very heart of the principle of local democracy in Scotland. The circumstances are entirely different from those affecting previous motions for timetabling Bills.
The Leader of the House referred to high-spending authorities, the need to protect ratepayers from exorbitant rate levels, to improve the lot of ratepayers, and so on. To my mind, that is so much hokum. It is entirely different from the Government's intentions.
As I see it, the powers of elected representatives are being eroded. Local councillors will be relegated to the job
620
of rubber-stamping the decisions of central Government. Even if local councillors cause rates to go through the roof, the remedy for that has always existed and exists now. Electors in Scotland are well aware of that.
Following the rate support grant announcement, I have spent a week in my constituency listening to the great concern and anger expressed about the Government's cuts. We have a special difficulty because of the disadvantaged area that I represent. It is proposed that 20 schools should go. We have 800 miles of roads, but only 80 miles are double tracked. We have the highest level of old-age pensioners per head of the population in Scotland—it is almost double the level on the mainland — but home helps are to go or will be charged for.
All these services are being cut. Despite that, to maintain even meagre services, the local authority has had to increase rates to 149p in the pound—the highest level in Scotland on the poorest area—because of the action of the Secretary of State in not introducing the client group method, not repelling the submissions made to him by other authorities and not allowing the Western Isles council to have the funds that it requires to keep minimum services going. The Nicolson institute, the main school in my area, will be nine teachers short. That is the result of the Government's action. What prospect is there of Munn and Dunning being introduced?
We are arguing in the Western Isles about £1 million or £2 million. In the last week or two weeks people have asked me whether I could get the Argentines to invade the Western Isles so that we may get proper funding from the British Government. Alas, there is no hope of getting anything like that. That is the attitude of the people. We are in desperate straits because of the lack of about £2 million from a Government who are prepared to spend £10,000 million on Trident and who intend to back the Falklands to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, without a word of discussion about it here.
Every clause of the Bill needs debate. It is not for the Government to come here in an undemocratic way to cut down discussion, especially a Government who have no mandate in Scotland. I pre-erupt the Minister in saying, "Nor has my party." However, it is not the Scottish National party which is doing this. It is the Conservative party, which was rejected by a majority of the Scottish electorate. If that is democratic, I am a Dutchman.
I oppose this intention of cutting short debate, and I shall vote against the Government.
4.19 pm
Mr. Michael Hirst: In the dim and distant days when I was a law student, I recall the professor who lectured me in constitutional law speaking about guillotines in a grave manner. I could not have been expected to realise that, had my law professor known what the cantrips would be in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill Committee, he might have changed the view that he held about guillotine motions. Such a draconian power seems justified only if discussions are being stultified in the Committee, but I have sat in the Committee during many long tedious hours, listening to Opposition speeches and views that I considered somewhat frivolous, and about which I shall say something in a moment.
I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading because I believed that it did a number of worthwhile things, and I therefore looked forward to constructive discussion in

621
Committee. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that rates increases had been one and a half times the rate of inflation during the previous five years, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gascadden (Mr. Dewar) was quick to point out that during that time there had been a reduction in rate support grant. He was right, but that does not account for the fact that the increase in rates has been much more than the amount required to compensate for the reduction in rate support grant.
I welcomed on Second Reading the fact that there was to be consultation with the non-domestic ratepayers——
Mr. Dewar: Oh!
Mr. Hirst: The hon. Member for Garscadden may say "Oh", but he is the first to condemn businesses that have closed because they cannot support the rate burden. It confirms how mealy-mouthed the Opposition are, crying crocodile tears about high rates and at the same time deploring the fact that jobs are lost because businesses can no longer pay the rates.
Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give us some examples—let us say, five examples—of companies in his constituency or in Glasgow that have gone down and given rates as their reason for going out of business?
Mr. Hirst: I shall do better than that. I shall refer the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to the strictures that have been made year in year out by the Glasgow chamber of commerce, and to the fact that on the list of preferred creditors that appear when businesses go bankrupt the local authority is owed substantial sums of money. It is a proven fact that the rates burden on businesses has been a significant destroyer of jobs. If the Opposition cannot see that, it shows how purblind they must be.
On Second Reading, I welcomed the limitation on the amount of rate fund contribution that could go to the housing revenue account. Conservative Members believe that £126 million is a wasteful subsidy, one that penalises all ratepayers, and is completely indiscriminate, in that it does not benefit those who need it.
At the general election, we stated clearly what we intended to do. We had the Second Reading of the Bill, giving furtherance to what we said on the hustings we intended to do. I was always surprised that of all the measures introduced by this Government this Bill has generated less correspondence in my mailbag than any other. I know that the hon. Member for Cathcart will not disagree when I say that I have a substantial mailbag about many different issues, but the only letters that I had on this issue expressed sorrow that the Government were not undertaking a lock, stock and barrel reform of domestic rating, a view with which I have considerable sympathy.
I realise that parts of the Bill are controversial, and they have been hotly opposed in Committee by the Opposition. I accept that Opposition Members find the general power of limitation wholly objectionable. I accept that they do not like the restriction on the contribution from the rate fund to the housing revenue account. When in Committee, I admired the sincerity with which those views were put forward, particularly by the hon. Member for Garscadden,
622
but despite all the huffing and puffing in Committee, and despite all the long-winded tedious speeches which, in the words of Shakespeare, were
"full of sound and fury,
—Signifying nothing",
I do not believe that any local authority has anything whatever to fear if it organises its affairs prudently and sensibly, and with the interests of ratepayers at heart.
Surely the lesson of selective action against the four local authorities last summer proved something to us. We heard from the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) how objectionable he finds it that all the selective orders would be brought forward in one debate with one vote. I cast my mind back to my early days in the House, last summer, when we discussed the four selective orders. I remember how the interests of the Opposition waned after the opening speeches, and ground to a halt in the fourth order, when there was no Division and, indeed, no debate on the Opposition Benches. The Opposition may find it objectionable to have one vote on future selective orders, but when they had the opportunity to show their opposition they were found wanting.
Mr. Barry Henderson: On the extent to which the Opposition show genuine concern and opposition to the Bill, has my hon. Friend noticed that twice as many Tories as Opposition Members are present?
Mr. Hirst: Yes, indeed. Being an accountant, I reckon that they are at about 18 per cent. strength. That is even weaker than the whisky that we are served these days. The absence of the 42 Labour Members who tell us, north of the border, how hard they are fighting for the interests of Scotland says it all. I wish that they were fighting rather more strongly this afternoon from the Opposition Benches.
We recognise that the general powers of limitation in clause 3 is a formidable weapon in the hands of the Secretary of State. However, its existence should surely be a deterrent to an unreasonable and irresponsible local authority. I listened with interest in Committee when Opposition Members spoke with venom against that power, until I did some research and found that in 1966, when a Labour Government were presiding over our affairs, they brought in a Local Government (Scotland) Act, section 5 of which gave the Secretary of State the power to reduce a local authority's rate support grant if he thought that it was "excessive and unreasonable." The legislation was introduced, and it remained on the statute book unused for 15 years. Presumably that happened because successive Secretaries of State for Scotland felt that there was no justification for using it. Although clause 3 contains a fairly important power, it is a power that I hope will not be needed, but it is available should a local authority be minded to be unreasonable or irresponsible, or to disregard the interests of its ratepayers.
We on these Benches realise that there are controversial clauses in the Bill. We have lived through very lengthy debates. The Leader of the House spoke of 25 hours on one and 17½ hours on another, in which the Opposition had every opportunity to advance their views and to suggest probing amendments in an endeavour to convince the Committee of the merits of their case. Indeed, during an all-night sitting on 23 February, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who I regret is not present, spoke on amendment No. 79.
I merely instance amendment No. 79 as an example of the sort of time-wasting that my hon. Friends have had to

623
endure in Committee. That amendment referred to all classes of local authority. We have heard about probing amendments. I do not know what kind of speech the hon. Member for Falkirk, West made at 6 am on that particular morning. I accept that he was tired and emotional about the Bill, but he spoke a great deal of drivel. Indeed, when he started talking about classes of local authority he was able to extend the debate not to classes of local authority but to upper, middle or working-class councils. Then he discussed the aristocratic pedigree of certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends who hold ministerial office in Scotland. I was then convinced that the Opposition's purpose was not to put forward valid probing amendments.
Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to make personal attacks on other hon. Members without giving notice to them? I happen to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is not here because he has a meeting on the possible closure of a colliery which employs a number of his constituents.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): There are conventions and customs that are not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Hirst: I did not intend to make a personal attack. I was merely reflecting on the fact that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West took an inordinate amount of time and had to be hauled up by the Chair on successive occasions, much to the embarrassment of the hon. Member for Garscadden, for the woolly and peculiar views that he advanced that day which did not accelerate the Bill's progress.
I felt that we were making progress on the Bill when we reached clause 6. As that was in the Opposition's view the most contentious part of the Bill, I thought that we could look forward to accelerating through the remaining stages, thereby endeavouring to promote the Bill's passage which Conservative Members so actively support. But, alas, arriving from the north last Tuesday, I saw scores of amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I do not know what kind of amendments those are, but if they are probing amendments they are curious. They may well be frivolous amendments. I can only say that the Committee is faced with scores of amendments which do nothing to enhance the legislation.
In amendment No. 157 the hon. Gentleman wishes to delete the words "any official" and introduce "a representative". If the hon. Gentleman wishes to justify himself, I shall be happy to give way. When I looked at those pages and pages of amendments I thought that they were not probing amendments, but merely devices by which Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for East Lothian, could spin out the Committee's work.
Mr. Home Robertson: It would probably have been more appropriate had the hon. Gentleman sought that information in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. Has it occurred to him that there is a distinction between a local authority official and a member of a local authority?
Mr. Hirst: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to his amendment which has not yet been reached? It refers not to a local authority but to somebody that a rating member may wish to bring forward in future. In fairness, I
624
recognise that the hon. Gentleman has tabled so many amendments that he cannot be expected to recall instantly amendment No. 157.
Mr. Archie Kirkwood rose——
Mr. Hirst: I have not been able to listen to the hon. Gentleman in Committee but I am happy to hear from him now.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. He seems to be saying that some frivolous amendments have found their way to the Committee. Does he not agree that he is criticising the Chair for accepting amendments that are not serious?
Mr. Hirst: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am implying no criticism of the Chairman for accepting the amendments. I merely make the point that, having looked through the amendments to see whether they were intended to improve the legislation, I have come to the conclusion that they were not. Of course, that too is a personal opinion.
The Labour party's intention and purpose is to force the Government to impose a guillotine and then to claim some spurious political advantage. Labour Members want to be able to go back to Scotland and say that they have forced the Government to guillotine their measure—that they can only get their legislation through by resorting to a guillotine.
Mr. Maxton: Hear, hear.
Mr. Hirst: The hon. Gentleman has given it all away by shouting "Hear, hear".
That is a spurious political argument. The people of Scotland will see the Opposition's tactics for what they are. When I look at the Labour party's synthetic indignation I merely say that there is widespread general public support for the measure in Scotland. The people of Scotland want to see it on the statute book, and they will support what we are doing this afternoon.
4.35 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) has sought to trivialise the debate and to challenge the right of Committees to debate the details of legislation. I particularly deplore what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). My hon. Friend cannot be here today because he, and several of his hon. Friends who have constituents who are likely to lose their jobs as a consequence of the closure of Polmaise colliery, are taking part in a meeting in Scotland about that important matter — yet another example of the difficulties that are being forced on many in Scotland by the Government.
This guillotine motion is a completely unwarranted curtailment of debate on a highly controversial Bill—a Bill which is of enormous constitutional significance for Scotland. If Conservative Members who find this so amusing do not recognise that, they may care to compare notes with some of their hon. Friends south of the border who have profound misgivings about identical legislation for England and Wales. A number of Conservative Members found it necessary to vote against those identical!. provisions.
The legislation is unwarranted. May I pray in aid the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) on this

625
point? On BBC Radio Scotland last Monday morning he saw fit to say — rightly, in my view — that the Committee was making pretty rapid progress. He said that publicly. We all heard him, and I agree. In view of the controversial nature of the material that we are going through, we are making almost indecent haste in our consideration of the Bill. I do not know whether anybody consulted the hon. Gentleman before he made those remarks, but precisely one week later we have a guillotine motion. I do not know whom we are supposed to believe.
The Government's justification is pathetic. The Leader of the House said that we were taking an inordinate time and that an inordinate number of amendments had been tabled. We have heard some fairly spurious points against the Opposition's tactics in the past. We did not debate the first sittings motion, which is some measure of the Opposition's goodwill on the progress of the legislation.
At only the sixth sitting of the Committee, when the Government moved a motion requiring afternoon sittings in addition to morning sittings, the Minister quoted something that I had said on 31 January in the debate on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order, and he has given me notice that he will refer to me again. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be on the same point, so perhaps I might pre-empt what the Minister may be about to say.
On 31 January, I said of the Bill's coming into force:
"I am doing all that I can in Standing Committee every Tuesday and Thursday to ensure that that date is delayed as long as possible,"—[Official Report, 31 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 223.]
The Minister has already raised that point, and I gave him a reply to it in Standing Committee:
"That, as any reasonable person would know, was a shorthand way of saying that I hope to delay an ill-considered Bill by means of constructive argument in order to amend and improve it." — [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 2 February 1984; c. 202.]
If that is not what Standing Committees are for — amendment, improvement and detailed consideration of Bills — why on earth does the House have Standing Committees?
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden is correct in saying that a number of amendments were tabled last Monday. Up to that point in the Bill, we had been working one clause ahead of ourselves, and tabling amendments to the next clause to be considered. It struck me that it might have been of assistance to the Minister, and to his officials, if they had had longer notice of amendments. I make no apology for tabling probing as well as substantive amendments. That surely is the purpose of Standing Committees in dealing with legislation.
Since some mud is being flung around the Chamber, I point out that some aspects of the conduct of the Committee proceedings have been deplorable. I am thinking of the 11 silent men. In fairness to the Minister, I suppose that he was not all that silent, but his 10 Back-Bench hon. Friends have been conspicuous by their silence in Committee. Those 11 Conservative Members form the majority on the Committee and they are elected Members of Parliament representing Scotland. When the electorate return Members of Parliament to represent Scotland, they expect them at least to pay some attention to the legislation that will be inflicted on the electorate. Yet 10 Government
626
Back Benchers sat in total silence, doing their correspondence, and paying precious little attention to what was taking place.
I also deplore the fact that "stand part" debates on two highly controversial clauses—clauses 3 and 6 — were entirely conducted after midnight. That was unnecessary. It would not have been outwith the power of the Government to adjourn the Committee so that those important debates could have been conducted when all members of the Committee were prepared for them, and not tired. It brings no credit on the House if hon. Members are compelled to work 24-hour shifts and expected to apply their minds to detailed argument on controversial points so late in the day—or rather so early in the morning. It is no coincidence that the Government stage-managed the debates so that those that would most embarrass them took place in the wee small hours of the morning when few hon. Members were present.
The composition of the Committee is a matter for some concern. This debate, indeed, may be an alarming example of the superficial treatment that Scottish affairs receive in this Parliament. How on earth Scottish affairs can be fairly treated in the Committee beggars the imagination. The party that received only 28 per cent. of the votes in Scotland managed to obtain 61 per cent. of the seats on the Committee. Conservative Members just sit in those seats and say nothing—and perhaps think nothing, for all we know. Sometimes those hon. Members are not even present in the Committee: they are outside waiting for somebody to shout that a Division is taking place. The 10 silent Conservative members of the Standing Committee might remember that, even if they do not recognise that all is not well with the legislation, a number of their hon. Friends representing England are worried about a similar Bill.
A specific point——
Mr. Michael Forsyth rose——
Mr. Home Robertson: No, I will not give way; I am in mid-sentence.
A specific point that will arise when the House votes on the guillotine motion is the problem confronting hon. Members who are not present. I cite in particular six hon. Members of the House who mysteriously voted in favour of Second Reading of this Bill on 5 December 1983, but voted against Second Reading of the Rates Bill on 17 January. An important constitutional question which merited their voting against their own Government on 17 January must on 5 December have been seen in a different light, or perhaps not understood at all by the right hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), and by the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I do not know what suddenly changed their minds, but, for some reason, they thought that it was all right to abolish the autonomy of local authorities in Scotland, but it was not all right to do the same thing for England. I am fascinated by their past voting conduct, and I shall be even more fascinated to see how some of those hon. Members vote at the end of this debate.
Mr. Forsyth: The explanation may be that there are more irresponsible Left-wing councils north of the border, and that they felt that this action was necessary.
Mr. Maxton: I wish there were!
Mr. Home Robertson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to describe his hon. Friends as irresponsible Left-wingers because, in his eyes, that is what they may be. Nevertheless, I shall be fascinated to note how those hon. Members vote, in view of their record.
This squalid exercise shows pretty outrageous contempt for Scottish interests. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has already said that the Government have no mandate in Scotland, and I make no apologies for making the same point. The Government, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, have no mandate, and no right to control the Scottish Office. It is equally fair to say that the House, in view of the decision taken by the Scottish people in the 1979 referendum, and in subsequent general elections, has a pretty tenuous mandate to legislate on local government in Scotland. Local government should have been devolved to a Scottish Assembly. The people of Scotland specifically voted for that measure, yet a totally unrepresentative Secretary of State for Scotland now seeks draconian and unwarranted powers from the House. The people of Scotland will draw their own conclusions from this state of affairs in due course, but what the House is witnessing today is a pretty despicable exercise.
4.49 pm
Mr. Gerald Malone: Both you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House will be indebted to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for giving us a clear example of one of his Committee speeches. It was exactly according to form—nothing to do with the matter in hand and almost completely related to devolution and the spurious argument about the Scottish mandate. That says something for what has taken place in Committee on this legislation. It became increasingly clear a short while ago that some kind of complicated political gavotte was being performed in Committee. There was a change from the original mood that prevailed in Committee, when there seemed to be a genuine chance of making progress with the legislation. Early last week, we were swamped with an enormous number of amendments, which I believe—and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst)—were designed to obstruct the proceedings.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for giving me notice of a matter that I know will be raised later. In a radio interview I mentioned that there was no guillotine motion on the Scottish rate-capping legislation, whereas there was one on the English rate-capping equivalent, because progress was being made. The hon. Member for East Lothian perhaps put something of a gloss on my remarks and took them further than I did, but at that stage progress was being made and was to be welcomed.
Reference has been made to the fact that there was only a short debate on the first sittings motion. Despite the fact that I have been a Member of the House only since June last year, I have worked through one or two Standing Committees. One of them was the Standing Committee on the Telecommunications Bill. I know all about sittings motions. The sittings motion on that legislation lasted for two sittings of the Committee. When I discovered that the sittings motion on this legislation went through relatively
628
quickly, I thought that it was a declaration of good intent. Government supporters on the Committee now see that that was perhaps a fond hope that has not been realised.
I believe that what we are seeing does not come gladly to the heart of the hon. Member for Garscadden. To be fair to him, in Committee he seemed to find filibustering distasteful. That distaste is not apparently shared by many other members of the Committee. I believe that it is with genuine regret that the hon. Gentleman has to turn to the devices of filibustering and raising irrelevant points to keep the discussion going. From the Opposition we are seeing a response to the legislation that must mirror the response that they gave to the English legislation, which required a guillotine a short while ago. I can almost hear the call for them to keep up their macho image to match that of their English colleagues. They cannot go to their Scottish constituencies to hear the question, "English Members have forced a guillotine. Why are you not doing the same?" I am certain that that attitude has made this guillotine motion necessary. The Opposition are forcing this motion on the Bill today. The blame lies fairly and squarely with them, because they have changed their attitude from one of being relatively constructive to one that made a guillotine motion necessary if the measure was ever to see the light of day.
I speak as a relatively new Member of the House. I hope that, in the unlikely event of appearing on a Committee in the role of a member of Opposition, I would not adopt their attitude. I am sure that Conservative Members would adopt a more constructive role, as they did when in opposition.
I find it distasteful and difficult to explain to my constituents the performance that we go through in Committee. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who expressed the hope that there could be a new approach to the way that we debate legislation in Committee. I find it difficult to explain why we must go on into the early hours of the morning. When my constituents say that they have read Hansard, I find it hard to explain why we have to listen to so much irrelevance and points which border on being out of order, and Members have to be stopped because they wander off the point. It is something that my constituents do not understand and it brings the House into disrepute. If we are to retain our credibility, it is a point to which we will have to address ourselves.
The people of Scotland want the legislation. They need it to protect them from pernicious rate rises and for all the other benefits that it will bring. They need it to provide for consultation. The Opposition are not debating constructively; they merely wish to deny the Scottish people those benefits. My view has changed for that reason. I consider it necessary to have a guillotine not just because progress is in danger of coming to a halt, but because all the amendments tabled by the Opposition are designed to obstruct. For those reasons, I support this guillotine motion. The motion is unwelcome, but the Opposition's actions have made it necessary.
4.54 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross: I did not have the good fortune to be selected from the Opposition to participate in the few short hours that the Committee has sat. There was keen competition from the Opposition to serve on the Committee.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: If there was such keen competition, why were Opposition Members such poor attenders?
Mr. Ross: That type of intervention raises the question as to whether we should give way when we are having a serious debate. I have said that I am not on the Committee, and therefore I could not begin to respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I am sure that those of my colleagues who may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will respond to the point. I have had the misfortune to listen to speeches from the hon. Member and he has never impressed me as someone I would want to hear, whatever he was talking about, except, perhaps, the brand of economics that is peculiar to one small part of Fife.
Mr. Norman Buchan: And Chicago.
Mr. Ross: And Chicago, as my hon. Friend said.
It is important that those of us who could not serve on the Committee should be able to make one or two points in support of our colleagues. My colleagues, the people whom I represent in Dundee and I do not believe that the Bill has had the airing, and the interest shown in it, that it merits. We are dealing with the rhetoric of a Government who have done little to help Scottish ratepayers. When they sought the support of the electorate at two general elections they claimed strongly that they had ratepayers' interests at the forefront of their mind, and yet they have failed miserably to find some way of responding to that claim. They have tried to turn the spotlight on to the local authorities and blame them for everything. The Government have tried to absolve themselves from the responsibility of—as they claim—reforming rates. The guillotine motion is the culmination of that.
Since they came to power in 1979, the Government have persistently increased the statutory duties of local authorities while savagely reducing the finances available to the local authorities to carry out those responsibilities. When those local authorities refused to cut the services as the Government wanted and were not prepared to accept the reduction in central Government support in an attempt to protect those services, the Secretary of State blamed them once again.
My local authority has had the misfortune to catch the Secretary of State's eye once or twice since 1979, and the people of Dundee have not forgotten his attempts to attack services in Dundee. The theme underlying this legislation and all the other legislation that the Government have introduced is to weaken all levels of local government. They do not believe in local government because they do not control it, which is why they have introduced the legislation. If the Government had the support in Scotland that Opposition Members can claim to have, this measure would not have seen the light of day. That is the underlying reason for the legislation. They have failed to impress the local electorate because it is too sophisticated for some of the nonsense that has come from Tory party Central Office and, therefore, it has consistently refused to accept them at local government level.
Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. In the extremely unlikely event of Labour Members being able to form a Government, will he tell me what their reaction would be if Tory-controlled local authorities were to go on a spending spree and drive up
630
their expenditure? If his party were in power, would it stand idly by and allow them to claim more and more resources from the Scottish Office budget?
Mr. Ross: It will be the responsibility of the next Labour Government to encourage local authorities to increase spending. If they do not, the disaster of the last four years and of the next two or three years — depending how long the Government last—will be such that the electors of the next Labour Government will demand that the Government grant that freedom to local authorities.
Mr. Hirst: Socialist profligacy.
Mr. Ross: That is not Socialist profligacy. It shows a desire to provide services where they are best looked after — at local government level. The Labour party has always had respect for local government and for the right of local authorities to determine the level of rates, support and services in their areas.
Mr. Hirst rose——
Mr. Ross: You would not be happy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I delayed the debate too long, because many of my hon. Friends are anxious to catch your eye.
Opposition Members sought to argue the legislation line by line, clause by clause and comma by comma. The Government, who claim to be anxious to protect ratepayers, have made it clear by their withdrawal of the rate support grant that they are responsible for forcing up rates. There is no better evidence of that than the debate that is taking place tonight.
In approximately two hours the honorary treasurer of Dundee district council will announce the rates for the area. When we compare the two political parties which have controlled Dundee district council recently, we see which party has been irresponsible in local government. In 1980, the Conservative honorary treasurer robbed the general fund balance of more than £3,500,000 artificially to hold down the rate in a desperate and wholly irresponsible election gimmick. That election gimmick failed to confuse the sophisticated electorate of Dundee, because a few months later it kicked out that Tory administration and returned by a handsome majority a Labour administration. It has sought to look after the ratepayers in Dundee.
I am confident that the most popular person in Dundee at about 7 pm will be not the Secretary of State for Scotland, but councillor Tom McDonald, who will announce the district rate. I know that the rate will be welcomed by industrialists, ratepayers, local authority employees, and council house tenants who require the services that he will protect. I know that the Solicitor-General wishes to tempt me to divulge the rate which my colleague on the council will announce, but with his respect for law and order and democracy, he will accept that it is only right that the councillor should make the statement in the city chambers tonight. I am confident that when he makes that announcement we shall see who are the responsible politicians in Dundee.
Mr. William McKelvey: I was in my hon. Friend's constituency at the weekend and had discussions with councillors there. I was overwhelmingly impressed by the manner in which the Dundee councillors have run that city for many years, despite the attempts by the Secretary of State for Scotland to deprive

631
them of their democratic rights. I conclude from those discussions and from what I saw that the rate set by the Dundee town council, which will be announced at about 7 pm tonight, will be along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend's visit to Dundee was most welcome because he has held responsibility on the district council as leader of the opposition. I shall bring my comparison of the council more up to date by contrasting it with Tayside regional council. It intends to raise rates by 3p and still retain enough in the general fund balance by closing schools, increasing school meal charges and refusing to provide necessary nurseries. Incidentally, it is at the same time making a mockery of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which the Secretary of State introduced.
The Government's attempt to force the guillotine demonstrates how unworried Tory Members are about their electoral support among local authorities. Different Scottish Ministers have approached the problem in different ways. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), who unfortunately is not present, made an interesting comment on central Government involvement in local decision-making. In a letter to me on 18 January 1984 about the National Health Service in Dundee, he referred to
"the obvious advantage of reducing the amount of central interference in the local provision of services."
If that is good enough for the Health Service, it is good enough for democratically elected local authorities. Whatever the result of tonight's vote, the people of Scotland will be able to judge the Government's actions and real intentions regarding local government, and they will know who their friends are.
5.8 pm
Mrs. Anna McCurley: I was not a member of the Committee on the Bill, but I have sat on enough Standing Committees now to realise what my hon. Friends mean by the Opposition's delaying tactics. I am essentially a cautious person, and while the Bill progressed through the House I waited for an outcry about its effects on the general public. It has not come. Nothing has come to my notice from the general public. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), I have received not one piece of correspondence from my constituents on the matter. I have received no letters, no one has taken to the streets and local government has shown remarkable restraint.
It is high time that the Bill was brought back to the Floor of the House. I was initially cautious because I was involved in local government — Strathclyde regional council—and because I was anxious about some aspects of the Bill, especially the fundamental relationship between central and local government. I was anxious about the transfer of some responsibilities from central to local government, especially those which were originally associated with the financing of the Department of Health and Social Security. I was worried about the commitment of central Government to cutting expenditure. They asked local authorities to do that, but I felt that it was a sentiment expressed more in word than in deed.
However, when I finally pondered the Bill's effect, I decided that there was no threat of disintegration to local democracy. I believe that the lines have been blurred, and
632
that local authorities act not only in an autonomous capacity but as agents of central Government. These days, local government is big complex business. However, it is not such big and complex business as to warrant what I saw in Strathclyde region's minutes of 14 February. It was the final straw when I looked at the minutes of the policy and resources committee, which is exclusively Labour dominated, and saw the following heading:
"Strathclyde and the Third World".
The United Kingdom's net aid programme for 1984–85 is worth £1,099 million. That may not be as great a percentage of the gross domestic product as the Brandt commission would have liked, and I accept that that commission urges the Government to spend more. However, does the Brandt commission say anything about local government expenditure on the Third world? Although Strathclyde has been crying out for additional resources, and relief from Government strictures, it wants to extend its largesse—correction: not its largesse, but that of the ratepayers — far beyond the curtilages of Strathclyde. It is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. More than ever, and on that basis alone, I am prepared to support the Government in order to enact this legislation quickly.
5.11 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I shall be brief, as I wish only to explain the Liberal parry's attitude towards the guillotine motion and the workings of the Committee. The political position is clear. The Government have a majority. We can argue — as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) regularly does—about whether the Government have a mandate, but they clearly have a majority. They trailed parts of the legislation in their election manifesto in Scotland; so, as I said in Committee, under the rules of the game they are entitled to introduce it.
However, I do not agree with the Bill, principally because it strikes at the heart of our constitution. That was alluded to by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). It interferes with the electorate's right to determine who their local authority representatives should be. People are entitled to cast their votes. The Government interference represented by the Bill strikes at the heart of the right of people to express their views about how their local authorities are spending their money. It is not for the Government but for the electorate to decide that. If the electorate do not like what the local authority is doing, it is incumbent on them to throw them out. It is not for the Government to set the rates in the way that they have chosen to do in the Bill.
As I have said before, the legislation is unnecessary. The financial constraints that the Secretary of State has in his inside pocket are powerful enough already. Earlier this Session, he demonstrated that to my satisfaction. I concede that, as Secretary of State for Scotland, he has to take account of local authority spending. If, by his lights, it is excessive, there must be machinery that he can use ultimately to redress the balance. However, he has that machinery now, and does not need more. That is why I believe that in principle the measure in misguided.
The Bill obtained a Second Reading and went into Committee. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone); initially I was surprised and pleased at the speed with which the Committee proceeded. I felt that debate on the first three clauses was informed and that the Government's responses were helpful. The hon.

633
Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) elicited much useful and relevant information. Clause 3 was the important one, but after that our debates degenerated.
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman was not there.
Mr. Kirkwood: I was not in Committee because I came to the conclusion that my main objections to the clauses would not be dealt with constructively. By definition, the Government will not concede any points of principle in Committee. They did not even agree any amendments, other than those involving minor drafting or typographical errors. I decided that to sit through the night trying to move mostly tinkering amendments would only bring the processes of the House into disrepute.
I am not surprised, therefore, that we are debating a guillotine motion tonight. Everyone foresaw what would happen, but it is not a particularly edifying experience. When the Government have a majority of 143, the Opposition are not being realistic if they expect to get round it by wasting time. There is no record of time-wasting achieving that end, and I doubt whether it ever will during my political career. Therefore, such tactics are unrealistic. If Opposition Members believed that such tactics were the only device available to them, that was a matter for them, but I certainly did not intend to sit up until 5 am, as I had other duties to perform. However, I shall ensure that I redress the balance on Report.
The hon. Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Aberdeen, South said that the procedures of the House should be changed if we could not improve on the sort of charade that took place in Committee. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) stated our view in the debate on the guillotine motion on the Rates Bill. The commission on constitutional reform recently set up by the Liberal and Social Democratic parties states:
"bills should be time-tabled under a procedure involving all parties from an early stage instead of being guillotined at such a late stage that many clauses and amendments are not discussed at all."
That is the view that I took when the sittings motion was moved, and it remains my view.
Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman said that he would have his say when the Bill returned to the House on Report, but does he realise that the Report stage is also being guillotined and that there will only be one day for it?
Mr. Kirkwood: As I have said, the Government have a majority. I deplore the fact that the debate on the valuation clauses is being curtailed, because they are important. Five sittings are not enough to do justice to the many outstanding clauses, so I shall recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they vote against the motion.
It is quite logical to say that if a guillotine had been imposed allowing the whole Bill to be discussed properly, I would have supported it. However, I cannot recommend that my colleagues should agree to only five days being allowed for the remaining valuation clauses.
Mr. Malone: If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with the balance of time left, why has he not tabled an amendment to that effect?
Mr. Kirkwood: I did not think that that would be worth while. We table amendments with monotonous regularity, but none of them is selected, so that is also a waste of time. If the guillotine motion had been introduced earlier, in a sensible way, and had been agreed by the usual channels, we would have supported it. However, at this stage we cannot support it. There is not enough time left to deal with the valuation clauses, so I shall recommend that my colleagues vote against the motion.
5.20 pm
Mr. Michael Forsyth: I listened with sympathy to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) until he said that he would vote against the motion. I thought that I would avoid the temptation of saying that it was typically Liberal, when the going gets rough, to say that one has better things to do than to sit up until 5 o'clock in the morning. The hon. Gentleman tries to have it both ways. Not only did he not attend the Committee and argue his case, but he wants the agony to continue. That smacks of opportunism and is not constructive.
I have listened to speeches by Opposition Members and it is difficult to take seriously their attempts to manufacture indignation and to weep crocodile tears because the Bill will not be discussed properly. After all, their delaying tactics and interminable speeches have made it impossible to discuss some of the technical but important clauses. I agree that there is much to be discussed in the valuation clauses. We shall not be able to discuss them properly because of the Opposition's performance in Committee.
I have served on two Committees. It is interesting that we should be told that this legislation is controversial, that great constitutional issues are at stake and that the legislation must be properly scrutinised. All the controversial bits were agreed quickly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) said. Opposition Members simply ran out of arguments in Committee. Their argument against the legislation was so weak that they could not even keep discussion on part I of the Bill going. When they returned to their constituencies, the hard men of the Left were saying "Why is there not a guillotine?" Labour spendthrift councillors had come down to London at ratepayers' expense and wanted to see a proper fight. Labour Members are under pressure because reselection is in the air again. That is another reason for the charade—[HON. MEMBERS: "Pathetic."] It is pathetic. The Opposition's performance in Committee is pathetic. Having dealt with the major areas of dispute they tabled nonsense amendments on valuation to deny the rest of us the opportunity, for non-partisan reasons, to discuss technical matters.
We have been treated yet again to the argument, so often used by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), that there is no mandate for the legislation in Scotland. Will Opposition Members give an undertaking that, in the unlikely event that the Labour party should ever form a Government and if, as they have for the last two Labour Governments, they depend for their majority on seats north of the border, those elements of policy applying north of border will not apply south of the border? How do they justify their position now in respect of the mandate with what happened when they were in government?
Mr. Maxton: Can the hon. Gentleman name one Department of State that is exclusively English and does not cover the whole of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Forsyth: I was hoping that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) would give me the guarantee for which I asked. Knowing him, I imagined that he would. Unfortunately, neither he, nor the Opposition Front Bench in Committee, is able to bind the Labour party.
In Committee, the performance of Opposition Members was abysmal. With one or two exceptions, there was precious little constructive argument. Opposition Members were like the puffers that used to ply the west coast of Scotland, making a lot of steam and being obsolete and inefficient in their use of time. They even had their own version of Para Handy with his long-winded statements and attempts to keep his shambolic crew together.
The debate has a more serious aspect — the whole performance of the Committee and the fact that we should now be discussing a guillotine motion. Sitting up all night and tabling nonsensical amendments does not do any good to my constituents who are anxious to see the legislation on the statute book. The case for reform is overwhelming.
With due hesitation, as a new boy, I must say that I do not understand why Committees cannot be timetabled in advance. I do not understand why we cannot limit the length of speeches. Those of us with experience in local government are familiar with that concept. There is general agreement about the importance of local democracy, but I have heard no cries from local government that it is impossible to ensure local democracy when speeches are subject to a time limit.
The Bill is important, not for the bogus reason of an alleged threat to local government independence. Central Government are not interfering with the decision-making process of local authorities in Scotland. The Government are interfering with the right of local authorities to squeeze ratepayers until the pips squeak and to embark upon extravagant expenditure, but local authorities will be as free as they ever were to make decisions within available resources.
I should like us to give greater scrutiny to the valuation clauses. The Government's proposals could be improved in some respects, but——
Mr. Dewar rose——
Mr. Forsyth: I am well aware of the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wishes to make. He will argue that if I am so anxious to discuss valuation, why support the guillotine? If he is not planning to say that, I shall give way.
Mr. Dewar: I was about to produce a more sympathetic variation of that argument. The guillotine will be enforced by a majority in the Lobbies tonight, so the amount of time available for the important valuation clauses will depend entirely on the Government's judgment when setting the timetable. If the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is distressed that there will not be enough time, why does not he put pressure on Ministers to provide more time?
Mr. Forsyth: As in all matters, a balance must be struck.
It is important to pass the legislation. It is already having an effect before it reaches the statute book. Far be it from me to praise Stirling district council in two successive debates. That is unlikely, but how unlikely was
636
it even a year ago that Stirling district council would be announcing that there is to be no rate rise this year? Cynics might think that the legislation has nothing to do with that but that another matter has concentrated its mind. That local authority's attitude has changed markedly because it knows that the game is up. The rules may have been changed, but it will play by the rules. The beneficiaries are the voters of all political colours not only in my constituency but throughout Scotland.
Council tenants in my constituency are alarmed by the appalling rate-borne subsidies that Stirling district continues to impose. Some council tenants have within their families three or four wage-earners. The elderly, owner-occupiers and single occupiers do not want to subsidise those who can afford to pay a proper rent. Nor do they want better-off council tenants to be subsidised at the ratepayers' expense. There is no equity in that; and the sooner we have the benefits of clause 4 of the Bill, the better.
I welcome the guillotine. It will bring relief and sanity to local government. When the legislation has progressed through the House and finally to the statute book, it will obtain what Labour Members keep saying is their concern in local government — namely, better services for the ratepayers. Time and again during the progress of the Bill they have asserted that good services imply spending lots of money, yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr. Buchan: Is the opposite true?
Mr. Forsyth: The opposite is not true. Good services come from good housekeeping. When local authorities are forced to budget and manage their affairs within given financial limits, they provide better services. They move away from what Labour Members have tried for years to make local government do — to become a vast employment organ within the community. Indeed, I understood the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) in an intervention to encourage the growth of public expenditure.
Mr. McKelvey: Yes, of course.
Mr. Forsyth: Labour Members believe in public expenditure. They believe that the higher it goes, the better, because more people become dependent on the state for their livelihood, income, services and everything else. Society becomes more Socialist and less free. That is why the Opposition have opposed the Bill root and branch.
Those of us who are in politics to help people in the greatest need believe that local government, subject to financial constraints, performs more effectively. There are no good examples in Scotland, apart from Cumnock and Doon Valley. However, south of the border local authorities have been forced by expenditure constraints to test the efficiency of their services — professional services, such as those involving architects and lawyers, and cleaning and refuse collection services and to go out to tender. Not only have savings been made through private contractors coming in, but, more to the point, local direct labour organisations, work forces and officers have produced savings.
That is what the Bill is all about. It is designed to allow local authorities to have the freedom to do what people in private business do — to test efficiency, invite

637
competition and get the best deal they can. In local government, that means getting the best deal for the ratepayers.
At the local elections in May the voters will have to decide which party can best provide services that represent value for money and genuinely care for their electorate. Opposition Members, by virtue of their performance and arguments on the Bill in Committee, have shown that they have precious little claim to that accolade.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I am anxious that all hon. Members who wish to speak should have the opportunity to do so. This debate will conclude at 6.39 pm. I hope that all hon. Members who are called will be brief.
5.35 pm
Mr. Bob McTaggart: It is always unfortunate when the House must debate a guillotine motion because at issue is the very right of hon. Members to defend the interests of their constituents and oppose measures, as they see fit, to the best of their ability.
Labour Members need make no apology for the way in which we have opposed this legislation, which we believe to be bad for our constituents and local authorities. It is a shame that the guillotine should be applied to this of all Bills because the measure attacks local authorities and councillors and, thereby, attacks local democracy. The Government are forcing through legislation which will impose the will of the Government on local authorities.
So strong is feeling against this legislation that when the Bill's sister measure, that applying to England and Wales, was discussed, Conservative Members felt that they could not support it, and many of them voted with the Opposition against it and even more abstained. It is to be regretted that not a Conservative voice was heard in Committee against the Bill from among those who voted against the English legislation.
The Leader of the House said that the Bill's two most controversial clauses, clauses 3 and 6, had already been discussed. Clause 3 relates to the controversial rate-capping measures while clause 6 limits what a council can take from the rate fund contribution to its housing revenue account. As the two most controversial clauses have been discussed, it seems ludicrous for the Government to cut short future debate on the Bill, especially as we are making headway.
Mr. Hirst: Is the hon. Gentleman by implication agreeing with my proposition that the scores of amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) are vexatious and designed to disrupt progress on the remaining parts of the Bill?
Mr. McTaggart: No. Every hon. Member has the right to oppose legislation which he considers to be bad. It is brutal for the Government to impose the guillotine and so cut short the debate on legislation which we consider to be bad. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is entitled to introduce such amendments as he sees fit to protect his constituents. It is sad that at a time when even the Leader of the House admits that we are making progress the measure should be guillotined.
My hon. Friends and I did not force a vote on the first sittings motion in Committee. However, within a couple
638
of weeks the Government introduced a timetable motion which kept us sitting till all hours. We opposed that because legislation of this complexity and importance should be dealt with in a proper fashion, and we should have adequate time in which to prepare our arguments.
Even if the Government had a sufficient mandate in Scotland, it would be an abuse of that mandate to introduce legislation such as this. My constituents must accept that, because of the way in which the English electorate voted, they have a Conservative Government. They cannot do anything about that. However, they elected local authorities to protect them from what they regard as some of the worst aspects of central Government, no matter the political persuasion of that Government. Local authorities are designed to protect local people against the worst ravages of the actions of central Government.
Mr. Hirst rose——
Mr. McTaggart: We have been urged by Mr. Deputy Speaker to be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak. I shall not give way.
It is sad that my constituents, having recognised that they must suffer under this Government, for whom they did not vote, must be doubly attacked in that the local authorities, which they did elect, are being attacked by that same Government. Local councillors know best what services their communities require. They are accountable through the ballot box in the same way as Members of this place and they should have the right to fix rents and rates for those whom they represent.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have tried to highlight during consideration of the Bill who is responsible for the lack of services, cuts in services, local authority redundancies and the forcing up of rent levels. The fault lies with central Government and not with the duly elected councillors. Central Government are hiding behind Bills such as the one before us while seeking to impose their will on communities which have no truck with them. I hope that tonight we shall see some Conservatives joining Opposition Members to vote against the guillotine motion, which will do nothing for democracy. It will lead central Government down a path of confrontation with local government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.
5.41 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I suspect that no Scottish Conservative Members will be joining the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) in the Opposition Lobby, and I shall explain why. It is important to set the Bill in context. The Bill has been discussed in Committee for no fewer than 82 hours. What did the previous Labour Government do when they had the Scotland Bill on the Floor of the House? Almost at once, before it had been discussed for many hours, a guillotine was applied to it. The guillotine motion was carried and implemented at an early stage. There was no question of discussing the major controversial issues in the Bill for anything like 82 hours.
Why has a guillotine motion been applied to the Bill at this stage? After the all-night sitting it became clear that Labour Members—I mention one in particular, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who has the capacity to speak for half an hour on virtually any

639
subject under the sun—did not want the Bill to make progress. I say with respect that the hon. Member for Garscadden has the capability to exhaust time and to encroach upon eternity. When a vast number of amendments were tabled on valuation, which had not until that stage been a desperately controversial issue, it became clear that the Opposition's tactic was to speak at as great length as possible to ensure that the Bill could not pass through the House without a guillotine.
I believe that there is a time for the fullest debate and discussion. I believe also that there is a time for decision. It appears from the correspondence that I have been receiving that there is strong support for the reserve powers that are contained in the Bill and the necessary measures to protect ratepayers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) said in his excellent speech, a high level of rating can have a detrimental effect on business and a significant effect in destroying jobs. I believe that the Bill will protect jobs and lead to the creation of more jobs by keeping rates at reasonable levels.
The progress that has been made so far is not sufficient. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he looked forward to hearing more speeches, and he will hear them in the fullness of time. I am anxious to contribute to the discussion on the new clauses that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has tabled, especially the interesting one that is designed to ensure that accounts can be scrutinised. I wish on behalf of my constituents to contribute to the discussion on clause 13 while directing myself to the Edinburgh zoo, which has the best collection of animals throughout Scotland. Bearing in mind that the most controversial issues have been dealt with already, I believe that it will be in the interests of Labour Members, as well as in our own, to address ourselves to that clause.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked why there had not been more speeches from Conservative Members in Committee. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, we have been well satisfied with the arguments that he has advanced. When my colleagues have not been so satisfied they have intervened. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling has major speeches during our deliberations in Committee.
At 3 o'clock in the morning hon. Members do not contribute to debates quite as well as at some other times. For example, at 3 am during the all-night sitting on 23 February, the Chairman asked the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to direct his remarks to the amendment. The hon. Gentleman replied that it was difficult to relate his remarks to anything while a dialogue was taking place at the same time. It will be much easier if there is an informal discussion on the best way to proceed with the remainder of the Bill, which is considerably less controversial.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that he might have supported the guillotine motion if it had been introduced at the beginning of the consideration of the Bill in Committee. Surely that would have been a much more controversial issue. If that had happened, there would have been a case for arguing that democratic rights were to be curtailed. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would not have had the support of his party if he had tabled such a motion at that stage. There is no Liberal amendment
640
on the Order Paper and so we shall not have the opportunity to vote on Liberal policy. I support the motion as being reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances.
5.46 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I do not think that anyone will deny that this is an important Bill. I do not think that anyone will deny either that the Government's gross behaviour in trying to make such a Bill subject to a guillotine motion will be noted in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) talked about an equally important Bill—the devolution Bill. He observed that it was subjected eventually to a guillotine motion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that Bill, because it was a constitutional measure that also bore on our democracy, was debated on the Floor of the House, and indeed there were practically no closure motions. If the Government had taken that course with this Bill, we might have been able to accept some of the special pleading of Conservative Members.
The Bill is an important constitutional measure that will erode further the democratic rights of local authorities and those who elected them by expressing their wishes through the ballot box. The sister measure for England and Wales will be responsible for a similar erosion. We happen, partly because of the opposition of the troglodytes on the Conservative Benches to devolution, to be a unitary state. There is no balance for federal states of the sort that exist in America. We have none of the powers of prefectures that are to be found in France. Consequently, there are many problems, and that is the case for devolution. However, we do not have it and we shall not have it under this Government.
Local government is not a substitute for devolution, but it represents a recognition that we cannot leave all decisions about the services and welfare of our people to central Government. We cannot leave all decisions about planning and education in the hands of a unitary Government in Westminster. Central Government do not understand the needs of people in particular areas and they cannot express them. They do not understand because they are concerned with the running of major Government Departments. They are not concerned to try to understand, because they are not in power to reflect the separate and disparate needs of local areas. Therefore, the Bill is an important constitutional measure and it is a major disgrace that it was not brought on the Floor of the House so that hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I could participate in its consideration.
The attack on the democratic nature of our state and, above all, upon the will of the electorate has not been taken on board by Conservative Members. They seem not to understand that following that attack we shall no doubt witness the whittling away of local differences.
The Bill betrays an appalling economic ignorance. That ignorance has been demonstrated by the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) and Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Gog and Magog of the group of troglodytes on the Conservative Benches. They fail to understand the importance of public expenditure. They claim that the Bill is an attempt to cut public expenditure; but it was not supposed to be that. It was supposed to be a means of regulating local authorities.

641
Those hon. Gentlemen are saying now that the legislation is to do not only with serving the needs of ratepayers and, above all, the non-domestic ratepayers—the business section in which Conservative Members are interested — but with the economic state of the nation and the theory of public expenditure. That view is maintained now only by the University of Chicago, one or two of the Conservatives' outriders, such as Milton Friedman, when he is not advising Chile and similarly democratic states, and the Prime Minister. The Scottish Tories are the only other group that believes in that concept. Few of the English Tories now believe it. During the passage of the Rates Bill, a number of English Tories expressed reservations and some had the courage to oppose the legislation. Sometimes with these Members opposite I shudder about what will happen with devolution. Not a single Scottish Tory Member has taken on board the importance of public expenditure in relation to the expansion of the economy. Their attitude is also cutting across the traditional Conservative view.
The Conservatives have taken away the century-old philosophy of the importance of local democracy and the need to cut the central power of the state. Remember Maggie saying, "We will roll back the boundaries of the state." We have seen the state moving in on local authorities and the trade unions. The state has laid its icy hands upon the opportunities available to local areas to meet their local needs by spending money. We have seen what occurred at Cheltenham. We have seen also the reverse of the election promise to "roll back the boundaries of the state." The Government have rolled back the boundaries of the welfare state and rolled in the powers of the oppressive state. Those false promises are encapsulated in the Bill.
I was a little revolted at the arguments about the failure to have serious discussion of amendments. The only example given related to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, who gave the example, did not understand the amendment. That amendment was sensible and should have been discussed. It provided for the replacement of an official by a representative, who would be either a councillor or an official. The amendment was a small piece of democracy. It is amazing that Conservative Members fail to understand the operations of democracy, but that is a characteristic of them.
I wish to be brief, so I shall not embark on the main point—the villainy of the Bill and the heresy of the cuts in public expenditure. The attempt to cut public expenditure has resulted in 4 million people being unemployed. Without the trigger of public expenditure, there is no impetus for the recovery of the economy. The sooner Conservative Members realise that, the better. Scottish Tories have been a disgrace to their historic conservatism, to Scotland and even the democracy within the Conservative party. Some bold Conservative souls south of the border were prepared to speak out and put up their hands in the interests of this country. The Bill should be withdrawn, and kicked off the Order Paper. The legislation should again be discussed in Committee to expose its inadequacies.
5.52 pm
Mr. Barry Henderson: The speech of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) was striking for its brevity, compared with the speeches in Committee on less important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) spoke of the importance of Edinburgh zoo and the improvements he hopes to see effected by the Bill. In the idle hours, when we have had to listen to speeches that were extraordinary for their quantity rather than their quality, hon. Members might have given some thought to new species that might be introduced to Edinburgh zoo — the dribbling driveller of East Lothian, the wordpecker of Garscadden, the bearded barker of Falkirk, the magpie of Monklands and the throated puffer of Maryhill.
Mr. Maxton: Is not the hon. Gentleman wasting time now?
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening from a sedentary position. My remarks were typical of speech after speech from Opposition Members.
Mr. Maxton: None.
Mr. Henderson: I managed to contain my remarks on secondary considerations to one minute. Opposition Members made speeches lasting hours on matters that were no more weighty than those on which I have spoken so far.
The Committee's performance shows that that is no way in which we can effectively legislate. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has recently come from presiding over the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Some of his friends in Scottish local government would be astonished if they observed how Parliament went about its business by going through crucial legislation line by line and clause by clause. Such legislation is important not only for local government but for the way we establish rating and, ultimately, the effect on taxation. If local authorities conducted their affairs in committee as all too often the House does, the House would feel that something ought to be done. I hope that the House, in looking at the way it conducts Committee work, will decide that improvements should be made.
I have as great a respect as any hon. Member for the customs, traditions and rules of the House. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) about improving the efficiency of the House. He made the fair point that to most people improved efficiency normally means the Government getting their business through faster. That may be more efficient for the Government, but it is not in the interest of Back Benchers generally or of the Opposition.
I recognise the legitimate rights of the Opposition to have a reasonable say and, if necessary, to delay the Government's business through legitimate processes on the Floor of the House. I do not believe — hon. Members should concentrate on this point—that, in an era when Committee debates are rarely held on the Floor of the House, the customary practice of dragging out Committee business is any longer relevant. The only people to suffer are members of Committees and those affected by the legislation, because its quality will be less than if the hon. Members had worked together in

643
Committee to improve it. Ultimately, the Government's business is still discussed. The House should look at the way it will discuss business. I recognise that there will not be an overnight revolution and that we must find a gradual process by which our practices can be improved.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) said that local councillors know what services are needed in their locality. That is probably true in most cases, but they do not have a broad view of other services competing for resources, or, above all, the combined effect of competition on the totality of public expenditure and, therefore, the burden on individual citizens.
I shall give one example of that. If local authorities charge heavier rates, over which the House has no control, they may reduce the amount of health care available from the health services. Substantial increases in the rates represent one of the largest increases in costs that the health services have had to bear in recent years. The local authorities spend more money on providing services that might be inefficient, but the health services find it more difficult to provide patient care because they have to pay more money in local authority rates.
We have had discussions before about the control of rates. The Labour-controlled Fife regional council has not been one of the extreme big spenders in Scotland, but this year its rate increase, which it has just announced, is more than double the rate of inflation, although the new distribution formula works positively to its advantage and it has had increased money as a result of the change of formula to the client group approach. By contrast, the Conservative-controlled north-east Fife district council, where the formula worked against the council to the extent of the loss of the product of a penny rate, has not increased rates or rents. Opposition Members have been frank, saying that they would welcome any opportunity to increase public expenditure.
Mr. Buchan: We did not say that.
Mr. Henderson: I understood that that is what they said, and it came across clearly.
Mr. Buchan: This is the second time that we have heard a complete distortion of the facts. We believe in intelligent application of public expenditure. That is the only real trigger to economic recovery. The hon. Gentleman must not talk nonsense, saying that we want to deprive people of freedom or that we are in favour of any sort of public expenditure. I could list a number of things that we are not in favour of—aid to private education is one.
Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Government provide less for private education than the Labour Government did.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) spoke, there was a clear cry from the Opposition, particularly from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for increased public expenditure. Such an increase would mean taking more money from individual citizens. The tragedy of the past 20 years is that when the Conservatives left office in 1964, only people on or above average earnings paid income tax, but because of many Labour Governments since then, virtually everyone who works pays tax.
644
Parliament has a duty to respond to the grievances of the people. One of their greatest grievances is the burden of rates and tax. I believe that they will welcome the Bill and therefore this guillotine.
6.3 pm
Mr. John Maxton: The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) walked into the Chamber at 5.20 pm and made his speech, obviously having been told to do so by his Whip. That is disgraceful. He failed to understand economic policy and the fact that his Government have massively increased public expenditure, as the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said. An example is expenditure on the Falkland Islands. The Government are prepared to increase by 3 per cent. every year the amount of money that they spend on defence, particularly on nuclear weapons, yet the hon. Gentleman argued that there should be a cut in public expenditure.
Ultimately, the debate is about the Government's economic policy and the fact that they have failed dismally to carry out the ideological and economic policies that they set themselves in 1979. They are now making local government the whipping boy for their failure to cut public expenditure in Government Departments. They have been asking local authorities to do it instead.
Scottish local authorities were elected by the people of Scotland. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), but I agreed with him twice tonight, which is unusual. I agreed with him when he said that the Liberals, as usual, were dithering around on the fence and were not sure on which side to come down. Secondly, agreed when he said that the people will decide at the district elections in Scotland in May. Let the people decide. Let them say what they think about local government and how it should be run. Let us prove, as Conservative Members claim, that the people of Scotland want this legislation.
The Government should say, "We shall hold back the legislation. We shall keep it in Committee and keep talking until May, or we shall abandon the Committee stage and bring the Bill back after the May elections. We shall prove our contention that the people of Scotland want this legislation and reject the philosophy that the Labour party will put forward in the local elections." Of course, the Government are not prepared to say that because they know that it will not happen. They know that in local authority after local authority the people of Scotland will return Labour to control because they want better services, with more investment in local services. They want the right to have a say in their own affairs. The local authorities, elected by the people, should not be controlled by a Government whom they did not elect in the first place.
The other argument by the hon. Member for Stirling, in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), typified more than anything else what the debate is all about. He said that Scotland has more irresponsible Left-wing local authorities than England. The Government are attacking Labour-controlled authorities that want to protect their people and services. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) said that somehow or other companies have been driven out of business by the level of rates. I asked him for one example, but he could not give one. All that he could say was that Glasgow chamber

645
of commerce was opposed to high rates. Of course it is. Incidentally, it is also opposesd to high taxes. The Government have increased taxes as well as trying to keep down rates. The increase in taxes has been higher than the increase in rates. The hon. Gentleman blamed local authorities as well as creditors for people going out of business. What an excuse. Most businesses borrow money from banks. Is the hon. Gentleman blaming the banks for the fact that many companies go bankrupt? That is the logic of his argument.
The measure is undemocratic. I shall be in the Lobby to oppose it.
6.8 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no way that I can make a useful contribution to the debate given the fact that I have been asked to confine my remarks to three minutes.
I hope that some hon. Members will take my comments seriously. Having made a useful contribution to local government in Scotland over the years, and having served on the Committee—I hope that I have been regarded as a fairly faithful member of it — I believe that my comments on the matter should not be confined to two or three minutes. Moreover, some Conservative Members have criticised the contributions of Committee members, no doubt including myself, who are perfectly entitled to make speeches. It is defying democracy and any sense of fair play to suggest that we can reply in the short time available to us.
For that reason, I conclude by saying that my commitment to local government is no less as a result of the debate and that my commitment to Parliament is undiminished, too. What we have seen during the passage of the Bill and as result of the guillotine motion is an affront to local government and Parliament. Against that background I shall consider my future role within the Committee.
6.9 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: The speech of the Leader of the House was remarkably unconvincing. I suspect that that was because he recognised that his case was unconvincing. The right hon. Gentleman outdid himself. He is normally laconic and detached, but today he was reduced to a low monotone, dropping to a mumble on occasions.
I got the strong impression that the Leader of the House did not know what was in the Bill and that he cared less. He stuck to a dreary Scottish Office brief and hurried away to more congenial matters. Perhaps he will return shortly. In a sense, I do not blame the Leader of the House for adopting such an approach. He has a certain idiosyncratic pride in our democratic system and the exercise in which we are engaged is rather squalid and distasteful.
For example, I cannot help thinking that the Leader of the House would find clause 2 of the Bill an extremely unpleasant item. It proposes that when the Secretary of State takes the unusual and draconian step of overruling a local authority's democratically elected councillors by bringing in an order to reduce their rate support grant, as a penalty and a fine, no matter how many authorities are being dealt with—each will deserve individual attention
646
—they are to be lumped together in one order on which there can be only one vote. That is an example of the fundamentally unsatisfactory nature of the legislation.
How could the Leader of the House, as custodian of the rights of the House, agree to such a proposition? Four of five authorities may be named in an order. Perhaps even Labour Members may feel that some were being properly penalised—who knows what may happen in the future?—but everyone may agree that it is a monstrous liberty to penalise others. The House will have no way of distinguishing between the two sets of circumstances. That makes a mockery and a farce of any idea of control by the House over the Executive. That is what the Government are trying to slip through in the Bill.
The facts have been rehearsed — 21 sittings, 78 hours, 1,000 columns of Hansard. I say to Conservative Members, "So what?" I believe that we were right to look at what was being done and being proposed. I will not apologise for that and I do not suppose that any of my hon. Friends will apologise either.
We have had some extraordinary contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) told us in a strange speech that she had decided to support the Bill because Strathclyde regional council had done something to aid the Third world. We were left in a state of anti-climatic depression, because the hon. Lady would not even tell us what the council had done. She merely said that the council was in favour of the Third world. Then she got up and left. How extraordinary. I am only sorry that the hon. Lady is not here to tell us in an intervention what was so offensive about Strathclyde regional council helping the Third world that it drove her into the arms of her own Government.
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) talked about the heavy burden of tax upon the people. I thought for a moment that he was about to condemn his own Government, who have made a considerable contribution to increasing the tax burden of ordinary people in Scotland over the past five years. It is time that we cleared our minds about the grounds on which the Government are conducting their vendetta against local government. The hon. Gentleman did nothing to help us.
I ask the hon. Gentleman a rhetorical question. Is his objection to the fact that Fife is putting up its rates based merely on his disagreement with what the council is doing? If so, he is clearly saying that the Government should take over all the powers of local government. That seemed to be the burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I hoped that he would not show that sort of extremism.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) arrived, perhaps not like the seventh cavalry, because he is more of a Dobbin, to give succour and help to his Ministers. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read some of the briefings that we have received. If he thinks that the valuation clauses are not controversial and are generally acceptable, he should read the briefings from the Faculty of Advocates, the Association of Assessors and COSLA. He will see that those clauses are the kernel of a technical but important argument.
The Opposition have not been obstructing part II of the Bill. We were told by many of those who make their living by working within the valuation system that clause 7 fundamentally changes the basis on which that system is operated. The Committee passed that clause in one day

647
and the afternoon sitting finished at 7 pm, yet we are told that we are filibustering and obstructing and that our proceedings must be brought to a premature end. Conservative Members have prated on about their wish to have a proper debate on the valuation clauses, but the guillotine will prevent that proper debate from taking place.
One of the distressing feaures of our proceedings has been the fact that Conservative Back Benchers have remained silent throughout. Perhaps I should not complain. One of the reasons for voting against the guillotine is that we could end the unprecedented silence of the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Dumfries.
However, it is a sad commentary that when major debates have taken place about the future balance of power between central and local government, there has been nothing from the serried ranks of Conservative Back Benchers—not a squawk or a squeak of pain; nothing but impenetrable silence.
We make no bones about our opposition to the Bill, and we are not alone in opposing it. We have support in every quarter of Scottish opinion. We are supported by COSLA and Labour councils, but even independent and Tory councils have expressed their reservations. The Edinburgh chamber of commerce sees the Bill as unconstitutional and exceptionable. The only person who has had anything good to say about the Bill—and that in a rather backhanded way—was the Tory leader of Edinburgh district council, councillor Brereton. He said merely that the Bill was not so much wicked as totally unnecessary.
The press, the public, those who work in local government and those who serve as elected members have said, almost unanimously, that the Bill is an unnecessary encroachment on local authorities' room for manoeuvre and on the principles on which local democracy is founded. The Bill is friendless and unwanted, except amoung the claque on the Tory Back Benches.
The Bill is a fundamental attack on local democracy. The Secretary of State will be able to set rates and rents and steamroller the decisions of democratically elected councillors who have done nothing illegal and nothing wrong. They have merely exercised a perfectly proper statutory discretion in a way that the Secretary of State does not like. That is what is so offensive about the Bill. It is another dose of the centralisation which has become the hallmark of the Government.
I say in a friendly, but perhaps warning, way to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) that he is now known as "Hepworth man"; he is becoming a Central Office identikit loyalist. I thought that his speech was smug, self-satisfied and, although he did not realise it, in one passage offensive. He said that if local authorities were sensible and prudent, they would have nothing to fear. That is a damaging and ludicrous euphemism for saying that they will be all right as long as they do what the Secretary of State tells them to do. We do not like or want that.
I accept that there is sometimes a great deal wrong with the way in which we conduct our business in the House, but some of the things that were wrong with the Committee were clearly the fault of the Government. It was wrong that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), time and again, in sitting after sitting, was totally inflexible, not prepared to give an inch
648
and unwilling to consider any emendation or change, even in the nuances or on the margins of the tablets of stone that he had brought down from Dover house.
Labour Members, rightly or wrongly — I do not assume that we were always right — consistently put points of view that had widespread support far beyond the active ranks of the Labour party. Yet all that we achieved in all those 82 hours was the correction of one typographical error in one schedule to the Bill. That suggests to me that the Minister was probably under orders and the Administration had a closed mind. When we are talking about what is wrong with parliamentary scrutiny and why it is sometimes an arid and unrewarding process, we must look at such phenomena.
Then there is the fact that we had to sit through the night. I did not like it any more than anyone else. It has not done any good and it did not improve the clarity of my mind or my arguments. Whose fault was it that we were sitting through the night? Whose fault was it that the Government were so determined to push through the Bill on a telescoped timetable that they unjustifiably forced us to sit through the day and night? If the atmosphere turned sour, whose fault was it? It was the fault of the Minister and the business managers who set up those circumstances.
I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). I disagree with almost everything he says, but I am prepared to accept that he was genuinely concerned about the fact that we may not have time properly to consider the valuation clauses that remain. I intervened in his speech, but all he could say was, "We are in such a hurry to get the Bill on the statute book because there will be so many benefits for the people of Scotland that we must have it immediately."
Clauses 3, 4 and 6 are the controversial clauses that the hon. Member for Stirling, with his strange order of priorities, thinks will be valuable, but they apply only to the financial year 1985–86. They do not affect the current financial year, so there would have been plenty of time for another two or three weeks' debate on the important valuation clauses. If the hon. Member complains, why does he not address his remarks not to me but to the Secretary of State and his colleagues who have decided that we should rush, to no particular benefit, to the conclusion of this important Committee stage?
After all, not only are the important matters not due to come into effect until the financial year after next, but there is no pressing weight of Scottish legislation. We have almost—I make that important caveat—a consolidation Bill dealing with roads, and we have the Bill on static fishing gear, and almost nothing else in the pipeline. There is nothing to dictate the speed with which we have been forced to move. The whole thing is a sad business and a sad comment on the way in which the Government have been souring relations in the House.
I do not know whether I should boast about this point—some may think that it is a badge of shame, although I do not think that my colleagues do—but this is the first Scottish Bill that has been guillotined since 1979. We have not been an unreasonable group of Opposition Members, and where we thought that a Bill had merit we have positively tried to aid its passage. Only two or three weeks ago, the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill, which could have been held in Committee for many

649
days, if not weeks, was allowed through all its stages in one day on the Floor of the House because we were prepared to deal impartially with its merits.
I accept that we have a different attitude to this Bill, but that is not because of some senseless prejudice but because we believe that it deals with important and fundamental matters. We have to articulate and put the many points that are coming from almost every quarter of Scotland where these matters are considered. One can make a cheap point by saying that the mailbags are not full of letters with worries about how the next general abatement distribution formula will be affected by clause 2. They are not, because such matters do not attract public attention. As the results become clear, as we see the erosion of local democracy, we shall see the public anxiety which at the moment comes only from those quarters where people watch the system and worry about the way in which we are constructing our local government in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In those quarters, there is a great deal of anxiety and anger, which we are entitled to express in Committee.
The position has not been helped by a rather petulant statement unnecessarily put out to the press by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a few days ago. Typically of him, he wanted the best of both worlds. We were told that the guillotine was justified by the Opposition's obstruction, but in the next paragraph we were told that there had been no effective opposition. That is an interesting example of the lack of logic to which we have become accustomed from the Under-Secretary.
There has been effective opposition, and it was justified. I give the Under-Secretary a warning. We shall continue to fight the Bill as best we can, although we shall be circumscribed as a result of the vote in a few minutes. We shall continue to fight it in the time left by the timetable motion. We shall fight it on Report and on Third Reading. I hope that the other place will take up the cause and that we shall rouse public opinion in the way that I have described. There is every point in fighting if there is a cause—and there is a fundamental cause at stake here. It is the right of local communities to elect their representatives to manage their local affairs and to hold those representatives responsible for what they have done at the ballot box. I dislike what the Bill stands for and I am proud that we have made what stand we can within the rules of the House.
6.25 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): The difference between the two sides of the House tonight might have been epitomised by the failure of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to distinguish between "obstructive" and "effective", because that is the argument that we bring to bear in the debate. The hon. Member used all the passion that we have come to expect from him. He must have been disappointed that this major issue, which is of crucial importance to Scotland according to him, attracted at the beginning of the debate less than one quarter of the total number of Labour Members from Scotland. Only at the end of the debate has the number increased to about half.
Not surprisingly, the debate has ranged fairly widely over all the differing aspects of the Bill. I shall concentrate on the central issue before us today, the timetable motion for the remaining stages of the Bill to ensure its reasonable
650
progress and, more importantly, to ensure that those who will benefit from it will not unreasonably find their right to do so delayed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) pointed out.
During business questions last Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition said of this motion:
"The Opposition bitterly oppose this limitation on a measure which includes a major constitutional change". — [Official Report, 1 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 397.]
This attitude was reflected in the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
I dispute that there is any "major constitutional change" involved in this Bill, but that is perhaps a matter for another debate. What is beyond doubt is that the Standing Committee on this Bill has already fully, without restriction and at length, dealt with the two clauses upon which the Opposition have concentrated this criticism.
Clause 3, which seeks powers generally to limit rate increases, was, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, debated in Committee for some 25 hours. Clause 6, which seeks powers to limit rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account, was debated for some 17½ hours. Hardly a case of limited debate. More importantly, these contentious clauses have been passed by the Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman's bitter opposition to any "limitation" of debate on them is therefore totally and utterly misplaced in the context of today's debate.
The hon. Member for Garscadden made the point that I had accepted no amendment in Committee except one minor technical one moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The reason was simple. There were no amendments that I could tell my hon. Friends would improve the Bill in any way. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman went further and began to go back into past local government debates and to talk about the erosion of local democracy. We have heard a lot from him about that in Committee. It was an echo from those Committees of four years ago when he talked about the erosion of local democracy and of how those pieces of legislation would destroy local government as we knew it in Scotland. Looking around now in local government in Scotland, we find a very healthy situation. There is no sign of the erosion which was foretold. Once again the hon. Gentleman is concentrating his attack on an area which he knows may cause fear in some people's hearts but which bears no relation to reality.
Today we are dealing essentially with the very real benefits which would be lost if the Bill did not become law by the summer. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already referred to some of these, but it might be helpful if I spelt out the consequences in more detail, because in each case it would be the Scottish ratepayer who lost from delay. It is all very well for the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to say that our arguments in this respect are pathetic. I do not think that the ratepayers of Scotland see them in that way.
Clause 1 of the Bill enables the amount of grant lost by an individual authority in the event of a general abatement to be directly related to its degree of overspending. That is not the position today and the present system is generally regarded as unfair. The new system proposed in this clause will come into operation immediately on the passage of the Bill, so that these fairer arrangements will be available for the financial year 1984–85 if there is a general abatement this summer. If the Bill did not become law by the

651
summer, any general abatement would have to be shared on the present unfair basis. I do not understand how the Opposition could defend their actions whereby councils close to guidelines would yet again be paying proportionately higher grant penalty than authorities which had overspent to a far greater extent. That would rightly be resented by authorities and ratepayers alike. They want this provision available for this summer.
Clause 4 introduces the requirement for authorities to consult non-domestic ratepayers before determining their rates. This has been widely welcomed by such ratepayers as an opportunity to ensure that all local authorities are fully aware of the effects of their rating decisions on those who provide the jobs and create the wealth within their areas. Quite rightly, they want this consultation for next year, but if it is to be useful it needs to start in the late summer or early autumn, and it will require the necessary direction and code of practice which will be issued immediately on the passage of this Bill.
Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ancram: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have not much time, and I want to cover as many of the Opposition's arguments as possible.
If the Bill did not become law until after the summer it would in effect make such consultations impossible until the financial year 1985–86 and yet another year would have gone by before those paying more than half the rates in Scotland had some voice in the process of deciding those rates. The fact that this clause has already been approved by the Standing Committee would in such circumstances add insult to injury.
The clauses yet to be debated in Committee also contain a number of provisions which are eagerly awaited by ratepayers. While some of the valuation provisions of this part of the Bill are required only after the revaluation due in 1985, others seek to correct anomalies where delay would rightly be resented by the ratepayers concerned. For instance, failure to secure the timeous enactment of clauses 11 and 12 would prolong unnecessarily the high rate burdens carried by Scottish caravan-occupiers and Scottish reed-bed exploiters compared with their English counterparts. Already, over the years, their contribution has been inequitable, and delay in rectifying the situation would be hard to defend.
Clause 14 widens the provision for appeal between revaluations, and some ratepayers may wish to take advantage of this before the next revaluation. Indeed, the use of this new right of appeal might influence the revaluation of certain properties. Both the Government and ratepayers wish it to be available in good time. Any delay which reduced the practical benefit of this clause before revaluation would hardly be in the best interests of ratepayers.
These are some of the provisions of the Bill which are threatened by delay and which ratepayers rightly want to have available as soon as possible. I believe they want also the arguably more contentious provisions in the Bill, which have been duly approved by the Committee and which are designed to protect them from exploitation by overspending and irresponsible councils.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment pointed out last Wednesday, it was the Leader of the Opposition himself who, in 1976 in a similar debate, said:
652
"there is a greater danger to this Parliament from fatuous and superficial scrutiny of Bills than from the expedition of business which the people of the country demand."—[Official Report, 15 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 912.]
I agree. Scottish ratepayers are demanding this Bill. It fulfils the commitments they have a right to expect from our election manifesto, and they are anxious for the protection and help it provides.
In that context, it must be hard for them to understand how the Opposition on the Standing Committee could take nearly two hours discussing schedule 1 — a Keeling schedule, the substance of which could not be amended—which in any event was incorporated in the Bill to meet criticisms made in the past by the hon. Member for Garscadden. It must be harder still for ratepayers to appreciate that three-quarters of an hour could be spent debating the meaning of the word "exactly". While I am sure that they will admire the ability of the hon. Member for Garscadden to speak for more than an hour on one amendment to clause 3, I am also sure that, like me, they will wonder what the real purpose was.
Again, while they may be entertained by a discourse on class from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), as were we all at that late hour, they might be forgiven for wondering whether this did riot come within the defintion by the Leader of the Opposition of ' fatuous and superficial scrutiny".
Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard exactly what was said, and I do not think that this can be a point of order.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, because I would not suggest that the fatuous and superficial remarks that we heard in Committee from the Opposition were in any way out of order, but being in order did not make them any the less fatuous or superficial.
We have spent almost 74 hours discussing part I of the Bill — an average of more than 12 hours per clause. There are at this stage 57 amendments on the Notice Paper on part II on which we have already spent a further six hours, and it does not require much study of those amendments to realise that most of them are not very substantial.
The motion provides ample time for the proper and full consideration of the remaining clauses. If the hon. Member for Garscadden is right about the minor nature of his amendments and if his spokesman was right as reported in The Scotsman last Friday, there is ample time to do the amendments justice as well.
The hon. Member for Garscadden cannot have it both ways. Either this motion gives enough time for discussion of these amendments and the remaining clauses or he intended all along to prolong the Committee proceedings well beyond the generous date provided in the motion. believe that his intention was the latter and not because I rely on my own judgment or because of the powerful arguments advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries, (Sir H. Monro) and for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and others. Because I do not 174 ant to disappoint him, I look to the Opposition Whip on the Bill. During the debate on the housing support grant in the Chamber on Tuesday 31 January, the hon. Member for East Lothian said, when discussing whether the Bill should become law,

653
"I earnestly hope that it will not, and I am doing all that I can in Standing Committee every Tuesday and Thursday to ensure that that date is delayed as long as possible." — [Official Report, 31 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 223.]
That is why we tabled the motion, and that is why I ask the House to support it.
Main Question, as amended, put:
The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 178.

Division No. 180]

[6.38 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Ailken, Jonathan

Glyn, Dr Alan

Alexander, Richard

Goodlad, Alastair

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Gorst, John

Ancram, Michael

Gow, Ian

Ashby, David

Gower, Sir Raymond

Aspinwall, Jack

Grant, Sir Anthony

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Greenway, Harry

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

Gregory, Conal

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Griffiths, E. (B'y St EdnTds)

Baldry, Anthony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Batiste, Spencer

Grist, Ian

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Ground, Patrick

Bellingham, Henry

Grylls, Michael

Bendall, Vivian

Gummer, John Selwyn

Berry, Sir Anthony

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Best, Keith

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hanley, Jeremy

Bottomley, Peter

Hannam, John

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Harris, David

Brooke, Hon Peter

Haselhurst, Alan

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Browne, John

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Budgen, Nick

Hawksley, Warren

Bulmer, Esmond

Hayes, J.

Burt, Alistair

Hayhoe, Barney

Butcher, John

Hayward, Robert

Butterfill, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heddle, John

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Henderson, Barry

Chapman, Sydney

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

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

Hickmet, Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hicks, Robert

Clegg, Sir Walter

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Cockeram, Eric

Hirst, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Conway, Derek

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Coombs, Simon

Holt, Richard

Cope, John

Hooson, Tom

Corrie, John

Hordern, Peter

Cranborne, Viscount

Howard, Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

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

Dorrell, Stephen

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Durant, Tony

Hunt, John (Ravensboume)

Eggar, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Evennett, David

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Irving, Charles

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Jessel, Toby

Fletcher, Alexander

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Forman, Nigel

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Key, Robert

Forth, Eric

King, Rt Hon Tom

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Fox, Marcus

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Knowles, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Knox, David

Fry, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Gale, Roger

Lang, Ian

Galley, Roy

Latham, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lawler, Geoffrey

654

Lawrence, Ivan

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Lee, John (Pendle)

Rost, Peter

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rowe, Andrew

Lester, Jim

Ryder, Richard

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Luce, Richard

Shelton, William (Streatham)

McCrindle, Robert

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Macfarlane, Neil

Shersby, Michael

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Silvester, Fred

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Sims, Roger

Maclean, David John.

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Fst)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McQuarrie, Albert

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Madel, David

Speller, Tony

Major, John

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Malins, Humfrey

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Malone, Gerald

Squire, Robin

Maples, John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Marland, Paul

Stern, Michael

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Mather, Carol

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Maude, Hon Francis

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Mellor, David

Stokes, John

Merchant, Piers

Stradling Thomas, J.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Sumberg, David

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Tapsell, Peter

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Miscampbell, Norman

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Terlezki, Stefan

Moate, Roger

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Monro, Sir Hector

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Montgomery, Fergus

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Moore, John

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Thorne, Neil (llford S)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Thornton, Malcolm

Murphy, Christopher

Thurnham, Peter

Neale, Gerrard

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Needham, Richard

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Nelson, Anthony

Tracey, Richard

Neubert, Michael

Trippier, David

Newton, Tony

Trotter, Neville

Nicholls, Patrick

Twinn, Dr Ian

Normanton, Tom

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Norris, Steven

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Oppenheim, Philip

Viggers, Peter

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Waddington, David

Osborn, Sir John

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Ottaway, Richard

Waldegrave, Hon William

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Walden, George

Parris, Matthew

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Wall, Sir Patrick

Pink, R, Bonner

Ward, John

Pollock, Alexander

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Porter, Barry

Warren, Kenneth

Powell, William (Corby)

Watson, John

Powley, John

Watts, John

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Price, Sir David

Wheeler, John

Proctor, K. Harvey

Whitfield, John

Raffan, Keith

Whitney, Raymond

Rathbone, Tim

Wiggin, Jerry

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Wilkinson, John

Renton, Tim

Wolfson, Mark

Rhodes James, Robert

Woodcock, Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Yeo, Tim

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Younger, Rt Hon George

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Mr. David Hunt and

Roe, Mrs Marion

Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Alton, David

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Anderson, Donald

655

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Ashdown, Paddy

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Ashton, Joe

Howells, Geraint

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Barnett, Guy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

John, Brynmor

Beith, A. J.

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Bermingham, Gerald

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Blair, Anthony

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Kirkwood, Archibald

Boyes, Roland

Lambie, David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Lamond, James

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Leadbitter, Ted

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Leighton, Ronald

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

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Loyden, Edward

Buchan, Norman

McCartney, Hugh

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Campbell-Savours, Dale

McGuire, Michael

Carter-Jones, Lewis

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Cartwright, John

McKelvey, William

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Clarke, Thomas

McNamara, Kevin

Clay, Robert

McTaggart, Robert

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

McWilliam, John

Cohen, Harry

Madden, Max

Coleman, Donald

Marek, Dr John

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Martin, Michael

Corbett, Robin

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Maxton, John

Cowans, Harry

Maynard, Miss Joan

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Meacher, Michael

Craigen, J. M.

Mikardo, Ian

Crowther, Stan

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Cunningham, Dr John

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Deakins, Eric

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Dewar, Donald

O'Brien, William

Dixon, Donald

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Dobson, Frank

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Dormand, Jack

Patchett, Terry

Dubs, Alfred

Pavitt, Laurie

Duffy, A. E. P.

Pendry, Tom

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Penhaligon, David

Eastham, Ken

Pike, Peter

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

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

Ellis, Raymond

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Prescott, John

Fatchett, Derek

Radice, Giles

Faulds, Andrew

Randall, Stuart

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Redmond, M.

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Fisher, Mark

Richardson, Ms Jo

Flannery, Martin

Robertson, George

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Foulkes, George

Rogers, Allan

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Rooker, J. W.

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Freud, Clement

Rowlands, Ted

Garrett, W. E.

Ryman, John

George, Bruce

Sedgemore, Brian

Godman, Dr Norman

Sheerman, Barry

Golding, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Gould, Bryan

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Gourlay, Harry

Skinner, Dennis

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

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

Hardy, Peter

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

Harman, Ms Harriet

Soley, Clive

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Spearing, Nigel

Hattersley, Rt Hon.Roy

Steel, Rt Hon David

Haynes, Frank

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Stott, Roger

Heffer, Eric S.

Strang, Gavin

656

Straw, Jack

Wareing, Robert

Taylor, Rt Hon John David

Weetch, Ken

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Welsh, Michael

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Thome, Stan (Preston)

Wilson, Gordon

Tinn, James

Torney, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

Wallace, James

Mr. James Hamilton and

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mr. John Home Robertson.

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
Committee
1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 20th March 1984.
Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth clay on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Procedure in Standing Committee
3. —(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on the allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted day
7. On the allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph 7 of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.'.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for

657
consideration at Seven o'clock on the allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded,

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If the allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of
658
the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on the allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration r proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.
(2) On the allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

OPPOSITION DAY
[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]
OPPOSITION DAY

  Immigration Rules
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg tomove,
  That this House condemns the operation of the Immigration Rules which have a devastating and oppressive effect on family life by the often humiliating treatment of parents, children, spouses, would-be spouses and bona fide visitors.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Kaufman: Last autumn and winter hon. Members debated on three separate occasions various drafts of new immigration rules that the Government submitted to the House. That episode was a sorry story of vacillation, ineptitude and hypocrisy. Finally, in February of last year, the House approved new immigration rules which were not what the Labour party wanted, were not what either of the two mutually antagonistic groups on the other side wanted, and were certainly not what the Government wanted.
  This debate is not about the content of those rules, the principles contained in them or the lack of principle that motivated them; it is about how those rules, after a year, are working in practice and about the avoidable human anguish and humiliation that is being inflicted on innocent people by the harsh and discriminatory manner in which they are being operated.
  The very first sentence of the rules, uncharacteristically for the former Home Secretary, and, indeed, for his successor, is a joke, though of a decidedly sick variety. Paragraph 2 says:
  "Immigration officers will carry out their duties without regard to the race, colour or religion of people seeking to enter the United Kingdom."
  It ges on to declare:
  "The powers conferred by the Act are to be exercised without regard to a person's race, colour or religion."
  I have to tell the House that the way in which immigration officers carry out their duties—the way in which powers are exercised — is far too often racialist in effect. Whether it is also racialist in intent I leave the House to judge on the basis of the evidence that I shall offer.
  This is how the situation was summed up at the end of last year by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, an organisation whose experience with numerous cases prevents it from taking an over- sentimental or over-emotional view. The council said:
  "The Home Office is acting by stealth in operating immigration control through measures not ostensibly designed to control immigration. Thus, increasingly, Home Office collaboration with the Department of Health and Social Security leads to individuals being refused benefits so that they are starved out of the country before they can challenge Home Office decisions about their status … Covert action is also taking place overseas. In the Indian sub-continent, more and more applications from families of men settled here are being refused. In 1981 the proportion refused was 29·8 per cent. By 1982 it was 37·4 per cent. and since then it has increased to 40 per cent. This does not reflect any public change in the Immigration Rules."
  The council went on:
  "But the dramatic increase in the number of families who are refused the right to be reunited reflects more than individuals' difficulties. It demonstrates a hardening of attitudes amongst entry clearance officers which is a result of a deliberate Government policy of preventing the entry of black people to
  660
  Britain. In a desperate attempt to win the numbers game, it is denying families a right they have been granted by Parliament because it refuses to believe their evidence of entitlement. It is a hidden form of race discrimination, far away from the sensitive protest in this country."
  Last year the House finally changed the rules which for three years had prevented many husbands and male fiancés from applying to enter Britain. The change was not what Labour Members would have wished, but it was certainly an improvement on what went on before. Or was it?
  Like many hon. Members, I have constituents who have been prevented from marrying by the old rules. When the change of rule came in, they looked forward to a speedy and favourable decision. Some male fiances had applied for entry literally years ago. They now found that instead of a swift decision, they would get no decision, that they had to apply all over again, as if they had never applied before, and that they would have to wait many months for a new interview even if they had already been interviewed. That heartless administrative decision alone caused much disappointment and disruption in lives. Delays in interviews can often have a damaging or even devastating effect on family life. Waiting times for interviews fluctuate, but they are never less than many months. The Government admit that in Bangladesh the waiting time has now got much longer—20 months.
  Here is an example of the upsetting effect of such a delay on the life of one small family. It is the example of a British citizen wife, legally entitled to bring her husband to the United Kingdom but frustrated by administrative difficulties. Her name is Rajea Begum and her husband has been waiting since January 1983 in Bangladesh for an interview at the relevant high commission.
  In May 1983, a letter was written to the British High Commission asking that, as her father with whom she was living was seriously ill, and she herself was pregnant, her husband's application should be speeded up to enable him to join her and to assist her. Nothing of the sort was done. A few months later, her father died. Shortly afterwards, Rajea Begum had her baby, without the presence of any close relatives. The high commission states that her husband will not be interviewed until January 1985, two years after his initial application.
  Interviews, when they do take place, can be capricious and arbitrary. Let us look at the example of Mojir Uddin —again, a Bangladeshi. His father was a British citizen by registration who had lived and worked in the United Kingdom for 20 years, periodically returning to Bangladesh. His wife and five children now wished to join him in the United Kingdom. Eventually all the applicants, except Mojir were issued with entry clearance. That child was refused on the ground of not being related, as he claimed, solely on the basis of a visual age assessment that he was about two years older—13—than his stated age of 11. On appeal, expert evidence showed the gross unreliability of such medical assessment. That was submitted, and the appeal was allowed, but the fact remains that Mojir Uddin was separated from the rest of his immediate family for about a year.
  Let us take another example — once more from Bangladesh—this time of a lady, Muziban Nessa. That recently married lady applied for entry clearance to join her husband in the United Kingdom for the purpose of settlement. She was refused on the ground of not being related, as claimed. Great stress was placed on the fact that she was unable to name the members of her husband's

  661
  family who had attended the wedding. Hon. Members, looking back on their weddings, might like to try to recall how many of their spouse's families had attended. The questioning showed total ignorance of the normal practice in District Sylhet, Bangladesh, where, at the ceremony and celebrations, the bride stays in one room of the house among her immediate family, while the bridegroom mingles with his relatives and guests. This case is currently going to appeal. Meanwhile, Muziban Nessa is currently still separated from her husband who has had to return to work in England.
  Unreasonable interviewing of this kind inevitably results in many refusals of leave to enter. The latest figures show that refusals to nationals of countries in the Indian sub-continent and West Africa are among the highest of all countries. The latest information from the Home Office, in the Department's own words, specifically shows:
  "In the latest twelve months compared with the previous twelve months there was a fall of 2,600 to 17,700 in acceptances from the Indian sub-continent and there were rises of 1,400 to 16,400 in acceptances from Commonwealth countries apart from India and Bangladesh and of 700 to 19,300 in acceptances from foreign countries excluding Pakistan. The number accepted from New Commonwealth countries and Pakistan in the latest twelve months was 28,700, compared with 30,200 in the previous twelve months."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department states the facts clearly, almost blatantly:
  "Many applications for entry clearance for immediate settlement are unsuccessful; in the latest twelve months, for example, over 40 per cent. of applicants in the Indian sub-continent were found not to satisfy the immigration rules."
  Nor do these refusals come about by accident. Indeed, the previous Home Secretary gloried in them. When the House last debated these matters, he said:
  "The figures show that under this Government the number of people accepted has dropped sharply. In fact the statistics for acceptances during last year were the lowest since Commonwealth immigration control began 20 years ago. That is what we intended and, I am glad to say, what we have achieved."—[Official Report, 5 February, 1983; Vol. 37, c. 189.]
  So let not the Home Secretary pretend that these figures are some kind of statistical accident or quirk. They are deliberate, they are intended, and they are biased racially and, in terms of the colour of those who apply, rejected.
  The main argument in our debates last year was about how the immigration rules should affect husbands and male fiancés. It is especially husbands and male fiancés from the Indian sub-continent who have been adversely affected since the new and less strict rules were introduced. Due to waiting times, of course, the effect of the change may not yet be fully felt.
  The latest published information shows that the refusal rate for husbands from India is 33 per cent., and for male fiancés more than twice that—69 per cent. For husbands from Pakistan, refusals are 25 per cent. of applications decided, and for male fiancés 47 per cent. The refusal rate for husbands from Bangladesh is a staggering 71 per cent., while for male fiancés it is even worse—in fact as bad as it can be—precisely 100 per cent. Half the husbands from the Indian sub-continent were turned down because it was alleged that the primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to the United Kingdom. For male fiancés, that reason accounted for 61 per cent. of refusals. If one adds those rejected because it was alleged that their
  662
  purpose was partly to obtain admission, the refusal rate for male fiancés went up to 83 per cent. Better figures are difficult to expect, since the rules put the burden of proof on the applicant. How does one prove that one's application is not intended to achieve admission, when the success of one's application will, of course, result in one's admission?
  The treatment of people wishing to come here to join spouses, would-be spouses, children and parents is frequently unacceptable. A quite different form of harassment is inflicted upon those who have no intention of staying, but—
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what tests, if any, would apply to those males who wish to come here by reason of marriage?
  Mr. Denis Howell: Marriage.
  Mr. Budgen: Is marriage to be the only criterion?
  Mr. Kaufman: Marriage is the criterion of people seeking to enter to become married. That is why they apply. No doubt the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) would wish to add further tests, but the immigration rules lay down that people can apply to enter for the purpose of marriage. So what other test ought there to be? The fact is that a quite different form of harassment is inflicted upon those who have no intention of staying, but simply wish to come on a visit.
  The Minister of State, of whom the worst I can say is that he is no improvement on his predecessor, and of whom the best I can say is that he is no worse than his predecessor, told the House a few days ago:
  "Visitors need not apply for entry clearance but may do so in order to ascertain in advance whether they are eligible for admission to the United Kingdom." — [Official Report, 29 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 222.]
  I have to say quite flatly that I would never advise anybody with a brown or a black skin to come here as a visitor without obtaining prior entry clearance. Failure to take this precaution is to expose oneself to insult and humiliation, quite possibly followed by imprisonment and forcible removal from this hospitable land. Imprisonment goes under the pseudonym of detention, and for Heathrow airport the detention centre is at Harmondsworth. Between 1 January and 22 November last year, 2,350 people were detained at Harmondsworth. They came from 98 countries. Of those 2,350, 77 per cent. came from 31 New Commonwealth countries, together with Pakistan. Of those 2,350, 858 came from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh — no fewer than 37 per cent. The Government ought to post a notice at the airport saying: "If you come from the New Commonwealth, you are seven times as likely as anyone else to be detained at Harmondsworth. If you come from the Indian sub-continent, your chances of being detained are 36 times greater than those of anyone else." Yet the immigration rules solemnly promise that immigration officers will carry out their duties without regard to the race, colour or religion of people seeking to enter the United Kingdom.
  Even when visitors are eventually admitted, they can first be subjected to forms of harassment which verge on the inhumane. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) recently exposed the scandal of Mrs. Monghiben Chavda. She is 90 years of age. That

  663
  might be thought to entitle her to some respect and regard. Unfortunately for her, she comes from India. That cancels respect and regard and substitutes revilement. Mrs. Chavda came here last summer to visit her son. She was given temporary admission, but was required a week later to go for an interview at East Midlands airport. She was interviewed for six hours. She was then told that she would be allowed to stay as a visitor provided that she signed a form promising that she would not apply to extend her stay while she was here. The form states:
  "I undertake not to apply for any extension of my stay in the United Kingdom for any purpose."
  Paragraph 103 of the immigration rules specifically states not just that such an application may be submitted, but that, provided certain conditions are fulfilled, such application "should"—that is the word in the rules—be granted.
  The form that Mrs. Chavda was obliged to sign was unlawful, yet she and her son were forced to sign it, and Mrs. Chavda was obliged to add her thumb print as well. What a repulsive and disgraceful way to treat a lady of 90. What kind of people would do such a thing? In a mealy-mouthed letter to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West, the Minister of State tried to brazen his way out. He said:
  "I do accept that the wording used on this occasion could be construed as an attempt to deny the passenger her lawful rights by administrative means. This clearly was not the intention".
  What was the intention of getting an old woman of 90 to sign a form saying that she would not carry out her lawful right to extend her stay as a visitor in this country? That was one illegality committed in the sacred name of immigration control—the terrible fear that this country might he burdened with a 90-year-old woman.
  Other decisions frequently turn out not to be in accordance with the law. A few days ago the Government were forced to admit that successful appeals to the adjudicator against immigration officers' decisions were the highest for the past eight years, and that the same applied to successful appeals to the immigration appeals tribunal.
  Judged by legality as well as humanity, the Government are increasingly failing the test. What happens when people are admitted; when they obtain permission to stay; or even when they obtain permission to settle? Again and again, they are hounded, their rights are challenged, their peace of mind is destroyed and their family life is wrecked.
  Maria Ouloupis came as a visitor from Cyprus and overstayed. The Home Office decided to make a deportation order and an appeal was lodged. In the months before the initial hearing, she married a British citizen. Despite the fact that she was eight months' pregnant and that it was accepted that the marriage was genuine, it was none the less held that the public interest outweighed the compassionate circumstances of the case. Maria Ouloupis has an unchallengeable legal right to come to this country, yet the Home Office contends that she first be deported, that she wait years until the deportation order expires, and then lodge a new application. Meanwhile, she has given birth to a baby who is a citizen of this country. She, with that baby, will be deported. They will be separated from the husband and father and then, after a period of years, justice having been done in the eyes of the Government, they will be allowed back into this country. That is happening again and again.
  664
  A constituent, Mr. Z. E. Mir, who lives at Longsight, is a decent law-abiding citizen whose life has been made a misery by this same vengeful technique of the Home Office. I recently had a letter from the Home Office about Mr. Mir, whose wife was deported to Pakistan. She had their baby in Pakistan. The letter makes everything all right. The deportation order is being revoked because it is now established that in 1979 Mrs. Mir had the right to marry her husband. That is all right, is it not? They have been separated, the baby has been born away from the father, the father has been separated from his wife, but right will now be done.
  When someone becomes the object of the Government's attentions in this way, the ingenuity and application devoted to the task by Home Office officials would, if applied to the unemployment problem, provide work for millions.
  If someone's status is in doubt, and if they cannot be deported, an attempt is made to starve them out of the country instead. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has put it in this way:
  "The 1980 Supplementary Benefit Act specifically excludes certain people from being able to claim benefits of any kind. Overstayers and those whom the Home Office alleges to be illegal entrants are not eligible for benefit. This has led to great hardship for a significant number of people."
  What is more, there is an increasing number of reports that people with Asian names are being asked to produce their passports to Department of Health and Social Security offices. I ask the Home Secretary to repudiate that practice, which differentiates between one kind of citizen of our country and another.
  If the House wishes to know of someone who has been the object of almost everything that the Home Office can think up to throw at someone who has the unfortunate disability of having a brown skin and of being a woman, I refer it to the story of my constituent Parveen Kahn. She entered this country perfectly legally. She married a constituent of mine who was also thought to be here legally, but it turned out that he was not. He had been brought here at the age of 13 under another boy's name. He was too young to know that he was breaking the law or even that there was a law to break. He was also too young to know that he qualified for the Labour Government's amnesty, so he did not apply for it. He continued in what he thought was a normal course of life and he married Parveen Kahn. They had two children. Then the Home Office served him with a deportation notice. It also served the wife with a deportation notice. The Home Office said that she came here "by positive misrepresentation" — pretending that her husband was settled here — even though she thought that she was settled here.
  The Home Secretary admitted to me:
  "We accept she did not appreciate that her husband's stay here was unlawful."
  What was the lady's crime? It seems that she was still guilty of misrepresenting something, even though she did not know what she was misrepresenting. She had to go. The Home Office offered to pay the children's fares home. Since their birthplace and home are in Manchester. I assume that the Home Office offered them bus passes.
  The stress of this intolerable situation proved too much for Mr. Kahn. He left his wife. She then had no means of support. The Department of Health and Social Security refused to help her. She was left by the Government to starve. Naturally, I went on pressing her case, and recently

  665
  the Home Secretary agreed that Mrs. Kahn could now stay. Here she was, and here she now is. Thanks to the Home Office, her marriage has been destroyed and she has spent a long period almost destitute. No doubt Lord Whitelaw and the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) regard that as a job well done, just as the present Minister seems proud of what he is doing to Rashida Abedi —the deaf Pakistani woman in Croydon, to whose pleas to remain here he was even more deaf.
  Mr. Budgen: The right hon. Gentleman deals with individual cases. Will he set out the principles by which a future Labour Government will or will not control immigration?
  Mr. Kaufman: The principles by which a Labour Government will or will not control immigration are those of humanity—those by which I would have expected my parents to be treated when they came to Britain as immigrants. If they had been treated according to these rules, I would not be present tonight. I would probably have ended up in a gas chamber. I wish the country to return to the sort of principles on which it used to operate and from which the Government have departed so cruelly and heartlessly.
  There are many hurdles to leap. If someone has conquered all those hurdles—has been allowed into the country to stay for the full qualifying period that permits him to apply for permanent residence and actually been awarded the right to permanent residence—and wishes to take the final step to become a British citizen, he will find that that process costs him money. It will cost him £70 to register and £200 to be naturalised. What is more, the Government are making a 42 per cent. profit from this business. That it is regarded as a business was made plain by the Minister, when he said:
  "There is no doubt how a manufacturing concern taking, say, two years to make a product and deciding in 1982 to change over from asking for payment on completion of work to payment in advance would approach the matter. The firm certainly would not have said that payments of £3·79 million received in 1982–83 for work done in 1981–82 should be lumped with £7.16 million received on new orders not to be completed until the following year and that the profit for 1982–83 should be arrived at by setting those two sums against the manufacturing costs of 1982–83… It is ridiculous to talk about cash surplus as a profit". —[Official Report, 21 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 147.]
  What a preposterous and odious way to describe the process of acquiring British citizenship. We have been described as a "nation of shopkeepers", but I was unaware that one of our consumer products was allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.
  The Select Committee on Home Affairs unanimously denounced those fees as long ago as 4 May 1983. After nearly a year, the Government have made no reply to it. In October they promised an answer shortly, but "shortly" is not yet here. On 6 February 1984, the Minister told the Select Committee that he would give a detailed response by the end of the month. It is now 5 March, and there has still been no reply. Presumably the Government cannot think of a response that would not be received with well-merited derision and scorn. The Government deserve not only derision and scorn, but anger and contempt for the damage that their oppressive use of the immigration rules has inflicted on the family life of innocent men, women and children.
  666
  A few weeks ago the Home Office issued a press notice boasting that for its new naturalised Asian application form it had been awarded a prize in a competition for plain English awards. The House and the country will be impressed when the Home Office wins an award not for plain English, but for plain humanity. On its present record, it is not even qualified to enter for that competition. That is why we shall ask the House to vote for our motion.
  7.25 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that the operation of the Immigration Rules provides the right basis for a firm and fair immigration control which combines a necessary scrutiny of entitlement to settle here with respect and support for family life and proper treatment of visitors to this country."
  The other day I happened to pick up a book and look at the index, and in it I read that Kaufman came after Kant. We have heard a lot of humbug tonight from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), whose speech was humbug from start to finish, as I shall illustrate.
  Virtually every hon. Member knows that we must have immigration control. Successive Governments have accepted the need for it, and even the Labour party today and the right hon. Gentleman pay lip service to that need. The right hon. Gentleman sought to obscure the fact that immigration control in general must mean immigration control in particular, and that it means making decisions which individual people—they may be perfectly decent people—will find unpalatable. However, it means that in some cases people will suffer a measure of hardship, and that is the fundamental point that the right hon. Gentleman skated over. He cannot quote a number of cases and say that they show that control is not being operated correctly. The right hon. Gentleman paid lip service to control, and said that the Government were running a hard control. He cannot have it both ways. If there is to be control, hard decisions will have to be made, and we must face that.
  All hon. Members know that the subject of immigration control arouses strong emotions. Because it does, it behoves us all to speak with moderation and to calm things down, not stir them up. For all the right hon. Gentleman's bluster and fulminations, there has always been a great deal of common ground between the parties, and we are glad of it. Just as the right hon. Gentleman stirred things up today, so the Labour party tried to stir things up at the general election, but nobody paid the blindest bit of notice. Why should they have done? After all the Labour party promised to repeal the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, but when it came to power it did precisely the opposite. In 1968 it did not repeal the 1962 legislation, but extended it to United Kingdom passport holders. In 1969 it introduced new rules for husbands, which were considerably tougher than the rules we have now. The rules allowed entry to husbands only in cases of exceptional hardship. In 1971 history repeated itself. The Labour party opposed the Immigration Act 1971 and promised to repeal it, but in office the Labour Government did not touch it in the slightest detail and for five years they were happy to leave it on the statute book.
  The Opposition now complain about the 1980 and 1983 rules, but, however hard they try, they cannot make them

  667
  look like a revolution in immigration control because all hon. Members know that in 1980 the Conservative Government were building on the 1977 changes in the rules made by the Labour Administration. Let no one forget that it was the Labour Government who in 1977 introduced the first rule against marriages for immigration purposes. So much for what the right hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago about anybody who married being entitled to enter this country.
  The ethnic minorities recognise why the Government, in their interests as in the interests of the community as a whole, have to operate a firm control. They recognise that without firm control people will fear for their jobs and that there will be others ready to play on those fears and, by stirring up resentment against newcomers, to destroy the efforts of those working for harmony in our society and for good community relations. The motion says that the operation of the present rules is an attack on family life. I find that pretty odd, given that the rules provide for entry clearance precisely for family reasons, and that the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that two thirds of all those accepted for settlement last year were members of families, and wives, children, husbands, parents or grandparents of people already settled here.
  The fact is that the rules are there not to attack but to support family life. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that our entry clearance procedures are oppressive and that long waits are involved. That was part of his case, but my answer to that is "Fiddlesticks." Let us consider the figures. At the end of 1983, someone in the non-priority queue in Delhi for entry clearance had to wait 7·5 months for interview. In March 1979, when the Labour Government left office, the waiting time in Delhi for non-priority cases was six to 12 months. In 1983, in Islamabad the waiting time for interview in non-priority cases was 9·25 months, but when the Labour Government were in power in 1979 the waiting time for such cases was 20 to 23 months, or more than twice as long.
  At the end of last year the waiting time for interview in non-priority cases in Dhaka was 20 months, whereas it was 22 months in 1979 when the Labour Government were in power. Nevertheless, the right hon. Member for Gorton has the gall to tell us that people are having to wait for a cruel and inhuman time for their applications to be dealt with. He then looks askance when I talk of humbug, yet none of us has heard such humbug for many months. The right hon. Gentleman glossed over the fact that at least half of the people in Dhaka are in the priority queue, rather than the non-priority queue, and that a newly married wife will wait precisely one month for an interview. In Bombay, a newly married wife will wait just three weeks for an interview. Is that inhuman, oppressive treatment of people waiting for entry clearance? Of course not.
  Mr. Jack Straw: The Minister may have missed the point, which is that it is the Government's change in the rules and the way in which they have interpreted them that has made the situation inhuman and oppressive. Does the Minister intend to move on to the way in which the Government are applying and interpreting rule 41, under which the onus is on the immigrant to prove that his primary purpose is not to gain entrance to the United Kingdom? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deny what many of our immigrant families believe, which is that special orders have gone to
  668
  entry clearance officers that they should trick potential applicants into answers that appear to be incriminating, even though the families are plainly genuine?
  Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman knows better than to suggest that I would omit the subject of husbands and fiancés, which I shall come to in due course. He is not correct to suggest that the only matter raised by the right hon. Member for Gorton was the waiting time for husbands and fiancés. The right hon. Gentleman was saying nothing of the sort. He was accusing the Government of keeping all applicants waiting much longer than was the case when the Labour Government were in office. That was humbug and a complete distortion of the facts.
  I come to a topic that is of the utmost importance in view of the absurd and irresponsible attack by the right hon. Member for Gorton. The refusal rate for family applications in Bangladesh has gone up from 39 per cent. in 1979 to 56 per cent. in 1983. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is a sign of oppressive control, and that when the Labour Government were in office only 39 per cent. of family applications were turned down compared with 56 per cent. in 1983. However, he might like to know that in 1977, when the Labour Government were in office, 62 per cent. of family applications were turned down. That was the oppressive control of a Labour Government.
  No one who had studied this issue for five minutes would argue that the refusal rates of 23 per cent. in India and 35 per cent. in Pakistan in 1983 pointed to oppressive control, because no one who had studied the subject for five minutes could fail to be aware of the problems facing our entry clearance officers. Hon. Members know perfectly well that there are several reasons for the high rate of refusals in, for example, Dhaka. During the past year the entry clearance officers there have been concentrating on cases needing a second or third interview. They are, by definition, cases in which doubts have arisen and refusal is therefore a more likely outcome. Incidentally, that concentration on re-interviews took place at the express request of the Sub-Committee of the Home Affairs Committee. The House will also know that there have been particular problems in Dhaka over the years.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The Minister has explained that the interviews are difficult, and their aim is to establish whether the primary purpose is to obtain entry to the United Kingdom. However, could Members of Parliament have transcripts of the interviews so that they can see what has happened?
  Mr. Waddington: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not concentrating on my speech, but I have not yet reached the subject of husbands and fiancés. I was dealing with family applications because of the absurd criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Gorton concerning the alleged treatment of such applications in the sub-continent. I was pointing out that there are problems when it comes to dealing with such family applications.
  The House will know, for example, that there has been great difficulty in establishing where the truth lies. Too many people still take bad avice from agents, produce bogus documents, and tell lies to cover up earlier tax frauds, and those problems have been particularly acute in Bangladesh. But when I went to the sub-continent I was very impressed with the way in which our staff carried out

  669
  its work and so was the Home Affairs Sub-Committee when it visited the immigration service in the sub-continent, and reported:
  "We consider Entry Clearance Officers and their seniors do a first class job in extremely difficult circumstances".
  That is some all-party evidence that rebuts what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to foist on the House.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister comment on the experience of independent bodies that have investigated many of the applications made in Bangladesh and subsequently refused? In a very high proportion of those cases the applications were found to be genuine. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the independence of those studies, or does he reject them?
  Mr. Waddington: We looked into the cases which could be traced. I remember looking into one batch of cases, but we could not trace about 50 per cent. of them. Of the others, we granted entry to one or two applicants. One man from the part of the world represented by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) was granted entry. The hon. Member knows better than to suggest that we do not make the most careful examination of any cases brought to our attention.
  I am amazed that so often people talk about families being separated because of immigration control. We must put the matter in perspective. We are talking about the young members of families who decide to leave their country and parents behind to come here. That is their right, but the separation takes place because of the children's decision to emigrate. One of the most unfair criticisms of any system of control is that it separates members of a family. The people themselves bring about the separation. We make no apology for saying that we should not accept parents unless they have no one else close to them in their own country to whom they can turn. We must remember the implications of allowing unfettered entry for the National Health Service and other services.
  Mr. David Winnick: The Minister has skipped over one or two important issues, including the grave difficulties faced by many when trying to come within the immigration rules. Does the Minister accept that sponsors in the United Kingdom, many of whom have been here for years, have paid their taxes and contributed to the National Health Service, have no motivation other than to look after aged parents? Perhaps they want to care for a mother in her seventies. They feel obliged to look after her. Is that wrong? Is that a disgrace or stigma on the family?
  Mr. Waddington: Of course it is not wrong. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) knows well that immigration officers often have to deal with people who say that they are coming her as visitors. Under the rules the immigration officers must be satisfied that the people are genuine visitors and will not stay. In the straightforward case of an application by parents to live here permanently it is not just a question of whether the children have the wherewithal to support them, but that public services are involved. I am talking not only of national assistance, but of the National Health Service and
  670
  other services which could be involved when elderly people come here. We must bear that in mind when considering immigration control.
  The motion is absurd when, referring to family life, it mentions "would-be spouses". The essence of being a would-be spouse is that the person does not have a family life with the other would-be spouse—or at least he or she should not have, save in prospect.
  That brings me to the kernel of the matter. Our policy allows a woman who has close ties with Britain to be joined by her husband. If a woman is not a British citizen it is not unreasonable to expect her to live with her husband in the country in which he or she is a citizen. We are not prepared to allow marriage to be used as a route to immigration.
  One can see the absurdity. Having tightened up on work permits to prevent young men coming here on to the labour market, we cannot allow the same young men to come here by using marriage as a device. That would be the ultimate absurdity and we shall not perpetrate it.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton suggested that controls for husbands and fiancés are oppressive. The 1983 rules made a relaxation, as the right hon. Gentleman conceded. The overall refusal rate as a result has fallen, not risen. One would not have thought that, listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The overall refusal rate for husbands and fiancés fell from 63 per cent. in 1982 to 48 per cent. in 1983.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. and learned Friend remind the House of the promise by Lord Whitelaw that if the rules were shown to be significantly more lax than the previous rules the Government would examine them with a view to tightening them?
  Mr. Waddington: I remember exactly what was said. A forecast was made of how many additional applications would be made as a result of the relaxation of the rules. The forecast was between 2,500 and 3,000. In fact about 2,200 additional applications have been made. I am talking about applications, not the number accepted for settlement. In 1983 the numbers accepted for settlement were not the same as the number of applications. So far as I remember only about 300 are involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-West (Mr. Budgen) cannot deduce from the figures that events have unfolded in a manner not anticipated in the debate last February.
  The overall refusal rate was reduced because the criterion for entry was relaxed. The refusal rate on primary purpose is up. That is not surprising because before 1 January 1983 people often could not get over the first hurdle of proving that the woman had a connection by birth with this country. The refusal rate on primary purpose alone is still only 25 per cent. On primary purpose and on another ground the refusal rate is 36 per cent. It is absurd to suggest that the test is impossible to surmount.
  The best example of the humbug and distortion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was when he said that the refusal rate for fiancés in Bangladesh was 100 per cent. I shall tell the House how it is possible for him to produce that figure. Only three applications from the whole of Bangladesh were made in 1983. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that such fudging of statistics will help the House we might as well give up and go home. That is not the behaviour that one expects from a right hon. Gentleman leading for the Opposition.
  Mr. Leighton: The Minister is courteous, as is the staff of his private office. Does he accept that some of our women constituents are married with perhaps two children born in London, and yet their husbands cannot join them? Is it possible for us to see the transcripts of interviews which cause entry clearance officers to refuse entry?
  Mr. Waddington: I do not think that there is such a thing as a transcript. I have sat in on interviews and seen the entry clearance officers make notes of what is said by applicants. They are punctilious. I was impressed when in the sub-continent to note how often, when a damning admission was made by the applicant, the question was put again. The applicant was given the opportunity to correct it, yet he repeated the same damaging statement. It is not realistic to talk in terms of a transcript when we are not speaking of a shorthand note or anything remotely like it. I emphasise again that, when one looks at the figures and at the fact that the overall refusal rate went down between 1982 and 1983, one cannot talk about oppressive control.
  Mr. Straw: Will the Minister accept that there is anxiety among many families of Asian origin about the operation of the primary purpose rule because they feel that it is used to avoid accepting applications in geniune cases? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman further accept that such anxiety could perhaps be allayed if the instructions given to entry clearance officers about the detailed criteria which they should use to adjudge primary purpose issues were published? Will he agree to such publication?
  Mr. Waddington: For obvious reasons it has never been the practice of any Government to publish such instructions. We recently published instructions following undertakings — the right hon. Member for Gorton referred to this—and it is proper to publish instructions which tell immigration officers the form in which statements should be taken from people who arrive, for instance, at Heathrow. It would be entirely different, however, to publish instructions which might instruct people on how they might evade control.
  In relation to visitors, the rules require that immigration officers should satisfy themselves that the people in question are genuine visitors. Our immigration officers do a difficult job well, and to suggest, as the right hon. Member for Gorton did on 21 February 1984 as reported in column 1292 in Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, that they ask questions deliberately to confuse and that they ask completely irrelevant questions, such as how many trees are in the person's garden, is a nasty slander. That is the only way in which it can be described.
  The number of people refused entry is very small. In 1983, of all those seeking to enter this country from India —the number was slightly over 200,000—0·6 per cent. were refused entry. Of all those seeking entry in 1983 from Pakistan, 1·2 per cent. were refused entry. The right hon. Member for Gorton might say that even that percentage rate of refusal is too high. Consider what happened under Labour. In 1975, the rate of refusal for India was 0·7 per cent.; in 1976, 0·6 per cent.; and in 1978, 0·5 per cent. In other words, the rate of refusal under Labour was almost the same as the rate in recent years. The same has been true of Pakistan. In 1975, the rate of refusal for passengers from Pakistan was 1·5 per cent. and in 1976 it was 1·4 per
  672
  cent. In other words, in those two years the rate was higher than in the last year. In 1978, for Pakistan, it was the same at 1·2 per cent.
  Where on earth in those figures can there be any cause for complaint? How can a case be made for the proposition that there is oppressive control under the Tories and relaxed control under Labour? To refer to the figures as evidence of oppressive and humiliating treatment is humbug and is the kind of deliberate distortion of the facts that causes such harm. It is stirring for the sake of stirring, no more and no less.
  On 31 January 1984, the right hon. Member for Gorton, at columns 851 and 852 of the Committee stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, talked in the context of the powers of arrest under the Immigration Act. He spoke of people being hauled off to remand centres, of the thousands of cases that he had taken up on behalf of his constituents, of the persecution of his constituents, of misery and humiliation.
  I have had a check done. Since January 1983, the right hon. Member for Gorton has taken up with the Home Secretary and myself a total of 94 cases which have any connection with immigration control, and I include in that number even queries about entry clearance overseas. I gather that only three of those cases involved any arrest. Furthermore, the House will be interested to know that of seven recent court refusal cases of his, at which I looked this morning, one person has been removed, two have been granted admission, two are still under consideration and, as for the other two, they, having been granted temporary admission, have done a disappearing trick. The right hon. Gentleman will be in some difficulty if he tries to persuade the House that the immigration officer was wrong in their cases. If the right hon. Gentleman told on his travels whoppers such as those he told upstairs in Committee, he would have a job getting through any immigration control in the whole wide world.
  What of those who have run foul of our immigration laws and have been detained or deported? During the Committee proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill the right hon. Member for Gorton talked also of
  "widespread persecution…harassment of hundreds of thousands of people from the Indian subcontinent".— [0fficial Report, Standing Committee E; 31 January 1984, c. 852 ]
  and of indiscriminate arrest and of it being used as a racist power.
  In 1983, 6,848 people were detained at Heathrow and Harmondsworth. The right hon. Gentleman called that disgraceful. Most of them were no doubt black, he would probably say. In 1978, when the Labour party was in power, how many were then detained at Heathrow and Harmondsworth? Not 6,848, not 7,848 but 12,981 — nearly twice the number. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say whether only two of those were black? Again, what he said was complete humbug and a distortion of the facts, just to stir for the sake of stirring.
  Next, consider the question of those who, having been refused entry to this country, are then granted temporary admission. That is a good hallmark, I would have said, of whether we operate an oppressive or fairly relaxed control. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will know how often they make representations to me and how often the person in respect of whom they have made representations is granted temporary admission and, accordingly, gets the

  673
  visit to his relatives for which he had asked. It is proper that we should use that method of temporary admission to help people in that way.
  In 1978, when the Labour party was in office—the Government who operated the humane control which caused hardship to none, as the right hon. Member for Gorton would put it — 3,874 people were granted temporary admission. In 1983, 7,292, twice as many, were granted temporary admission, were granted that sort of indulgence under Tory rule.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that we are thankful for the consideration that he has shown my constituents in allowing so many of them to come to spend a happy family holiday in Lancaster?
  Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. We have reason to be proud of the fact that we are operating the control in a more relaxed way than it was operated under Labour, and it is sheer humbug for the right hon. Member for Gorton to pretend otherwise.
  It is interesting to consider also how many deportation orders were made and enforced. There were 815 orders enforced in 1983 and 714 in 1978. The right hon. Member for Gorton was talking about a reign of terror. He talked of people being humiliated, arrested and carted off. However, about the same number of people were deported each year under the Labour Government as are deported under this Government. No one could describe the figures as evidence of widespread persecution.
  Immigration control is bound to lead to decisions that are not liked, but a strict policy is in the interests of everyone, including those who came here as immigrants not so long ago. This is a facile motion which avoids all the real issues. It is fatuous in its emphasis on family life when it is entry for family reasons which is preferred under the rules. I call upon the House to reject the motion and to support the amendment.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. James Lamond: I am sorry to have to tell the Minister of State that his speech was disappointing. I want to treat this subject seriously, because it is of great importance to many of my constituents, some of whom have come to London because of the interest that they have in it. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have praised him on occasion for his actions and I have always found his private office to be exceptionally helpful. The duty officer at the Home Office has similarly been helpful.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to defend the Government's record by contrasting it with that of the Labour Government. If he is to do his job properly, he should not be making comparisons, odious or otherwise, with the Labour Government's record. He should be comparing what he does with common decency and compassion, and asking himself—
  Mr. Waddington: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that in my actions I have shown that we act with common decency and compassion. However, the hon. Gentleman must concede, in fairness, that the case of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is that there has been an alteration
  674
  in policy and that control is now being operated in a cruel way when it was not previously. I have proved up to the hilt that that is sheer nonsense.
  Mr. Lamond: I shall not give way too often, because I have promised to be brief. It is not good enough to compare the Government's record with that of the Labour Government and to expect my constituents who are affected by the control, and the hundreds of others in the north-west who are in the same position, to accept that as an excuse for what is going on. It is not honest and decent behaviour to do so.
  The Minister of State accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of trying to base his argument on particular cases and to show how they had been treated. This is a debate about individual cases. We are not concerned merely with statistics. Those who consult me at my clinics in Oldham are not statistics to me. They are often men who have been separated from their families for as long as 10 years. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I have brought to him cases of lengthy waits that men have undergone before their families have been able to join them. The very fact that they have been waiting for 10 to 12 years means that they waited during a period when a Labour Government were in office. I make no excuses for the previous Government. If that Government operated such controls, they are to be condemned as roundly as the Tory Government.
  I want to try to get across to the Minister of State what is happening to those who have been waiting a long time for their wives and children to join them. A debate was initiated at the Tory party conference in October 1983 by many of the Conservative Members who are now sitting behind the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Winnick: Proctor has gone. Where is Proctor?
  Mr. Lamond: I think that the Minister will recall that I told him that I watched him deliver his speech on television and that I admired him for the staunch way in which he defended his policy of allowing families to be united. I regret to say that I cannot admire him tonight.
  It took some bravery to advance the policy of allowing families to be united and to win the day at the Tory party conference. He said that that debate was about the rights of men who had come to Britain legally and who were asking that their wives and families be allowed to join them. He argued that the debate was not about primary immigration; he said that the request of the men involved was reasonable and correct and that it would be compassionate to accede to it. I can hardly believe that there is any Member of this place who would deny that fundamental right.
  This debate is about the denial of a fundamental right, the right to family life. This right is recognised in international law. We know that EC law and even the restrictive immigration legislation and rules that now operate guarantee the entry of wives and children who are younger than 18, yet the Home Office is denying this right to thousands of dependants of British citizens solely because of the colour of their skin. People in Greater Manchester and other parts of Britain are suffering enforced separation from their families. Many of these people are Bangladeshi, Gujerati and Pakistani men who have contributed to Britain's industry and economy and are legally settled here. These men applied for their wives

  675
  and children to join them in accordance with their rights under British law. They did not realise what would happen to them.
  Many of these wives have been waiting for five to 10 years for their right of unity with their husbands. In some instances, relatives have died apart while waiting because of long administrative delays. How is this done? The delays are not created openly; they are engineered by the use of all possible procedures and delays in the British high commission and embassies in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Caribbean.
  No attempt is made to establish relationships at interviews. Instead, trivial differences in names are built up into major discrepancies. Account is taken in these interviews of the colour of a person's dress and the number of hens in the household. It has been asked whether we might see transcripts of the interviews. I accept that it would be difficult to provide them, but the adjudicators' reports and the papers that are made available to us when our constituents are making appeals show some of the reasons why relationships have been denied. Stories are increasing about the questions which are asked. When my own children were young, which is some years ago—most of us have not been involved with young families for some years—I tried out on them the sort of questions that are asked of children in Pakistan—for example, "How many uncles and aunts do you have?" It was difficult for my children, even in this country where we have smaller families than they have in Pakistan, to give an accurate answer.
  I thought of the women who travelled considerable distances with all their children to be interviewed at an embassy. I imagined them being taken into the presence of a white man to be interviewed through an interpreter. I took into account the fact that their culture means that women in Pakistan, for example, are not accustomed to such conditions. I thought of them being questioned closely on issues which sometimes show a distressing lack of understanding of their culture. If we think along those lines, we begin to understand why discrepancies arise. I shall not go into some of the questions put to me. They are rather distressing. I am sure that no hon. Member would want his wife to answer the questions often asked of wives in Pakistan.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I ought to declare an interest, even when asking a question. I am chairman of the Indo-British Association, and see a number of people who come to this country. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there is a danger of mythology in this matter? Doubtless some extreme and silly questions are asked, but people tend to generalise, as though such questions are always asked. Those who from time to time visit the Indian subcontinent — I recently took the trouble to ask people in immigration posts there about this —will know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about a minority of vexatious questions and that, on the whole, great efficiency and clarity and a good deal of humanity is shown by decent people.
  Mr. Lamond: I have been to Bangladesh—although, I admit, some years ago — to observe the interview procedure. I concede immediately that we are asking the interviewing officers on our behalf to do a difficult job. I sometimes wonder whether they are sufficiently trained on the job and understand other cultures sufficiently. An
  676
  interviewing officer might ask about the colour of the sari worn by a woman at her wedding. Weddings may last four or five days, and naturally she might wear several saris in that time. An inaccurate answer might be noted, when the confused woman might have given the colour of the main sari she wore. That is a difficult point. We could approach this matter more humanely.
  Innumerable women from the villages are trapped into conflicts about dates of birth or visits by their husbands. If there are not sufficient discrepancies in the answers, the applicant is said to look younger than she claims to be.
  The family of Mr. Hashim, one of my constituents, faced this problem. The entry clearance officer claimed that his observation and a medical examination proved that Mr. Hashim's wife was 35, not 41 as claimed. II came as news to the medical profession that ages of adults could be determined in that way. I am sure that hardly any hon. Member could determine an hon. Member's age within two or three years, just by looking at him. I do not believe that we would go to the length of refusing an application by a wife to join her husband if she looked four or five years younger than alleged. That answer is used as a basis for refusing to allow wives and children to join the man.
  I am sorry to use particular examples, but I wish to emphasise that I am not speaking about statistics. Another example is of a husband in my constituency who wanted his wife to join him. Their five children were interviewed, and four were accepted as members of his family, but the fifth, a girl, was said not to be the man's daughter. It was alleged that she was someone else's daughter. It is scarcely credible that the wife and the rest of the family would have remained for years in Pakistan rather than abandon a girl who was falsely alleged to be a daughter. That alone proves the case. The girl was one of the family. If she had been the daughter of another couple in Pakistan whom the applicants were hoping to smuggle in illegally, the family would merely have told her that, unfortunately, the plan had not worked, and gone to England with the remaining four children. The fact that the family did not do so proves that a mistake was made—and I put it no higher than a mistake.
  In Oldham and many other towns, men in their forties, fifties and even sixties are still being refused visas for their wives to join them. That is an insult to common sense, let alone common decency and humanity. The Home Office, the Minister and everyone else know that those men are married. Why else do they apply year after year? Why do they send thousands of pounds to support non-existing families? Who are they visiting on their trips back to Pakistan, Bangladesh or India? Despite this, the Home Office is continuing to refuse them as "not related as claimed" and saying that it is not satisfied about the date of marriage, date of birth, and so on. We are left with an enormous queue, especially in Bangladesh, in which the Home Office acknowledges are many families applying a second, third or even a fourth time.
  I have constituents whose cases have been going on since 1970 — 14 years ago. I have seen constituents whose wives and children have died while waiting for the Home Office to relent. The Home Office's response has been to try to stop families applying again by denying them interviews and, when they appeal, using the appeals rules to force the case to be dealt with by a written plea for a hearing as a preliminary issue. The case can then be automatically dismissed by the Home Office-appointed adjudicator without even a hearing.

  677
  I am a little tired of being told by the Home Office that my black constituents do not have wives and children. I am pleased that, during the past year or two, divided families — both locally and, increasingly, nationally —have begun a grassroots campaign to expose the injustices in the present Home Office machinery. That campaign is calling for a proper appeals system. At the moment, the appellant is not allowed even to attend the hearing of his or her case. The campaign insists that the burden to disprove the relationship should be placed where it belongs —on the Home Office, not on the applicant.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Should the Home Office not look at another aspect? A case has just been passed to me, and will shortly be coming to the Minister, from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). For reasons that he and I find unacceptable, the entry of a certain gentleman has been refused. The gentleman, who is now a constituent of mine and no longer a constituent of my right hon. and learned Friend, has made a reasonable request, which I shall pass to the Home Office. His case is that, if the high commission does not accept the relationship he claims, why should it not provide the staff to go to the village and check locally in the local language whether his claim is justified? That is where the Home Office is likely to find the truth on the ground. I am sorry to make such a long intervention, but will the Under-Secretary of State say whether that type of service could and should be provided?
  Mr. Lamond: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. A number of groups have gone abroad to carry out such visits to ascertain the truth. Some groups from my constituency have come home with evidence which, to be fair, has sometimes been accepted. They are convinced that the present method of questioning children and wives is a harsh way of deciding whether there is a correct relationship. Even the assertions of the Salvation Army, which investigated cases on the ground in Pakistan and so on and told the Minister that it was more than satisfied that the claims were correct, have been dismissed on the ground that the Salvation Army's investigation methods are not perhaps the most reliable in the world. The Under-Secretary of State should look closely at the possibility of more being done.
  I have given some of the aims set out by the Bangladesh Divided Families Campaign and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will note its requests.
  I shall finish on a personal note. It is alleged by the members of the Bangladesh Divided Families Campaign in Oldham that, when the Minister was at a meeting in north-east Lancashire, he pledged that he would come to a public meeting to hear what the members of the campaign had to say about their own cases — not statistics, but cases involving men, women and children, some of whom have been waiting for many years. They were happy about the pledge that they alleged the Minister gave. I am not saying that he did give it—I was not present on that occasion. I understand that in a letter to the Bangladesh Divided Families Campaign the Minister said that he would not be able to attend such a public meeting. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision and take steps not only to meet the victims of those injustices but to accede to their proposals.
  678
  I shall not stop making representations until I am satisfied that my constituents, whatever their colour, are treated fairly and justly and are measured not against the record of any past Government but against the record of people being treated with compassion. They do not expect to be dealt with differently from anybody else in the community. They should not be guilty until they can prove their innocence; they should be innocent until the Government prove that they are guilty.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that we are already halfway through the debate. Many hon. Members with strong constituency interests are anxious to catch my eye, so I appeal for brevity.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The debate calls attention to the importance of family life. The important issue is that family life is the reason for control of immigration. It is an important part of British life, and it is what we want to protect.
  Family life can mean different things in different parts of the world. Asian families can be very extended. It is many years since I was in Mysore, but I vividly recall visiting the Maharajah's residence. I went round his garage, in which there were 100 Rolls-Royces. I asked why he should need 100 Rolls-Royces, and was told that it was because he had a very large family. I understand that every room of his palace was filled with his relatives. Therefore, perhaps the size of the family in some countries depends on the size of the house.
  In my constituency in Bolton, the average size of the household of families of New Commonwealth and Pakistan origin is nearly twice the national average. There are 4·5 people per household in Bolton compared with nearly half that figure for the country as a whole. In Bolton, 6·4 per cent. of the people are of New Commonwealth and Pakistan origin, but the percentage of births to such mothers is much higher. The figure that is quoted is 18 per cent., but I am told that that is an understatement and that it could be higher. That is the twenty ninth highest proportion in England and Wales, and implies an increasing ethnic population in future. The figures are an understatement. The report from the council states:
  "Immigrant fathers are not included in Bolton's birthrate statistics, whilst some of Bolton's immigrant population has been resident long enough for the formation of households of Asian origin whose heads were born in this country."
  Therefore, the figure is above rather than below 20 per cent.
  The greatest effect on family life is in welfare state provision. I am concerned about trends that have been reported to me, for which I do not have the figures. They concern the adverse effects on Asian families. I am told that more and more Asian children are going into care, that there are more Asian divorces, that there is more domestic violence involving child battering among Asian families, and more claims on the Department of Health and Social Security for urgent needs, especially when the head of household goes abroad—
  Mr. Faulds: Is it not true that under this appalling Government all the factors that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned apply to all sections of the community?
  Mr. Thurnham: The point that I am making is that the welfare state is not helping to keep Asian families together in the way to which they have been accustomed. They have been used to looking after each other.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a policy of discrimination should be pursued within the provision of the National Health Service and welfare benefits?
  Mr. Thurnham: Of course not. I am saying that the same rule should apply to all. I take great exception to the idea that the head of a household in this country can visit his family abroad, leaving the rest of his family in this country dependent upon the state. There have been such cases in Bolton, when the family has been able to claim under urgent needs. Such a situation should not have arisen in the first place. I suggest that members of the Asian community should set up their own funds to provide their own money, should they need to travel abroad.
  Mr. David Alton: If the hon. Gentleman went abroad on holiday, or to work, and a member of his family became ill, does he believe that the state should prevent that person from receiving benefit from the state or the National Health Service? If he does not believe that that should apply, why should it apply to British citizens of Asian origin?
  Mr. Thurnham: That is not the problem. Constituents have come to see me when the head of the household has gone abroad deliberately, hoping that the welfare state will look after his family.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is a stereotype of the Asian Community? Is he differentiating Asians from the rest of the population? If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, he is talking nonsense.
  Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman's question takes me back to my original point. It depends what one means by the family. Asians feel that they have a responsibility to go abroad—their families embrace more than their immediate family in this country—whereas our typical understanding of the family is of a smaller unit. I have no sympathy for people who believe that they can travel abroad—
  Mr. Corbyn rose——
  Mr. Thurnham: I cannot accept any more interventions on that point.
  I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for the way in which he has administered cases that I have brought to his attention. There will always be people caught in the gate when one applies these rules. My experience of the Home Office is that it has looked after such cases extremely well and attentively.
  I am particularly pleased that the waiting period has come down from the 20 months that it was under the Labour Government to 10½ months on average for the four countries listed. Some constituents are greatly concerned about the length of time. One of my constituents, Mrs. Yaqub, has been kept waiting for some time. I should be pleased if the waiting time could be reduced further.
  In conclusion, I should like to endorse the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: At first sight, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) gave a spirited defence of the Government's operation of the present immigration laws. The studied indignation of the hon. Gentleman would be a lesson for us all, but almost every hon. Member who represents a community with people from the ethnic minorities knows that what he was saying was bogus and bore almost no relationship to the facts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) was correct to say that the right for families to live together was a fundamental human right. It is a cheek for the Government amendment to refer to
  "respect and support for family life and proper treatment of visitors to this country"
  when we consider the record. Despite the mumbo-jumbo of statistics that the Minister quoted, I believe that the immigration rules and regulations are racist and sexist, and are applied in a racist and sexist way. The Government have been so occupied with the Right wing and the racists in their own party that they have been preoccupied with the numbers game to the total exclusion of the humanity that we expect in adequate immigration rules and regulations.
  The Minister talked about visitors in glowing terms, as if the regulations were a holiday brochure. The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that refusal of leave to enter this country being subsequently countermanded, because of the intervention of a Member of Parliament, was a great measure of humanitarian sympathy by the Government. Anyone with experience knows that is an offensive charade to the many genuine visitors to this country who are refused leave to enter on the most bogus grounds. The questions that they are asked are precisely those that the Minister has denied were asked.
  For example, a constituent of mine who was sponsoring a visitor was asked how many hotels the man had at home. Because his answer differed from that given by the visitor, doubts were cast on the visitor's reliability and he was refused leave to enter. He stayed for the two months and subsequently returned to his family business, which had always been his intention. He had the so-called privilege of staying here for two months by permission of the Home Office, but that is no way to operate the system. Colossal delays take place throughout the operation of the immigration rules.
  I have taken up the case of a family that has been stranded in West Germany since December. I have spoken and written to the Minister of State and have pressed the Home Office regularly. I have always been treated with courtesy by the Minister of State's office, but there is an almost stupefying immovability in the immigration service in such cases. A family with young children is stranded abroad. It is not living in the lap of luxury. Its resources are stretched and it is having to rely on charity overseas. I should be grateful for an answer on the Hassan case tonight.
  We have been told that the right of male fiancés and husbands to enter this country is enshrined in the law, but the change in rule 41 means that the balance of proof falls on the applicant. That changed the situation dramatically and anyone refused entry cannot win. The former Home Secretary, now Viscount Whitelaw, said of the change:

  681
  "those who have a genuine relationship that was not contracted for immigration reasons have no cause to fear it." —[Official Report, 15 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 187.]
  One of my constituents, Mrs. Kaur, married in India, but her husband has been refused entry to the United Kingdom on the ground that the primary purpose of the marriage was for immigration reasons. He cannot prove that that is not the case. It is impossible to prove it. That is the ultimate Catch 22. It is not satisfactory for Ministers to argue that the rule change applies in only a limited number of cases. The fact that it applies at all makes nonsense of the system.
  We were also told by the former Home Secretary:
  "If there is a good reason for the husband to stay, there is discretion within the rules." —[0fficial Report, 15 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 365.]
  That applies in the case of the breakdown of a marriage, but we are assured that discretion is operated humanely and with compassion and kindness. However, I have taken up with the Home Office the case of a man who came here through an arranged marriage and whose wife broke up the marriage. He has been living with another woman for two years and they have a 10-month-old child. The couple are not married and perhaps fall outside the rules relating to marriage, but both partners are seeking divorces from their previous spouses and the child is an important factor in their lives. Yet the Home Office has decided that Mr. Arjan Singh must leave this country. That is not a satisfactory operation of the discretion. It is not being exercised humanely.
  The Minister of State mentioned hardship. Does he think that the cases to which I have referred and those that my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned are acceptable? If so, his view of acceptable hardship and the view of the overwhelming majority of decent people in this country are very different.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. John Stokes: When I first read the motion, I was amazed at its bare-faced effrontery. I find the words almost incredible. I know that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is a nice person in private life, but he has an unfortunate tendency to exaggerate grossly when he is engaged in party political controversy. I wonder how many Labour Members who heard the right hon. Gentleman and then listened to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, who tore the motion to shreds, will support the Opposition in the Division.
  The motion is couched in extreme and vituperative language which might have been used against countries behind the iron curtain, but surely not against England. I rubbed my eyes as I read the extravagant language. I could not help thinking of the care with which our judges deal with immigration cases.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stokes: No. We do not have much time and I shall be brief.
  I thought of the majesty of English law, the appeal to habeas corpus, ancient rights and the decency of our police, magistrates and immigration officers. I thought of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and his officials who give a tremendous amount of time and
  682
  thought to this matter. I thought of my many colleagues who write to my hon. and learned Friend on every immigration case that comes before them — and who write much more frequently about those cases than they do about cases involving our own subjects here in England.
  Reading the Opposition motion, one would think that it referred to a dreadful tyranny in the middle ages or to a modern country ruled by ayatollahs, rather than to gentle, peaceful, tolerant, law-abiding England. I cannot think of any other country into which entry is as easy as it is into this country. No other country can compare with our record of receiving immigrants in such large numbers. In less than a generation, we have received millions of people of new races and, in the main, those people have settled here without riots and disturbances.
  Governments of all parties, while realising that immigration control is essential in this small island, have, nevertheless, been generous in allowing such large numbers to enter our island. We must think about numbers now, particularly when we think about the large numbers of unemployed. I am naturally thinking of my own country and the west midlands.
  If we look across the Channel to France and Germany, we see that they are starting to repatriate immigrants on a large scale. That is not happening here.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stokes: No. I have already said that I will not give way. This is a short debate and many hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman has already intervened twice.
  After hundreds of thousands of primary immigrants have been received here, entry is now mainly reserved for dependants. Fairly large numbers still enter each year, though the numbers are starting to fall.
  The motion refers to the
  "devastating and oppressive effect on family life".
  It refers only to immigrants and includes not one word about the effect on the kindly, tolerant English people here who have received those new people, whose religion, customs, habits and manners are different from our own.
  The strains and burdens of receiving those people has not fallen on bishops who write to The Times, on university professors or technical college lecturers or even on readers of The Guardian. The burden has fallen on ordinary, English working people whom Labour Members claim they represent as much as my hon. Friends and I do.
  Let Labour Members go into the pubs and clubs in their constituencies and read out their motion. The reaction of ordinary English people, who are so decent, quiet and tolerant, might surprise them. England, this dear country, has from time to time done some shameful things in its history, but her treatment of immigrants is not one of them, and Labour Members should be ashamed of their motion.
  We have not heard one word from the Opposition, in spite of many interruptions, of what they would do or what their policy is. They are supposed——
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you tell us, for guidance, how it is possible for a Labour Member to say a word when the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) will not give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Stokes: The Labour party's proposals for immigration are so wide and far-reaching that any form of immigration control would prove difficult, if not impossible. It says that all British citizens should have the right of entry, and that husbands and fiancés of women here could also come in, and more children and relations should be allowed the right of entry as well. These far-reaching proposals would be unacceptable to the indigenous population.
  Since this motion was first tabled, I have been at a loss to understand why the Labour party wished to raise the matter. There is no demand for it in the country, it can do us no good and, rather the contrary, may revive fears about immigration. The Opposition must be hard put to it to single out this subject on which to attack the Government. It only shows how far removed they are from knowing or understanding their constituents' real feelings.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) had to say. It seemed in general to be similar to what the Minister said. It was characteristic of both the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge and the Minister that they dealt with only one side of the argument. I am sorry that the generosity that I hoped to hear from them and other Conservative Members towards not only our indigenous population but those who have joined us here, mainly people of New Commonwealth origin, and who are making an important contribution to our community has not been heard in our debate.
  The Minister said that we had to consider the effect on the Health Service of additional immigrants, and the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge talked about the effect of immigrants on unemployment. It is a great shame that we did not hear a word about the effect, for instance, on the Health Service if all the Commonwealth citizens who worked in it were to leave tomorrow. Sadly, what the Minister said simply echoed the words of the Prime Minister, who in 1978 said that she felt rather swamped by Britain's immigrant population. The real truth is that the number of people who came to this country in the first three quarters of last year was 14,800. If that figure is measured against the 100,000 people who will gather in Wembley for the Milk Cup final, it is put into perspective.
  It is worth reminding the House that on Wednesday last the Church of England Synod, in what was a unanimous motion, said that it believed that the immigration rules and the British Nationality Act were contrary to Christian teaching. That view has also been put forward by the Roman Catholic bishops in England and Wales, and has been voiced by many who have spoken from the Opposition Benches.
  The starting point for Liberals in a debate of this kind is that we believe in the uniqueness and importance of every individual, regardless of colour, sex, creed or age. We have a historic commitment to the dismantling of barriers, and to preserving the identities of individuals, the enhancing of their opportunities to develop culture, religion and language in the context of coexistence. The Liberal party is proud of its traditions of fighting to protect and preserve diversity because it enriches British life. We are opposed to inflicting a stereotyped conformity on our people or anglicising, beyond recognition, the many facets
  684
  of humanity so wonderfully expressed in the presence of Commonwealth citizens and other immigrants in the United Kingdom.
  For Liberals, the starting point is a commitment to a multiracial society. Our record in opposing apartheid abroad and discrimination at home is well documented. One of the principal reasons why I joined the Liberal party in the first place was that in 1967 my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, was the chief opponent of the Labour Government's Commonwealth Settlement Act 1967. Some 17 years later, my repugnance for racialism and discrimination remains, and the issues are still largely unresolved.
  A constituent wrote to me recently about the 300 families at Magopa in South Africa who were being forcibly ejected and sent to Bophuthatswana, one of the 10 ethnically-based homelands. Some 3·5 million people have been resettled and 2 million more are to be removed forcibly against their will as part of the grand design of apartheid. That is an offence against humanity. Sadly, Her Majesty's Government have not been outspoken in condemning that policy. That is something that our immigrant community is looking to us to do.
  I am not surprised that the Government have failed to speak out. That is consistent with the policy they have been pursuing since they were elected in 1979, a cornerstone of which was the British Nationality Act 1981. Ironically, that Act flows from a manifesto that pledged its profound concern for the family. It is now all too apparent that that concern manifests itself only so long as that family is white, in employment and lives in the blue chip suburbs of south-east England.
  At the general election, the slogan had changed from concern about the family to 'Labour says he's black, the Tories say he's British." However, as Government policy has demonstrated, he can only become British if he can afford it. The fees for citizenship introduced by the Government are a disgrace. I give the House an example of a constituent who came to fight for this country during the second world war. He was a young man from Jamaica and he was prepared to pay the ultimate price in fighting for us. He was pictured in the local newspaper, the Liverpool Echo, at the time of his arrival, ready to serve as we did, with British servicemen in the fight for our freedom and liberty.
  Some 40 years later, having married an English woman and had a family, he is 71 arid is told that he has to pay a fee of £70 if he wants to become a British citizen. When I wrote to him, the Minister said that it did not matter if the man did not become a British citizen because
  "it will not affect his circumstances"
  if he chooses not to purchase citizenship. That rather depends on the value that one places on citizenship. It inevitably affects that man's circumstances, his morale and sense of security. He has a sense of fear. Like 100,000 other people, he has been stampeded by fear into believing that he has to purchase British citizenship. The Government have unscrupulously been using this fear to profit from people's insecurity. It is reminiscent of people buying themselves out of bondage.
  It is not surprising that, some months ago, a Liverpool-born black said to me that five generations from the time when his forefathers had arrived in Liverpool, in the immediate aftermath of the slave trade at the time of Wilberforce, they had simply moved half a mile up the

  685
  road. Martin Luther King, who championed the rights of black people in the United States of America, put it well when he said that black people have been
  "smothered in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society."
  There are areas where black unemployment can be as high as 90 per cent. I can show any hon. Member who harbour doubts that there are areas in my constituency and other parts of Liverpool where that is the case. Anyone who allows it to continue is consigning people to an airtight cage of poverty from which it is desperately difficult to escape.
  The treatment meted out to people arriving in the country also leaves a great deal to be desired, especially those who are here to visit relatives. Frequently, elderly people are held for long periods at air terminals and sometimes in detention centres, and increasingly they are subjected to interrogation. Yet we have the neck to call ourselves civilised, having treated people in that way.
  I object similarly to the treatment meted out by the immigration authorities to individual families living here. It can only undermine good race relations. I tell the House of the case of a young Bangladeshi constituent of mine named Gias Uddin who was deported a few years ago. That young man had been here since the age of 10. He had been through primary and secondary schools here. Ultimately, the immigration authorities said that, because he could not prove that he was the son of the people with whom he had been living, he would have to return to Bangladesh. He was not able to prove who his parents were, despite an affidavit from them saying that he was their son. He did not have a piece of paper to prove who he was. Birth certificates are not to be had very easily in places such as Bangladesh. Unable to prove that they were his parents, he was finally deported, despite the representations of the Bishop and the Archbishop of Liverpool and those of many hon. Members on both sides of the House on behalf of that young man. It is treatment of that kind that undermines not only family life but good race relations and creates the kind of fear and insecurity to which I referred earlier.
  I turn to the rules governing the ability of men to join their fiancées and wives. The House will recall that an amendment moved by the Liberal and Social Democratic parties led to some changes in the rules. Nevertheless, there is still a feeling on these Benches that the rules are being abused by the authorities. During our debate on that late night in December 1982 when we discussed the rules, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) said:
  "There is continuing discrimination and a continuing mixture of sexual and racial discrimination. Let there be no doubt: these proposals are not putting women on an equal basis with men. Let there be no doubt that they are deeply damaging to the interests of people who are settled here." —[Official Report, 15 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 358.]
  As the Minister said in reply to a recent letter of mine, the problem is that there is no absolute criterion. On 9 January, he said:
  "Each application must be examined individually." —[Official Report, 19 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 437.]
  That leads inevitably to a free rein for subjectivity by immigration officers. Many young Asian women will be
  686
  prevented from marrying the men whom they want to marry, and these rules have had the effect of separating young people.
  Recently the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, referring to the practical effects of the rules, said:
  "Intrusive and persistent questioning often takes place. Men are asked why they do not marry women in India. The couple's love letters may be examined. On one occasion at least they were found insufficiently affectionate."
  What sort of way is that to treat people? If the Minister agrees with many of us that the rules are being abused and that the spirit of what he would wish for is not being observed, why does he not draft a circular and circulate that document to all officials so that we may be clear in our own minds precisely what the Government want and what they mean?
  Mr. Corbyn: It would be very helpful if the Government published the guidance notes that they give to immigration officers and to high commissions and embassies abroad so that we could see the tone of and the method by which the interviews are conducted.
  Mr. Alton: I agree, and I should like to see that information placed in the Library of the House so that hon. Members could get some idea of the advice being given. If the spirit of what the Minister has been saying were observed, it might well remove many people's anxieties and fears that there is too much subjectivity based on misinformation and a lack of written guidance.
  The rules have also led to the demeaning process whereby registrars of marriages now uniquely ask Asian citizens to produce passports before their weddings. That, too, is a disgraceful intrusion into people's personal lives.
  I turn to another aspect which I raised recently with the Minister in a number of letters to him and in parliamentary questions. It concerns the use of section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. Under that Act many immigrants are excluded from help if they are non-Commonwealth citizens. I cite particularly the case of the 17,000 Vietnamese boat people who arrived here five years ago. One thousand came to Merseyside, and 450 were welcomed to the city of Liverpool. We welcomed them despite all the problems mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge. We have very high unemployment there, but the boat people were welcomed with open arms because we were aware of their grave problems. Those people had been thrown on to the high seas and separated from their families and were in a great state of anguish.
  Five years later, because they are non-Commonwealth citizens, along with the 2,000 Somalis and the 40,000 Liverpool-born fifth generation blacks who live in the area, finance and specialist help under the Act is not made available. Five years later many of these people are isolated, lonely, jobless, scattered about the place and in many cases suffering from hepatitis, cataract, glaucoma, worm, tuberculosis and lactose intolerance. All are prevalent in their community. They are three times more likely than members of the indigenous community to require professional social service support, because 95 per cent. of them are without jobs and most of them have learnt little English. The original policy of dispersal to certain areas has been an abysmal failure. The Government believe that out of sight is out of mind. I am certain that the Government should not only look at the

  687
  problem of that community, but think in terms of extending section 11 of the 1966 Act to cover this particular group of forgotten people.
  The Government have succeeded in undermining the already fragile security of black people in Britain by enacting statutes that enshrine racist divisions. They have opened yawning chasms between our different communities. It is legislation which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has said, has been condemned by many people.
  "Nationality is a fundamental human right. It defines who belongs to the nation and who enjoys the rights of equal citizenship. British nationality should be granted automatically to everyone born in British territory."
  Immigration control should be exercised on the basis of objective criteria and applied without discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion. An independent judicial officer should be appointed with power to intervene to speed up cases and appeals. Alleged illegal immigrants should have the right of appeal. If they deny the illegality, they should not be imprisoned while their cases are being considered. They should be charged in the normal way if there is reasonable cause to suspect the commission of an offence, and appeals should be judged on the circumstances prevailing on the date of the appeal, not on the date of the original decision.
  That is the kind of approach that the Government should adopt. It is not an approach that is demonstrated by the way that they have been proceeding during the past live years. That is why I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be voting with the official Opposition.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Geoff Lawler: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and the House will be grateful to me for not discussing my surgery immigration case load, as other hon. Members have done with theirs this evening. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's assumption that there is clearly no support from people settled in this country, whatever their origins or colour, for further widespread immigration. Anyone living here has an equal interest in ensuring that we have enough housing, employment and other social provisions for the people who are already here. So it is to everyone's benefit that we have tight immigration rules to protect that interest.
  However, any immigration policy must treat all citizens fairly, if the need for tight rules is to be respected. It is clearly right that those who are accepted for settlement here have the right to bring in wives and dependants. Equally, they should have the right to receive visitors, care for their parents and choose their marriage partners from abroad. It is reasonable that those legitimate rights, while being safeguarded, are not allowed to be exploited by those who circumvent the rules designed to achieve the overall object of limiting entry into this country.
  I represent a constituency where 15 per cent. of the population is of Asian origin, and all too often I see the problems that arise when rights conflict with rules. It is important that the two are kept in balance, because neglect of one will encourage abuse of the other.
  There are two ways, one of which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned earlier, in which rules are seen to interfere with rights. The first is the interpretation of the rule stating that elderly dependants must have no other close relatives in their own country to turn to before they can be admitted to join relations here, and the second
  688
  involves the rule requiring that married partners must have met. In several cases, the first seems to force parents or grandparents to live with a relative in the subcontinent regardless of potential family conflict that may arise or any animosity that may already exist. It is natural, particularly in the Asian culture, that people settled here should wish their elderly dependants to be here as well, and for them to be as well cared for as possible in their remaining years. If their own well-being in this country has been enhanced and their standards of living raised, it is not unreasonable for them to wish their parents to share that well-being and enhanced social status. Where the resources for that provision emanate from a relative in the United Kingdom, it is surely not unreasonable to allow them to live here, even if there is another close relative at home who may not have the same resources in terms of cash arid accommodation, and may not even have the same interest.
  To implement a change in the rules to this effect is hardly likely to lead to jumbo-jetloads of elderly dependants landing at Heathrow, given an understandable hesitation to settle in a new country and different culture at so late a stage in life. I know of many people in Bradford who came here but did not stay. They could not settle and did not like the change in culture or life in this country.
  The requirement that fiancés and fiancees should have met provokes irritation among the Asian community, not only because it is deemed to be a prohibitivly expensive obstacle that is unnecessary, given the other considerations governing the entry of male fiancés, but because it is directly aimed at an institution that is an inherent part of their culture.
  The practice of bringing in a fiancé from the Indian subcontinent will gradually diminish in frequency as the generation of girls born here find males among their own community and consequently avoid all the difficulty and expense of finding a suitable fiancé abroad. However, given the operation of the primary purpose rule, I hope that the Government will look again at the requirement that a couple should have met, and not worry that it would lead to widespread abuse of the marriage rules. In my view, both those changes are consistent with the Conservative party's commitment to the family and to equal opportunity.
  As a new generation of people of Asian origin grow up in our schools alongside their white contemporaries, they will be aware, and less tolerant, of any injustices in the system that appear directly to affect them but not the rest of the community. I trust that the Government and the Conservative party will ensure that the rules are kept constantly under review to take account of changing circumstances, changing pressures and changing perceptions.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Eric Deakins: It was a pleasure to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler). It was a liberal strand in our debate, although unfortunately the party that he supports, and which I am sure he will support in the Lobby tonight, does not share his views. His is the party that introduced—and still believes in—discriminatory immigration rules designed to keep out coloured people. He may say, and I would agree, that that is inevitable with a Right-wing Tory Government. My own ethnic minority voters, certainly in Walthamstow, realise that, and I benefit from their support accordingly.

  689
  The motion that we are debating talks about undermining family life. The rules that the House has approved in the past few years are unworthy of a society that calls itself civilised. Many of the men who are separated from their families in south Asia and other parts of the New Commonwealth are making a substantial contribution to the British economy. They are not scroungers on the welfare state, as many Conservative Members would like us to believe, to judge by some of the speeches that grab the headlines in the popular press. They are people who often do unpleasant work, work unsocial hours, work in the public sector and maintain services that would not otherwise be maintained.
  The Government are being hypocritical. In the last two elections they proclaimed their commitment to family life, but these immigration rules contain no right to family reunification, except in respect of the nuclear family—that is, a spouse and children up to the age of 18. The rules impose our cultural norms on, in particular, Asians coming into Britain. It is a form of cultural imperialism. The Asian concept of the extended family is one that we used to enjoy and benefit from in Britain. For a variety of sociological and economic reasons it has now disappeared completely. One purpose of the rules is to keep out the concept of the extended family, because that would shame us into recognising that our commitment to the family is not as strong as that of the Asians.
  The rules say nothing at all about the welfare of children being a paramount consideration when cases are considered. I should have thought that in a civilised society that should concern us. There are grave difficulties overseas and in Britain when Asians, in particular, have to prove relationships at ports of entry to entry clearance officers or immigration officers who are at best sceptical, often suspicious, and, occasionally, at worst paranoid in the form of questioning that they adopt. There are obviously from time to time discrepancies in the answers given by various people on various occasions. But under the stress of questioning, how many white families in similar circumstances would not be making similar mistakes to those of the Asians?
  The interview for Asians families at both entry clearance posts overseas and at ports of entry in Britain is a minefield through which applicants stumble. Often they are blown up and then they are sent back or their application is refused. Consider the circumstances. At United Kingdom ports of entry immigrants arriving from south Asia have had a long journey. They are suffering from jet lag and are in a strange environment. Many of them have never travelled more than a few miles from their village before, yet they have come thousands of miles to another continent where they are immediately subjected to intensive questioning. The same sort of thing happens at overseas posts, where the interview often takes place hundreds of miles from the family home.
  People are disoriented. It is no wonder that from time to time they make mistakes and give answers which confirm the suspicions of entry clearance officers. Intensive questioning proceeds almost as if the people are guilty of some sort of crime, but, unlike what happens with criminals and suspected criminals in police custody in Britain, there are no judges' rules for immigrants. At least, there are none that I know of. I should like to know if there are any.
  690
  In any body of people in our society, which will often have institutionalised racism, there must be some racism and racist attitudes. That goes for all Governments, not merely the present one. We have seen that in the police force. The independent Policy Studies Institute report makes it clear that there are many racist attitudes, in particular at lower levels in the police force. Therefore, is it not conceivable and highly probable that similar racist attitudes exist among immigration officials and entry clearance officers, even though they are not aware of it? I am accusing them not of deliberate racism, but of unconscious racism. That is reinforced because they are operating within the racist structure of the immigration rules. The whole purpose is to keep blacks out and to deny family reunification unless the obstacle course can be survived.
  In reply to questions recently, the Minister said that there were training courses and that efforts were being made to ensure that there was no racism among immigration officials and entry clearance officers. We welcome that, but there cannot be the major improvement that is necessary while people have to operate within a structure of racist rules and institutionalised racism in Britain.
  The question will not go away. Harking back to the record of previous Labour Governments will not help the Government or Asian families. Such families are looking for a humane and civilised response in this debate, and I hope that they will get it.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have been an immigrant to the United States, and I have been occasionally embarrassed and humiliated. I had ministerial responsibility for the resettlement here of Ugandan Asians and I am chairman of the Indo-British Association.
  I say straight away that the immigrants have brought a great benefit to our country. At the bottom of the Statute of Liberty in New York harbour there is a phrase written by an unknown immigrant:
  "We came not empty-handed here, we brought a rich inheritance."
  I believe that that is true of this country too, and I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State shares that sentiment.
  I wish to make three points only. On a recent journey to India, I made some inquiries about the treatment that is given to aspiring immigrants. I am bound to say that there is discontent, as there must be. There has been an improvement in recent years. My hon. Friend the Minister of State in his speech amply documented that improvement. The system is more efficient, clearer and more humane.
  My second point concerns one of my constituents. I put it in the form of a complaint, but it is not a complaint directed to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, or, indeed, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, because I know of no Members who are more touched by humanity and courtesy in the manner in which they handle the many immigration inquiries directed to them. The complaint concerns a Royal Air Force squadron leader. He has served in Belize, and is now in the Falkland Islands. He is an expert engineer, knowledgeable on Jaguars and Harriers, and by any measure a great asset to the Royal Air Force. He received a renewal of his British passport in Belize when he was serving with the Harrier

  691
  squadron. Recently, he wanted to visit his family in Kenya. The Kenya embassy insisted that a right of abode stamp should be placed in his passport, or that a letter from the Home Office should be provided, stating that he would be allowed to re-enter the United Kingdom, before it would issue him with a visa. This is what transpired. He went to the passport office in Petty France, and informed the office that he was a squadron leader in the Royal Air Force. He showed his military identity card, RAF form 1250, and a valid NATO travel order. He was informed that, on that basis, he could enter the United Kingdom at any time, but that he would have to go to the Home Office in Croydon to have his passport stamped. He went to Croydon, and explained to the Home Office staff that he had obtained his British passport in Belize. He showed the Home Office staff in Croydon his military documents, which were photocopied. The Home Office staff agreed that he could enter the United Kingdom at any time on the strength of his military papers. I quote the squadron leader's letter:
  "However, on further questioning and ascertaining that my parents were born in India, I was told, quite categorically, that I will have to produce proof that I have been in the United Kingdom for the past five years."
  The squadron leader was horrified. He said:
  "I felt ashamed and humiliated. I requested to see someone in authority, but was told that that was not permitted. I further requested the Home Office staff to phone the Royal Air Force Personnel Management Centre to confirm that I was a commissioned officer in the RAF and that I had joined the service in 1971; this too was rejected."
  Suddenly, the squadron leader's military documents, and the fact that he had entered the United Kingdom on several occasions merely by producing them, were of no consequence. He therefore had to travel back to his home in Suffolk in my constituency to collect certificates of pay and tax deductions dating back to 1971, and to get hold of his university certificates to prove that, prior to 1971, he had obtained a degree at London university. He then had to travel to Norfolk to obtain a formal letter from his station commander, giving a detailed account of all the Royal Air Force stations at which he had served in the intervening years. What angered him most—my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will appreciate this—is that as a result he missed No. 3 squadron mess night at Gütersloh in Germany.
  When I came into the matter I was told that the squadron leader was in the Falkland Islands. I was asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister's private office to obtain the squadron leader's date of birth. I cannot obtain his date of birth because he is in the Falkland Islands. I am not prepared to upset his wife again. As the Home Office interviewed the man, and photocopied all his papers, it has all that information in its possession. I do not understand how the Home Office cannot deal with the case and can say that it does not have the man's date of birth.
  The Home Office has been provided with all the documents that the squadron leader obtained—his birth certificate, his tax certificates, his pay certificates, his university degree and a letter from his station commander —and yet it still asks me to provide his date of birth.
  These days it must be easier to transfer information between the Home Officer and the Ministry of Defence than it is for a Back-Bench Member of Parliament to obtain information from Port Stanley. These days, when any
  692
  rookie reporter or young police officer can obtain the information within half an hour, I find it astonishing that the Home Office is incapable of doing so.
  I mention this case for one reason only —to show that things can go wrong occasionally even in the best of bureaucracies. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will deal with this matter in his usual courteous way. I should not like my hon. and learned Friend to think for one moment that I pay the slightest attention to the absurd motion that we are debating. In his speech he pulverised the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I shall, with the greatest of pleasure, go into the Lobby to support my hon. and learned Friend and the Home Secretary in the excellent job that they are doing for our country.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I fully support the motion. I felt that when the Minister spoke, he was entirely evading the issue of the way in which families are treated and broken up because of the operation of the immigration rules, and the heartbreak and misery that that causes. I make no apology for mentioning the heartbreak and misery caused to people in my constituency and in many others.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) spoke. He probably represents the more honest and truer face of the Tory party when he spoke the usual racist pap about immigration causing problems and pretending that the unemployment figures in the west midlands were caused by immigration. He was in effect saying that the cultural changes that have taken place because of immigration are unacceptable. I find his remarks offensive and unacceptable, as do people in many parts of the country, who live happily in a multicultural, multiracial environment and who are not prepared to put up with that kind of bigotry.
  When Conservative Members say that the immigration rules are for the benefit of the ethnic minority communities, I fail to see how they can justify that or to whom they have been speaking to get those views. If they spent a little time talking to some of the families that are broken up and deliberately divided by the operation of the immigration rules, they might have a different attitude.
  I feel that these problems caused by the operation of the immigration rules are serious. First, I feel—I hope the Minister will answer this point—that it is important that the guidance notes issued to embassies, high commissions, immigration officers and entry clearance officers should be published and made available so that we can know the circumstances under which such interviews take place. There should be a verbatim report of the interviews, which should be made available to Members of Parliament if they wish to see it, so that we can see the circumstances under which those interviews take place in different parts of the world.
  The Minister endlessly quoted statistics on the length of the waiting lists now, in 1978, in 1977 and other dates. That shows that the waiting lists have been far too long at all times. They are completely unacceptable. The Minister should be saying what he is doing to remove the waiting lists for interviews.
  I know of families who are divided because they must wait up to two or three years for interviews, and I am far from happy about the circumstances under which the interviews take place. People must make lengthy journeys

  693
  to visit the high commission or the embassy for their interview and peculiar requests are made for documentary proof of their birth and marriage, when in some places no such records exist.
  The attitude of immigration officers at the airport is neither straightforward nor even handed. If hon. Members were to go to Heathrow and observe the treatment that black families from Africa, people from Asia, Bangladesh or the West Indies receive and compare it with the treatment given to South Africans, Australians or New Zealanders, they would not tell me that there was no racism there. If anyone tells me that, clearly he has never been to Heathrow and examined the procedures that lead to institutional racism.
  The approach at the interview is wrong because the onus of proof is on the interviewee to show that he is a bona fide visitor. He is treated virtually as a guilty subject until he can prove his innocence. It should be the other way round. The Home Office would do everyone a favour if it published the number of people who, having been refused entry, are deported from Heathrow and other airports, and the number who are fortunate enough to contact a Member of Parliament or somebody who can do that for them and gain entry.
  The Home Office fails completely to understand the political circumstances that face many people who come to Britain. I have received a number of contradictory letters from the Home Office, on the one hand saying that the position in Sri Lanka is normal, and on the other hand saying that there are problems for some of the community in Sri Lanka if they are deported back to that country. Hon. Members deserve an explanation from the Minister about the position in Sri Laka and other politically divided and troubled parts of the world. He must give the House a statement of the Government's attitude to applications from residents of such countries for political refugee status.
  Although the debate is brief, it is extremely serious because it affects fundamentally the human rights of many people in Britain. These regulations cause misery and heartbreak, yet the Minister's only answer is to trade around with half-baked statistics. He must answer our criticism that his rules divide and break families, and insist that children, who have never seen a country, are deported to it without so much as by or have your leave.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: If there are doubts about the injustice and unfairness of the immigration laws, rules and administrative procedures, they are discounted by examining a simple set of statistics for passengers refused entry, by nationality, in 1982. That is the last year for which such figures are available. From the old Commonwealth, it was one in 5,344, from the United States of America it was one in 3,654 and from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan it was one in 159.
  The Minister accused the Labour party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) of stirring. The debate, initiated by the Labour party, reflects the deep anxiety that exists among ethnic minorities about the matter. In July 1983, when the Home Secretary visited Bradford, the Bradford Council for Mosques presented him with a memorandum which said:
  694
  "The relatives of the ethnic minorities are treated unfairly when they make applications for the Visa/Entry Certificate and very many visitors receive a hostile reception when they arrive in Britain, with unnecessary and awkward questions and unreasonable delays".
  When the Minister visited Bradford a fortnight ago and held a stormy meeting, those complaints and many others were made to him very forcefully by Bradford's Asian community.
  The truth is that the ethnic minorities in Britain very much resent the way in which the laws, rules and administrative procedures are operated against them. The reality is that black and Asian people are fundamentally unwelcome in this country. The laws, rules and procedures are designed to exclude as many of them as possible. Numerous references have been made today to the primary purpose test. That very objectionable test was clearly changed recently to meet the demands of the Conservative party's Right wing.
  By the third quarter of 1983, 17 per cent. of husbands and 49 per cent. of fiancés from the Indian subcontinent were being refused on that ground. That ground also accounted for 50 per cent. of husband refusals and 83 per cent. of fiancé refusals. However, in 1982, only 12 per cent. of applications were refused because of primary purpose, and only 18 per cent. of all refusals were made on that ground. That makes the case for the reason why the test was changed and the harsh way in which it has been administered.
  We have also heard many complaints about the situation in Bangladesh. In an intervention, I mentioned the independent studies that had been made in the past of the refusals given in Bangladesh. In 1977, the Runnymede Trust found that, of 58 different applications that had been refused, 55 were genuine. A study carried out by the United Kingdom immigrants advisory service in 1981 showed that, of 35 families who had been refused permission to join their husbands and fathers in the United Kingdom, 34 contained genuine applicants. I also welcome the study that the Bradford law centre is to make into the situation in Bangladesh, which continues to deteriorate.
  I turn briefly to the conduct and content of the interviews for entry clearance. Much concern has been expressed tonight about the way in which such interviews are conducted. I urge the Minister to reconsider the provision of tape recordings and transcripts from such interviews, so that we can all see how they are conducted. I also urge him to ensure that the highly subjective views and conclusions of entry clearance officers can be examined against the transcript, and to dispense with refusals that are based on a recourse to public funds. It is outrageous that people who have the misfortune to be unemployed or inadequately housed in Britain should be prevented from marrying or having their would-be spouses here.
  Objections have been raised to nationality fees. An overwhelming case can be made for the fees to be reduced, for them to be paid only when the application is considered — not when it is submitted — for the delays to be reduced and for the police to be removed from such inquiries.
  This debate is important and reflects the considerable concern of the black and Asian communities in Britain about the way in which they are being treated. If the way in which they are treated over immigration is coupled with

  695
  the way in which they are discriminated against in housing, jobs and education, the extent to which they are harassed by the police, and the difficulties that they have in DHSS offices and the NHS, it amounts to gross discrimination against black and Asian people in this country and their relatives from overseas. We wish to see the Government return to the commitment that they made in the 1979 general election to support and hold a firm belief in the family. Their immigration policies contradict the commitments that they then gave to the electorate.
  I hope that the Government will ensure that the laws, rules, and administrative procedures are observed with humanity and conducted with great discretion.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Health): We have had a short but extremely important debate. It is not about a taradiddle of statistics such as the Minister gave us, but about real people suffering from humiliation overseas and at ports of entry here.
  The Minister dismissed the personal cases which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) cited. That was typical of the approach that we are condemning. Each case is a personal tragedy for some family. That is the only way to deal with the matter. If any Government of which I was a member were to blame I must accept respnsibility. Today we are concerned with the operation of the rules today. Ministers responsible for the rules probably have the most difficult job in Government, and entry clearance officers also have a difficult job, but that does not excuse them for allowing inhuman, indecent treatment to be meted out.
  When telling us of the number of cases involved, the Minister failed to interpret the figures. Applications from Asians have halved since 1978. The number of officials dealing with the applications has increased by 25, yet the waiting list is the same. The facts are against the Minister's statistical case, but I do not want to become involved in the statistical game.
  Last week the Church of England Synod decided by 260 votes to nil:
  "That this Synod, believing the 1981 British Nationality Act involves the treatment of individuals and families in a manner not in keeping with Christian teaching, requests the Standing Committee in conjuction with the Board of Social Responsibility to make representations to Her Majesty's Government for the reform of this Act and the relating Immigration Rules."
  The operation of the Act abroad and at Heathrow cannot be justified by the moral or ethical principles of any religion embraced by any Member of the House, or by anyone else. The operation of the Act totally contradicts Christian teaching on the sanctity of family life. It contradicts Jewish ethics and is certainly offensive to the Moslem religion.
  It is no wonder that the Bishop of Birmingham, when proposing that motion, said that his objection was that our immigration rules and practices were
  "racist in intention, often unfair in execution and divisive of families."
  That is true.
  Today we witnessed the spectacle of a Minister telling the Church that it should take a holiday from politics during Lent. We want Ministers to implement Christian principles in the application of immigration rules. One cannot profess a faith, whatever it is, and divorce it from one's actions and the effect that they have on family life.
  696
  When the Prime Minister went to Hungary she rightly complained loudly about the treatment of a Scottish person who is not allowed out of that country. Does the Prime Minister know that such treatment is being meted out every day of the week at entry clearance ports here, and overseas? How can the Prime Minister make such complaints when every day such offensive treatment is being meted out to fiancés and elderly relatives in Britain and elsewhere in a manner that she so rightly condemns behind the iron curtain? We are offering Her Majesty's subjects these continuing humiliations, and I hope that the whole House will condemn that.
  There is discrimination in the way in which visitors are treated when they arrive here. A recently published Church of England document about the case of Lucille Andrews, a British-born Jamaican married to James Brown, a pastor in the Pentecostal church, shows that he was refused permission even to come and visit his wife or her family here because the entry clearance officer, having read Mr. Brown's letters to his wife, decided that they were not sufficiently affectionate.
  There are no circumstances in which the Minister would allow his letters to his wife, intimate love letters, to be read by an official. That being so, he has no right to allow anybody else's letters to be read in such circumstances. If the Minister wishes to defend such a disgraceful state of affairs, let him get up and do so. That was not an exceptional case. I could cite others. It is happening every day in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and the West Indies. I regard that behaviour as obscene. It should not be tolerated for five minutes by any British Home Office Minister, yet such incidents are happening all the time.
  White visitors to Britain receive absolutely different treatment from coloured visitors. I have written to the Home Office about what happened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who, 'when returning from Israel in December, was held up for 10 to 15 minutes in a queue of British citizens. When he arrived at the front of the queue he discovered that he had been held up because two of the British citizens happened to be coloured. They were cross-examined and nothing was found to be wrong. After they had gone through, everybody behind them in the queue went through without one question being asked, simply because all the rest were white. Such a thing is a scandal.
  Coming nearer home, as you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, last week I celebrated a wedding in this place, and you were kind enough to attend. Three of my visitors came from Lusaka, New Orleans and Boston. They were allowed in without one question being asked, and that was right. When I arrived home, the details of two urgent cases awaited me. They concerned visitors to families in my constituency who had been refused entry. Another case was presented to me at 1 o'clock one morning; I was telephoned because somebody was to be returned unless a Member of Parliament could be obtained, even in the middle of the night. Those people were in difficulty because they were coloured, and for no other reason.
  That state of affairs is indefensible. I blame not the immigration officers, but Home Office Ministers. They should have made it crystal clear to the immigration officers that the rules of this House, as we pass them, say that there shall be no discrimination of any sort between people of one ethnic origin and another. Yet from experience I can prove that discrimination is occurring all the time.

  697
  No American visitors to this country are asked the sort of questions that coloured people are asked, such as, "Who paid for your ticket?" "Do you know the details of the family you are visiting?" "What does you father do for a living?" and "How much does he earn?" How many American visitors are asked offensive questions such as that? The Home Office knows that the answer is none. If American visitors were asked such questions there would be uproar throughout the land, and rightly so. Those of us who believe that we have some religious basis to our being, to our political being, have every right to complain bitterly about what is happening.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I accept that morally we should probably all endorse the view that everyone should be treated equally. I suggest, however, that the right hon. Gentleman addresses himself to the practical problems that would arise if we allowed people to come to Britain from all over the world and treated them equally, as though they were British. The problem of congestion in this overcrowded island would make life impossible. America, Australia and many other countries do not allow completely free, morally equal entry.
  Mr. Howell: I can speak only for myself; I would not dream of speaking for anyone else. As a constituency Member living in Birmingham and associating closely with those of all ethnic origins, I try to treat everyone equally. I think that we have all tried to do that. I do not agree that there is a case for discrimination.
  Two years ago I went to Pakistan with more than 20 cases in my file, some of which I had been dealing with for four to five years. I travelled from Islamabad to Morappur. Some of those whom I wanted to meet had been sent back to Morappur. I was able to clear up 75 per cent. of the problems in the cases that had been held up for four to five years. Surely something must be terribly wrong when a Member has to travel to Morappur to make progress with these applications.
  In one instance a lady had been refused entry into Britain to join her husband because she had told the immigration officer that it took four hours to walk from her village to the post office to collect his letters. The immigration authorities would not believe her and they would not go to the village. My companions and I went to the village and when I spoke to the head people of Morappur they said, "Come outside and we shall show you." We were taken up a hill and we looked across the valley. The lady used to walk only a short distance to the post office, but after the building of the Bangla dam and the filling of the lake she had had to walk for four hours around the lake to collect her husband's letters. She had spoken the gospel truth. Why was it necessary for a British Member of Parliament to go there to ascertain the truth? Why was it not possible for the issue to be dealt with by those on the spot? They knew perfectly well that the case was genuine.
  Mr. Budgen rose——
  Mr. Howell: No, I shall not give way.
  Secondly, the application of one of my constituents, a Mr. Ralph, for his twins to come to Britain was refused on the ground that they were not identical. Blood tests and other tests were carried out. I saw the twins when I went
  698
  to Pakistan and I saw the people from their village. The case continued for almost another two years after my return until I discovered that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was to go to Islamabad. When he was there—I am grateful to him for this—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): I was not there.
  Mr. Howell: I thought that the hon. Gentleman went there. It must have been another Foreign Office Minister. During the Minister's brief visit, I arranged for the head people of the village, the schoolteachers who educated the children and even the midwife who delivered the children into the world to present themselves. The teachers brought along the children's school records. This assembly took place in the Minister's presence. He left and went on to Bangladesh and thereafter he was amazed to learn that the twins had not been granted an entry clearance certificate. It took almost another year for the certificate to be granted. At the end of the day the officials even tried to say that mysteriously a file had turned up on the father, a constituent of mine, and that he had been found to be an illegal immigrant.
  Mr. Budgen rose——
  Mr. Howell: That was proved not to be the case. I give those two examples from my experience. They are both accurate. I shall allow the Minister to intervene if he wishes to do so.
  Mr. Whitney: The veracity of the right hon. Gentleman's identification that I made those village visits is almost on the level of most of his other statements. He knows very well——
  Mr. Howell: I did not say that.
  Mr. Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman did. The House is aware that I was invited to suggest that I was making a village visit. The right hon. Gentleman will know also that the entry clearance officers and immigration staff regularly visit the villages. Frequently, we must point out the errors in the right hon. Gentleman's letters to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  Mr. Howell: I invite the Under-Secretary of State to give evidence of any errors I have made. I did not say he was going on a village visit. Obviously, his mind is closed. I said that during his visit to the embassy at Islamabad, I arranged for those families——
  Mr. Whitney rose——
  Mr. Howell: Just a minute. During his visit to the embassy at Islamabad, I arranged for those families to see him. I am glad that he and his officials saw them. I can produce the letters in which the Under-Secretary of State said he saw those people, and then went on to Bangladesh.
  Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me another opportunity to clarify the position. I make it clear to him that I have never visited Islamabad in my capacity as the Minister. He has got that and many other matters wrong.
  Mr. Howell: Is the Under-Secretary of State saying that he did not recently visit Islamabad?
  Mr. Whitney: Yes.
  Mr. Howell: I am absolutely confounded. Since I went to see him about the case— [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's words will be carefully examined against the letters he wrote to me about the case I have been pressing. Does he allege that I have not been corresponding with him about that case? The hon. Gentleman is rightly not saying anything.
  In referring to appeals procedures, I take up the points of some of my hon. Friends who correctly say that our present system of control is unsatisfactory. The Home Secretary and the Minister of State, Home Office—two Ministers with knowledge of legal matters—know that the use of immigration tribunals or any other tribunal in this case would be unacceptable to any court of law. The people who prepare the statements are unavailable for examination or cross-examination, and we do not have full accounts of the interviews. I urge Ministers to look carefully into that system. Some of my hon. Friends have rightly said that tape recordings would go a long way towards removing many difficulties and misunderstandings and would enable us to reach a proper judgment. As the Home Office is now providing tape recorded evidence of interviews in this country—in cases in which people are suspected—it is reasonable to ask the Minister of State, Home Office to extend that practice.
  Adjudicators ought not to be appointed and paid by the Home Office, as at present, but should be under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Birmingham lawyers feel strongly about the relationship between the adjudicators and the Home Office representatives. I am told that on one occasion an adjudicator was found to be playing backgammon with Home Office representatives. I do not wish to cast doubt automatically, but such practices should not operate in our immigration tribunals.
  I shall write to the Home Secretary about that matter. When I was preparing for the debate, the information was given to me by respected solicitors in Birmingham that in the interval between cases adjudicators who should not be doing so were associated much too closely in the building with Home Office officials who permanently represented the Home Office's point of view. That is why I am sure that the Home Secretary and the Minister will agree that it is important that any tribunal should be seen to be fair, and the practice under which it operates should be fair.
  We tabled the motion because the Government's immigration policy is causing great harm to their community relations policy. People who sit on police liaison committees, particularly Asians who are doing their best to promote harmony and to behave helpfully and constructively, are becoming more distressed by the cases that come up and the difficulties that are created for members of their community.
  Why cannot we accept a system of guarantees? I have used guarantees in the years that I have represented Birmingham. I should like to make a non-controversial, helpful and constructive point. I understand the difficulties. All of us are trying to find a way out. If we could accept guarantees, especially for visitors, from members of the community who are not likely to go away, that would go a long way towards removing many of the problems.
  However, we must press the motion to a vote because there can be no doubt that the operation of the existing
  700
  rules is increasingly causing offence to British citizens. All our citizens are entitled to be treated equally before the law in accordance with the moral precepts of this country.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Waddington: This has been an important debate, in which useful points have been made. I shall try to deal as quickly as possible with some of them.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) complained that some of his constituents were having to wait for five to 10 years to be reunited with their families. I emphasise that those are cases in which the claimed relationship has not been accepted. When those people's cases have been rejected by entry clearance officers, they have then availed themselves of their right of appeal, and the cases have been turned down on appeal.
  The hon. Gentleman will know the difficulty with which we are now faced. For instance, in Bangladesh half the people in the non-priority queue are reapplicants. A high proportion of those reapplicants are those who admit that they made false statements in support of their original applications. The entry clearance officers find it difficult to assess whether those people are now telling the truth when they admit that previously they told lies.
  As I mentioned, we have an appeals system. We live in an imperfect world, but can one devise a better system in an imperfect world than an initial decision by an entry clearance officer followed by the right of appeal to an impartial adjudicator? The hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as trivial discrepancies relied upon by entry clearance officers. The flavour of the interviews can best be obtained by reading some of the determinations of adjudicators. One does not often find trivial discrepancies relied upon any more than one finds such trivial discrepancies described in the letters that I often write to hon. Members setting out the reasons for decisions.
  In reply to an intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that he would like there to be more field trips. I have been on some of them, and I acknowledge that they can be useful. They are also enormously time-consuming, because often they prove abortive. However, we have taken the point on board.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned an invitation to Oldham. I have not declined the invitation. I have invited the group in question to come to see me. However. I shall certainly look at the correspondence again. I spend much of my time addressing such groups in various parts of the country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said that he was glad that the waiting time for families had been reduced. We must all welcome that. It is partly due to the fact that we have recently increased our staff at the high commission in Dhaka.
  The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said that it was wrong to place the burden on the husband or fiancé who was applying for entry clearance. I cannot agree. The husband or fiancé is claiming the valuable right to come here, and it is surely reasonable to expect him to establish that right.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned a constituent whose marriage had broken down and who was having to leave this country. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Labour Government introduced the first safeguards in 1977, they brought in the rule that, if a marriage broke down during the first year, the man would lose his right

  701
  to remain. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's constituent is caught by a rule introduced not by this Government, but by the Labour Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) mentioned the extensive rights in the hands of people who wanted to come or stay here. He is right, particularly if he is referring to the appeals system.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said that the number of people who came here last year was insignificant — 14,000 from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. The hon. Gentleman was wrong. Last year, 27,600 were accepted for settlement here from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan.
  Mr. Alton rose——
  Mr. Waddington: I do not have time to give way. We will check it afterwards.
  We accepted for settlement last year 53,500 people from all over the world. Of those, 52 per cent. were from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. One may think that that figure is too large or not large enough, but it is certainly not insignificant.
  The hon. Member for Mossley Hill spoke of the contribution made by ethnic minorities to our society. He was right to do so, and I agree with what he said. I delight at the fact that ever more members of those minorities are becoming enmeshed in the fabric of our society and are playing a larger role.
  I was addressing myself to the motion, which is more than the hon. Gentleman was when he mentioned nationality fees. I cannot deal with that subject tonight. He said that people were increasingly held in detention at our airports. That is not correct. The reverse is the case. Many more are granted temporary permission to enter the country than was the case before 1979.
  I know the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) for the ethnic minorities in his constituency, but we have to ask how many more people would come here if we drastically reduced the rules on husbands and grandparents.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) talked about granting the right of entry to the larger family, and he claimed that we were being stingy in granting it only to the nuclear family. I cannot accept that. It would be unreasonable to expect us, when we are accepting comparatively large numbers for settlement, to allow members of a much enlarged family unit also to come here.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow made an important point when he said that people arriving at London airport are often tired after a long overnight journey. I think that that is why we often hear stories of unfair questions being asked of immigrants. When a person arrives after that sort of journey he is not very tolerant about being questioned at all.
  I will look in to the case of the squadron leader that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), although I gather that all is now well. The squadron leader was applying for the right to have the entitlement to abode stamp on his passport. We must try to check his files at Lunar house.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that I should explain what we are doing about the
  702
  queues. We are doing something about them. That is why we have increased the staff in Bangladesh. The hon. Gentleman said that he knew of families who had been waiting for two to three years to have interviews. That is simply not correct. Even in Bangladesh the waiting time for interviews is 20 months.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said that there were fewer refusals to applications from the Old Commonwealth. There are, because the immigration pressures are coming from the New Commonwealth. We all know that, and that is why the refusal rate is larger there.
  I apologise to my hon. Friends for not being able to reply to all their points.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
  The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 274.

  Division No. 181]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dewar, Donald

  Alton, David

  Dixon, Donald

  Anderson, Donald

  Dobson, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dormand, Jack

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dubs, Alfred

  Ashton, Joe

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Eastham, Ken

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpfn SE)

  Barnett, Guy

  Ellis, Raymond

  Barron, Kevin

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beith, A. J.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blair, Anthony

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Fisher, Mark

  Boyes, Roland

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

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

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  George, Bruce

  Buchan, Norman

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Golding, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gourlay, Harry

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Cartwright, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Thomas

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Clay, Robert

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Haynes, Frank

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Coleman, Donald

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Corbett, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cowans, Harry

  Howells, Geraint

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Simon (Southward)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  John, Brynmor

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Deakins, Eric

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Lambie, David

  McCartney, Hugh

  Lamond, James

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Leadbitter, Ted

  McGuire, Michael

  Leighton, Ronald

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  McKelvey, William

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  703

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooker, J. W.

  McTaggart, Robert

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marek, Dr John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maxton, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Soley, Clive

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Stott, Roger

  Nellist, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Straw, Jack

  O'Brien, William

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Patchett, Terry

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tinn, James

  Pendry, Tom

  Torney, Tom

  Penhaligon, David

  Wallace, James

  Pike, Peter

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert

  Prescott, John

  Weetch, Ken

  Radice, Giles

  Welsh, Michael

  Randall, Stuart

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Redmond, M.

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Rees, Rt Hon M. ("Leeds S)

  Wilson, Gordon

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Winnick, David

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robertson, George

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Mr. John McWilliam.

  Rogers, Allan

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Forman, Nigel

  Alexander, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Ancram, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Ashby, David

  Fox, Marcus

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Freeman, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fry, Peter

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Gale, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Galley, Roy

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bottom ley, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Gorst, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gow, Ian

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Greenway, Harry

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gregory, Conal

  Budgen, Nick

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

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grist, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grylls, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Colvin, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Conway, Derek

  Hannam, John

  Coombs, Simon

  Harris, David

  Cope, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Corrie, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hawksley, Warren

  Dover, Denshore

  Hayes, J.

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Evennett, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Heddle, John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Henderson, Barry

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  704

  Hickmet, Richard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hicks, Robert

  Needham, Richard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hill, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Newton, Tony

  Hirst, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Normanton, Tom

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Norris, Steven

  Holt, Richard

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Hooson, Tom

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hordern, Peter

  Osborn, Sir John

  Howard, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

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

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Parris, Matthew

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, Barry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irving, Charles

  Powley, John

  Jackson, Robert

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Jessel, Toby

  Raffan, Keith

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Renton, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knowles, Michael

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lamont, Norman

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Lang, Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Latham, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Rost, Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lester, Jim

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lilley, Peter

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Luce, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shersby, Michael

  McCrindle, Robert

  Silvester, Fred

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Sims, Roger

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maclean, David John.

  Speller, Tony

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

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Malins, Humfrey

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stern, Michael

  Maples, John

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Marland, Paul

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mather, Carol

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stokes, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Mellor, David

  Tapsell, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thorne, Neil (llford S)

  Moore, John

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  705

  Tracey, Richard

  Watts, John

  Trippier, David

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Trotter, Neville

  Wheeler, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Whitfield, John

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Whitney, Raymond

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Waddington, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Woodcock, Michael

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walker, Bill (Tside N)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Ward, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Mr. David Hunt &

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Watson, John

  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 265, Noes 176.

  Division No. 182]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Alexander, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Ancram, Michael

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Ashby, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Greenway, Harry

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gregory, Conal

  Bellingham, Henry

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

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Grist, Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Ground, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hannam,John

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harris, David

  Budgen, Nick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Butcher, John

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayes, J.

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hayward, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Conway, Derek

  Heddle, John

  Coombs, Simon

  Henderson, Barry

  Cope, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Corrie, John

  Hickmet, Richard

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hicks, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hill, James

  Dover, Denshore

  Hind, Kenneth

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Hirst, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Holt, Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Hooson, Tom

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Hordern, Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Howard, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

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

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Forth, Eric

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Fox, Marcus

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Fry, Peter

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Gale, Roger

  Irving, Charles

  Galley, Roy

  Jackson, Robert

  706

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Raffan, Keith

  Jessel, Toby

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Renton, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Knowles, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knox, David

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lang, Ian

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ryder, Richard

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lester, Jim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Luce, Richard

  Silvester, Fred

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Speller, Tony

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Maclean, David John.

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

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

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Madel, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Major, John

  Stern, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Malone, Gerald

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stokes, John

  Mather, Carol

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Sumberg, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mellor, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Merchant, Piers

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thorne, Neil (llford S)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moate, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Moore, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Trippier, David

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Trotter, Neville

  Murphy, Christopher

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  van Straubenzee, SirW.

  Needham, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Waddington, David

  Newton, Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Normanton, Tom

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steven

  Walker, Bill (Tside N)

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Ward, John

  Osborn, Sir John

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Warren, Kenneth

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Watson, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Watts, John

  Parris, Matthew

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Wheeler, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Whitfield, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Whitney, Raymond

  Pollock, Alexander

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Porter, Barry

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Powley, John

  Woodcock, Michael

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Yeo, Tim

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  707

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Mr. David Hunt and

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Alton, David

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fisher, Mark

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Fiannery, Martin

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Barnett, Guy

  George, Bruce

  Barron, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Golding, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Gould, Bryan

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gourlay, Harry

  Blair, Anthony

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hardy, Peter

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

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

  Haynes, Frank

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

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Buchan, Norman

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ian

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Howells, Geraint

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clay, Robert

  John, Brynmor

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cohen, Harry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Coleman, Donald

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Lambie, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Lamond, James

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cowans, Harry

  Leighton, Ronald

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Crowther, Stan

  Loyden, Edward

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McCartney, Hugh

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  McGuire, Michael

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

  McKelvey, William

  Deakins, Eric

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Dewar, Donald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dixon, Donald

  McTaggart, Robert

  Dobson, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Dormand, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Dubs, Alfred

  Marek, Dr John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Eastham, Ken

  Maxton, John

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

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Ellis, Raymond

  Meacher, Michael

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Fatchett, Derek

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Faulds, Andrew

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  708

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Nellist, David

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, William

  Soley, Clive

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Spearing, Nigel

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Patchett, Terry

  Stott, Roger

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Strang, Gavin

  Pendry, Tom

  Straw, Jack

  Penhaligon, David

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Pike, Peter

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Prescott, John

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Randall, Stuart

  Tinn, James

  Redmond, M.

  Torney, Tom

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Wallace, James

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wareing, Robert

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Weetch, Ken

  Robertson, George

  Welsh, Michael

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Wilson, Gordon

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Winnick, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forrthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House believes that the operation of the Immigration Rules provides the right basis for a firm and fair immigration control which combines a necessary scrutiny of entitlement to settle here with respect and support for family life and proper treatment of visitors to this country.

  Immigration Rules

    SOMERSET HOUSE BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Question agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      AGRICULTURE
      That the Grants for Guarantees of Bank Loans (Extension of Period) Order 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th February, be approved. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
      Question agreed to.

  St. Mary Overy Wharf
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the intended demolition of St. Mary Overy wharf in the borough of Southwark in my constituency. I am only sad that the occasion that allows this debate to take place is the illness of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). At short notice he was unable to raise the matter that had been listed for the Adjournment tonight.
  The demolition of the St. Mary Overy wharf was a matter that I had sought the leave of Mr. Speaker to debate as a matter of considerable urgency because the wharf will be demolished within weeks, if not days, unless the Secretary of State changes his mind.
  I shall begin by describing the wharf and its historic importance and the circumstances leading to today, the nature of my application to debate the matter and my request to the Secretary of State to change his mind.
  About a mile downstream from here on the opposite bank of the Thames is the oldest settlement south of the river—that part of the other side of the crossing that was originally by ford and later by bridge—the south side of London bridge. In early days Southwark—then in the county of Surrey—became a borough, and in 1295 it had become recognised as having a site of historic importance. The ancient and important priory of St. Mary Overy was built at that ford on the bank of the Thames. A trade grew up around the site which, in the middle ages, dealt in some things that we would not mention too often in this place. It was a place of entertainment for people leaving the city. It was the site of the Globe and other theatres and of bear and bull baiting. It was therefore a natural site in the last century for the construction of buildings with the newly arrived industrial and trading position of London. The port developed and its heyday, as the port of London, was at the end of the last century.
  Over 100 years ago—1882–83—St. Mary Overy wharf was constructed beside the Thames, adjacent to where Southwark Cathedral now is, adjacent to the site of the palace of the bishops of Winchester and of the clink prison. That is the prison that gave its name to the phrase, "In the clink." People often use the phrase without realising where it originated.
  Anyone who has been to that side of the river will realise that it has one of the most impressive townscapes in London, if not of any river or dockside in the country. The building constructed in 1882—83 was designed by George A. Dunnage, ARIBA. I describe the building in the way that the inspector who conducted the public inquiry three years ago did. He found as a fact that
  "the east and north facades facing the dock and river are elaborately detailed and are unlike others on the Thames. The south and west facades to the cathedral and Clink Street have more austere detailing. The building has eight floors including an attic and basement, with the ground floor raised above road level. A stair tower at the south-west corner rises above roof level."
  St. Mary Overy wharf, like the buildings and the wharves at right angles to it along the river, only three years ago was found to be
  "in a reasonable structural condition for its age and structurally sound in the main."
  710
  There is no doubt that the building could survive and be refurbished if that were allowed.
  The inspector continued:
  "The wharves along the river frontage of the site are prominent when viewed from the bridges to the west and east and from the river and north bank between the bridges. On the landward side, views are confined by the railway viaduct to the west and south and by solid cathedral to the east."
  Indeed, to this day one can look down on the wharf from the railway line coming out of Waterloo or Charing Cross as it approaches London Bridge station. So important is the site that several years ago it was listed as a conservation area of particilar importance in the borough of Southwark. The area encompasses not only the wharf but the adjacent St. Mary Overy dock and the buildings round it. Since then many publications have been issued drawing attention to the importance of the site, which is now on the route of the Silver Jubilee walkway. On official guides and maps of London, the wharf and the dock are mentioned as buildings of particular importance.
  The wharf overlooks a dock that remains to this day a place into which the tide flows in and out. The site was the subject of various planning applications made by the then prospective developers, European Ferries, at the beginning of this decade. Among the applications made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, one application was for consent to demolish what was by then a grade 2 listed building, designated as such by the Secretary of State for the Environment only a couple of years earlier.
  As a result of the local authority's refusal to accept that the building should be demolished, a public inquiry was held from 30 June until 27 August 1981. The inspector reported to the Secretary of State, who issued his decision. The letter containing his decision bears the date 19 August 1982. Several schemes were the subject of interrelated planning applications, but I shall not confuse hon. Members. I shall concentrate on the one that would have involved the demolition of the St. Mary Overy wharf.
  The inspector approved the scheme in general terms, and recommended that it be granted planning permission. However, the inspector did not recommend—indeed, specifically opposed—the demolition of the St. Mary Overy wharf. That decision was later reversed by the Secretary of State on the basis of the plan then put forward. However, it is because the plan has recently changed in one of its fundamental concepts that I believe it to be an appropriate subject for debate tonight.
  In his report to the Secretary of State, the inspector wrote:
  "In my opinion, St. Mary Overy wharf fully merits inclusion in the list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest and the incorrect attribution of the building to George Dunning rather than George Dunnage in the listing description does not detract from its merits. It is an imposing building in a prominent location and, although at present dirty and dilapidated, will, if cleaned and repaired, reveal a wealth of colourful detail in a Queen Anne revival style. It is the only warehouse fronting the Thames which displays so wide a range of the eclectic detailing which typifies the style, while the more austere landward facades complement those of other earlier warehouses in Clink street. The internal structure, while of interest as an integral part of the building, does not in my view contain features which are of sufficient intrinsic value to merit preservation in their own right. The wharf is one of a tightly-knit group of Victorian warehouses, and the combination of tall buildings and narrow streets imparts an ambiance to the area which vividly captures the character of the riverside commerce of Victorian London. The Greater London Council, the Victorian Society, Save and others have in

  711
  my view rightly extolled the special townscape value of the area and the important contribution which it makes to the character and appearance of the wider outstanding conservation area."
  The inspector went on to refer to the representations made to him by Save Britain's Heritage, the Royal Fine Art Commission and others, but that is why he said that the building should stay. He said that the proposal to demolish the listed building would remove a building that was making a very significant contribution to an outstanding conservation area. He concluded that the advantages did not override the strong presumption in favour of the preservation of the listed building.
  The Secretary of State considered that and overruled a decision that he had made only a year or two before, thereby setting a precedent. The Secretary of State said:
  "While recognising the intrinsic merits of St. Mary Overy wharf as a listed building and the contribution that this warehouse and the neighbouring wharves collectively make to the character of the conservation area, the Secretary of State feels that the argument for retaining this building must be weighed against the very considerable advantages that would accrue from the implementation of the scheme described above."
  A fundamental part of that scheme was that the Discovery would be moored there. That was the ship in which Scott went to the south pole and which for many years has been part of London's heritage on the Thames. That nationally known and internationally recognized historic vessel was to have been an integral part of the site. Of late, it is clear that that vessel will go with other historic vessels to St. Katherine's dock on the other side of the river. The Maritime Society and other interest groups have supported the change of plans that takes the Discovery from where it might have been to St. Katherine's dock.
  Instead of a vessel dating from the beginning of the century with particular links with London, a vessel which was laid up in the East India dock for many years before the last war and which was handed over to the London division of the Royal Naval Reserve, visible to everyone who went up and down the Thames, it is proposed to install a schooner, the Kathleen and May — no doubt an historic vessel—which has no links with London. That vessel took cement and coal between Oban, the Channel Islands and the Irish ports.
  I understand that any smaller vessel than the Discovery does not require the dock to be widened to accommodate it as part of the scheme. When the change of plan was discovered, the relevant bodies associated with planning and restrictions, such as local borough councils, the GLC and all the interest bodies, complained. Some have written to the Secretary of State asking him to think again. The Victorian Society wrote to the Under-Secretary only a fortnight ago. It said:
  "I attach a letter to Neil McFarlane concerning the destruction of St. Mary Overy wharf. It is a shocking case and we do hope that you will ask a question in the House about it. We would be happy to give you further assistance."
  The society is worried that the Discovery will not now be moored there. The Society states:
  "The necessary spoilation of the unique dockland area represents an affront to the enlightened approach to historic buildings embodied in recent legislation."
  I accept that all that I can do tonight is seek to persuade the Secretary of State, through the Minister, not to revoke planning permission for the scheme and not to do anything that will detract from what has been agreed, and has the Secretary of State's approval, for the bulk of the scheme. The wharf is a small part of the total scheme.
  The Secretary of State should think again whether it is necessary to demolish the wharf. My argument, and that
  712
  of many interest groups and others concerned with London's heritage, is that it is not. It would be a relief to them, and a great development in terms of the conservation of important buildings, if the Minister, now that one of the integral parts of the scheme as proposed has changed, would be brave and enlightened enough to think again. To do so would not detract from the potential benefit of the scheme that he saw when he gave planning permission and overruled the inspector two years ago. More important, it would deal with the unusual precedent that has been set by the Secretary of State of listing a building and then agreeing to the listing being taken away.
  Planners and developers are concerned about the change of plan. The building had been listed and all the factors concerned with planning gain and so on had been taken into account. It was decided that a specific building must override those factors because of its importance and be retained, irrespective of the merits of the rest of the scheme. That has now happened. However, the scheme when proposed, was regarded by the Secretary of State as being of benefit.
  The changed proposal was the result of an agreement and, later, of approval by the Secretary of State which was general in its nature in that it did not specify that the Discovery had to go there. It permitted a considerable variation from what I believe the Secretary of State contemplated at the time and certainly what the inspector and the public expected to happen. We have an opportunity tonight and in the coming few days, without detracting from the commercial, recreational and other benefits that the Secretary of State saw, to think again and reverse the decision on this building.
  I accept that there might have to be some relatively small payment in damages to the developers. However, I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State must say, "I am revoking planning permission." He could vary the consent and say, "It is not now necessary, unless you can satisfy me that the Discovery or a vessel of equal national importance will be going there, that we should lose this important building."
  An hour ago I came past the splendid building standing on the riverside casting its shadow on the Thames. The building has been there for 100 years. It is part of a particularly historic part of our city. It would be nothing less than a tragedy if, unnecessarily, it were now pulled down. The Secretary of State is the only person with the power to stop its demolition and so enhance the conservation of our heritage along the Thames. I beseech the Secretary of State, on behalf of thousands of people, of our city and of the nation, to think again.
  10.43 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The House will wish me to extend a sympathy to the hon. Friend of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), for the fact that he is ill and unable to initiate his Adjournment debate. We wish him a speedy recovery and a full return to the House as soon as possible.
  The historic appraisal which the hon. Gentleman has given coincides with my understanding of the background to this important decision, which was made some years ago. I congratulate him on his grasp of the subject and the clear account he gave of how he sees the situation and the problems that affect his constituents.

  713
  I must point out at the outset that the location of historic vessels is not a prime planning matter for me. Most of these ancient vessels are owned by the National Maritime Trust, and the Discovery was not an integral part of the planning application, merely a possible idea. The Secretary of State's decision, therefore, does not, nor did it, depend on that detail, and it cannot be construed as a condition of the planning permissions or of those listed building consents which were given three or four years ago. At that time we confirmed support for the idea of a historic ship, the RMS Discovery or another, being berthed at the St. Mary Overy dock. It was not an integral part of the planning application. That must be put on the record fairly, straightforwardly and clearly. I am happy to note that the hon. Gentleman quoted the Victorian Society, for which I have endless admiration for the good and great works that it does. I shall make it my business to study its submission to my Department as quickly as possible.
  The hon. Gentleman has given a clear account of his concerns over the developments now taking place in the vicinity of St. Mary Overy dock, which comprises part of his constituency. The developments follow planning decisions made by the Secretary of State in August 1982. I shall come to those decisions shortly but, first, I shall make one or two general points.
  There are clearly limits to what it is both appropriate and useful to discuss on the merits of particular decisions taken by my right hon. Friend from time to time. Planning decisions are taken quasi-judicially by the Secretary of State, commonly following on a public local inquiry, and on the basis of the inspector's report. Such a report takes into account the representations of the interested parties both for and against the particular proposals which have been submitted.
  I must inevitably reiterate largely what is already known and published in the inspector's report and the subsequent decision letter. The appraisal in some detail of to decision letter is forbidden this evening because of constraints of time. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the letter of 19 August 1982. Certain paragraphs can be quoted as one sees fit, depending on which side of the argument one is. The decision letter and the inspector's report are as they should be. There are occasions—the St. Mary Overy proposals are an example—when my right hon. Friend does not agree with the inspector's view. It is well known that a decision to disagree with an inspector is not taken lightly or without careful consideration of all the factors.
  Once a decision is taken, there are statutory periods when my right hon. Friend's decision can be challenged in law if it is thought that he has erred. Those periods have long expired in this instance and no notice of such a motion was served.
  Mr. Simon Hugh rose——
  Mr. Macfarlane: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he took the better part of 18 minutes out of the debate and if he wants a full reply I am more than happy to continue. The debate is limited to 30 minutes but, if he insists, I shall give way.
  Mr. Hughes: I merely ask the Minister to confirm that the change in relation to the vessels was subsequent to any potential appeal time limit.
  Mr. Macfarlane: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's attention was distracted. None of the original planning applications was an integral part of and dependent upon the location of the vessels. If he considers that he has been harshly dealt with, I shall write to him to confirm what I have said. If he reads fully the report of the debate that will appear tomorrow, he will understand what I am saying. It is important to understand that the time for appeal has expired and that no notice of such a motion was served by any of the interested parties upon my Department. The main issues centred on whether certain listed buildings and other non-listed buildings in a conservation area should be retained or demolished to allow new development to take place.
  St. Mary Overy dock is a narrow inlet on the south bank of the Thames between London bridge and the railway bridge serving Cannon street station. It dates back to medieval times contemporary with Winchester palace, of which little, alas, remains. St. Mary Overy wharf, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, is located alongside the dock and fronts the Thames, Clink street and Cathedral street. The building was designed by George A. Dunnage and built in 1882 when London was a thriving port of Europe and of the world. It is an eight-storey building, including a basement and an attic with a stair tower rising above roof level. The dockside and riverside facades are ornate, with considerable modelling and much use of constrasting brickwork.
  The building was listed as grade 2 and has long been disused. It has been left open on many occasions and has suffered two fires, the first of which removed the northern part of the roof.
  In 1978, European Ferries Ltd. acquired the site from the previous owners, the proprietors of Hays wharf. The previous owners had held discussions over 10 years with the London borough of Southwark on the redevelopment potential of the site. I give this history to show the long period when the area was largely in decline. The entire area has been in decline for the better part of a century.
  The owners made applications to the London borough of Southwark for listed building consent to demolish St. Mary Overy wharf and other adjacent wharves. Those applications were not determined by the council, and the owners appealed to the Secretary of State. They appealed also against the refusal by the London borough of Southwark to permit demolition and alteration of existing warehouses, the erection of a mixed development of offices, a museum and other uses, and alterations to St. Mary Overy dock. That became known as scheme A. It is important to touch on that point. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has done his homework on that study and knows what I mean by scheme A. He understands the decision letter of 19 August 1982, and has closely studied it on behalf of his constituents. This matter requires some understanding, because when looking through the back papers, the files and the complicated procedure, it is important to know precisely about what one is talking and the permutations of each of the schemes.
  The matter was compounded, because the owners made four further applications to the London borough of Southwark for planning permission — one for the refurbishment of St. Mary Overy wharf and four other adjacent wharves, and, in addition, the complication of the demolition of two wharves and the erection of offices. We are dealing with an additional scheme, known as scheme B. As though that were not enough to comprehend, three

  715
  more applications sought listed building consent, either to demolition of or alterations to listed buildings, including St. Mary Overy wharf.
  That is the complicated background of schemes A and B and three further applications. Hon. Members will understand the complexity of this matter.
  The Secretary of State, using powers under section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1972, called in those four applications for his decision and arranged for a public local inquiry into them and the appeals already made. That inquiry opened in June 1981 — a considerable time ago. That is another complexity. These decisions have largely been made, and the whole subject was thoroughly appraised by the interested parties.
  Following the public local inquiry, the inspector reported to the Secretary of State. He recommended, first, that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission should be granted in respect of scheme A—the hon. Gentleman touched on that point—secondly, that the appeals in respect of the demolition of St. Mary Overy wharf and four other wharves should be dismissed and listed building consent should be refused; thirdly, that the application for listed building consent to demolish the majority of St. Mary Overy wharf should be refused; fourthly, that the application for planning permission in respect of scheme B should be refused; fifthly, that the application for listed building consent for the demolition of two other wharves and for the alteration of St. Mary Overy wharf should be granted.
  In arriving at those recommendations the inspector in his conclusions said:
  "Scheme A has considerable advantages but the proposal entails the demolition of a listed building and other buildings which make a very significant contribution to an outstanding conservation area. The advantages do not in my view override the strong presumption in favour of the preservation of the listed building."
  The listed building to which he referred is St. Mary Overy wharf.
  716
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took a different view. In the letter conveying his decisions, the reasons are clearly stated. I repeat those points, emphasising the theme in my own words. My right hon. Friend recognised that this site played an important role in the life and economy of central London, close to the City and London bridge station. Early regeneration of the site is of the utmost importance to provide employment opportunities and to halt progressive decay and dereliction. He agreed with the inspector's recommendation that scheme A should be permitted, that the mix of uses proposed was appropriate, taking full advantage of the riverside potential, and that the design was acceptable and sympathetic to the general surroundings. He recognised also the intrinsic merits of the grade 2 listed St. Mary Overy wharf and the four other unlisted wharves in the conservation area.
  It was, however, necessary to weigh the advantages in conservation terms against the benefits that would be derived from the implementation of the redevelopment proposals. These benefits would include the general enhancement of the riverside environment, the improved presentation of the remains of Winchester palace, the enlivening of the area for tourists and the general public and the general suitability of the mix of development proposed.
  In the light of those factors, my right hon. Friend concluded that the proposals offered opportunities and advantages of a nature and scale sufficient to justify overriding the normal presumption in favour of the preservation of the listed building. Accordingly—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY
  Nuclear Fusion
  Nuclear Fusion
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Energy Programme
  Energy Programme
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Juries
  Juries
  Public Record Office
  Public Record Office
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Mr. Duncan Campbell
  Mr. Duncan Campbell
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Drug Squads
  Drug Squads
  Defective Tyres (Prosecutions)
  Defective Tyres (Prosecutions)
  Police (Initial Recruitment Test)
  Police (Initial Recruitment Test)
  Sizewell B Inquiry
  Sizewell B Inquiry
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Sentencing Policy
  Sentencing Policy
  Police Manpower
  Police Manpower
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  British Nationality (Fees)
  British Nationality (Fees)
  Representation of the People Acts (Consultation Papers)
  Representation of the People Acts (Consultation Papers)
PRIME MINISTER
  Public Sector Tenants Exchange
  Public Sector Tenants Exchange
  Student Nurses
  Student Nurses
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Society of Friends
  Society of Friends
  Scott Lithgow
  Scott Lithgow
  Electricity Council
  Electricity Council
  Oman University Contract
  Oman University Contract
  Middle East
  Middle East
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Government Programmes (Local Support)
  Government Programmes (Local Support)
  Postal Service (Efficiency)
  Postal Service (Efficiency)
  Scottish Office (Correspondence)
  Scottish Office (Correspondence)
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Blessingwell Ltd.
  Blessingwell Ltd.
  Steel Industry (West Midlands)
  Steel Industry (West Midlands)
  Home-produced Steel
  Home-produced Steel
  A320 Airbus
  A320 Airbus
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Banks (Recognition)
  Banks (Recognition)
  BP (Directors)
  BP (Directors)
  Gratuities (Taxation)
  Gratuities (Taxation)
  Motability (Car Tax)
  Motability (Car Tax)
  Accounts (Investigation)
  Accounts (Investigation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Change of Status)
  Schools (Change of Status)
  Adult Training Strategy
  Adult Training Strategy
  Fast Electronic Switching Devices (Research)
  Fast Electronic Switching Devices (Research)
  Letcombe Laboratory (Closure)
  Letcombe Laboratory (Closure)
  Heriot-Watt University
  Heriot-Watt University
  Pharmacy Teaching
  Pharmacy Teaching
  School Meals Census
  School Meals Census
  Royal Forest of Dean Grammar School
  Royal Forest of Dean Grammar School
  Unemployed Adults (Education)
  Unemployed Adults (Education)
  Foreign Languages
  Foreign Languages
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Pensions
  Parliamentary Pensions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  GCHQ
  GCHQ
  King George Island
  King George Island
  Trade Unions (Membership)
  Trade Unions (Membership)
  Middle East
  Middle East
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Political Activities
  Political Activities
  Employees (Scotland)
  Employees (Scotland)
  Employees (United Kingdom)
  Employees (United Kingdom)
  Public Criticism (Official Apology)
  Public Criticism (Official Apology)
TRANSPORT
  Buses (Radio Equipment)
  Buses (Radio Equipment)
  Lorry Weights (Bridges)
  Lorry Weights (Bridges)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority
  Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority
  A1 (Wetherby-Dishforth)
  A1 (Wetherby-Dishforth)
  European Community (Frontier Formalities)
  European Community (Frontier Formalities)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Highways (South Yorkshire)
  Highways (South Yorkshire)
  Coal and Coke Imports
  Coal and Coke Imports
  A19 (Repairs)
  A19 (Repairs)
  British Airports Authority (Privatisation)
  British Airports Authority (Privatisation)
  Gatwick Airport
  Gatwick Airport
  Heavy Lorries (London)
  Heavy Lorries (London)
  Roads (Islington)
  Roads (Islington)
THE ARTS
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Ministerial Talks
  Ministerial Talks
  Financial Contributions
  Financial Contributions
ENVIRONMENT
  Housebuilding Bodies (Grants)
  Housebuilding Bodies (Grants)
  Local Authority Audits
  Local Authority Audits
  Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone Levels
  Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone Levels
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Environmental Pollution
  Environmental Pollution
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Local Government Personnel
  Local Government Personnel
  International Conference Centre
  International Conference Centre
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Rate Capping
  Rate Capping
  Housing (Southwark)
  Housing (Southwark)
  Lead in Petrol
  Lead in Petrol
  Lead
  Lead
  Local Authority Debt
  Local Authority Debt
  Sellafield
  Sellafield
  Radioactive Discharges
  Radioactive Discharges
  Housing Revenue Accounts (Surplus)
  Housing Revenue Accounts (Surplus)
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Audits
  Audits
  Exhaust Gases (Catalysts)
  Exhaust Gases (Catalysts)
WALES
  Bridgend Hospital
  Bridgend Hospital
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  British Rail Investment
  British Rail Investment
  Land Reclamation
  Land Reclamation
  Rates (Clwyd)
  Rates (Clwyd)
  Welsh Development Agency (Factory Space)
  Welsh Development Agency (Factory Space)
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  Bronglais Hospital, Aberystwyth
  Bronglais Hospital, Aberystwyth
  Mid-Wales Development Board (Meeting)
  Mid-Wales Development Board (Meeting)
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Under-fives
  Under-fives
  Elderly Persons (Accommodation)
  Elderly Persons (Accommodation)
  Renal Disease
  Renal Disease
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Gwent)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Gwent)
  Dental Courses
  Dental Courses
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Rape Seed (Intervention Costs)
  Rape Seed (Intervention Costs)
  Field Beans
  Field Beans
  Surplus Foodstuffs
  Surplus Foodstuffs
  Agricultural Products
  Agricultural Products
  Less-favoured Areas
  Less-favoured Areas
  Hill Farmers
  Hill Farmers
  Veal
  Veal
  Milk Levy
  Milk Levy
  Animals (Disease Transmission)
  Animals (Disease Transmission)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Salmon (River Esk)
  Salmon (River Esk)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Computerised Information
  Computerised Information
  Maternity Benefits
  Maternity Benefits
  Pregnancy (Drug Hazards)
  Pregnancy (Drug Hazards)
  NHS (Ancillary Staff)
  NHS (Ancillary Staff)
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Specialist Claims Control
  Specialist Claims Control
  Health Funding (Liverpool)
  Health Funding (Liverpool)
  Health Authorities (Audits)
  Health Authorities (Audits)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Ophthalmic Opticians
  Ophthalmic Opticians
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Renal Disease
  Renal Disease
  Consultant Nephrologists
  Consultant Nephrologists
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Husband and Wife Claimants
  Husband and Wife Claimants
  Leeds Eastern Health Authority
  Leeds Eastern Health Authority
  Lassa Fever
  Lassa Fever
  NHS (Privatisation)
  NHS (Privatisation)
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Drug Dependence Units
  Drug Dependence Units
  NHS (Property Sales)
  NHS (Property Sales)
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Overseas Doctors
  Overseas Doctors
  Invalidity Care Allowance
  Invalidity Care Allowance
  Supplementary Pensions
  Supplementary Pensions
  Ambulance Services
  Ambulance Services
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Family Income
  Family Income
  NHS Administrators (Redundancy Scheme)
  NHS Administrators (Redundancy Scheme)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Trainees
  Industrial Trainees
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Manpower Services Commission (Schemes)
  Manpower Services Commission (Schemes)
  Hull Community Action Scheme
  Hull Community Action Scheme
  Disabled Persons (Training)
  Disabled Persons (Training)
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Disabled Persons (Employment)
  Industrial Stoppages
  Industrial Stoppages
  Diving Supervisors
  Diving Supervisors
SCOTLAND
  Under-fives
  Under-fives
  Renal Disease
  Renal Disease
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Heriot-Watt University (Department of Pharmacy)
  Heriot-Watt University (Department of Pharmacy)
  Possilpark, Glasgow
  Possilpark, Glasgow
  Springburn Festival
  Springburn Festival
  NHS (Privatisation)
  NHS (Privatisation)
  Primary Schools (Dundee)
  Primary Schools (Dundee)
  Education (Consultation)
  Education (Consultation)
  Dental Courses
  Dental Courses
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Caledonian MacBrayne
DEFENCE
  Merchant Ships (Charter)
  Merchant Ships (Charter)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Porton Down
  Porton Down
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  HMS Brave
  HMS Brave
  CND (Departmental Staff)
  CND (Departmental Staff)
  Porton Down (Test Volunteers)
  Porton Down (Test Volunteers)
  General Belgrano
  General Belgrano
  Statement on the Defence Estimates
  Statement on the Defence Estimates
  Forces Personnel (Absenteeism)
  Forces Personnel (Absenteeism)
  MoD-ICL 2980 Computer
  MoD-ICL 2980 Computer
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Grants
  Housing Grants
  Association of Local Authorities
  Association of Local Authorities
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Violent Death (Investigations)
  Violent Death (Investigations)
  Licensed Premises
  Licensed Premises
  Licensing Laws (Review)
  Licensing Laws (Review)
  Strip Searches (Prisons)
  Strip Searches (Prisons)
  Gunshot and Bomb Blast Injuries
  Gunshot and Bomb Blast Injuries
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
  Provisional Sinn Fein
  Provisional Sinn Fein
  Renal Disease
  Renal Disease
  Unapproved Roads
  Unapproved Roads
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics

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

Statistics: Basis of Comparisons
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 whether, with a view to giving the House meaningful information, they intend, whenever giving figures which compare one period with another, to rely on constant prices as far as possible rather than, or in addition to, current prices.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the Government presents information in whatever form they think is appropriate in the circumstances. We are, however, committed to drawing up and presenting public expenditure plans primarily in cash.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for the clear enunciation of his reply? That is about as far as I can go. Is the noble Lord aware that I was hoping very much that this House would take the same view as the other place; namely, that on nearly every occasion information of this kind, comparisons, would be given in constant prices and real terms rather than in figures, as measured by a shrinking yardstick, which are not at all meaningful? Does the noble Lord feel that Members of this House should be treated as second-rate citizens in this respect? Is the noble Lord aware that there have been at least two occasions when figures given at current prices have led to the conclusion "more" when at real prices the answer would have been "less"? Is that not unfortunate and likely to be misleading?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, whenever we are asked for information in a particular form we always endeavour to supply it in the form in which it is asked. In our day-to-day lives we conduct our transactions in terms of money of the day. Wages and salaries are paid in terms of money of the day, and goods and services are bought and sold in terms of money of the day. It is perfectly right and proper, therefore, that Government expenditure should be planned on the same thesis. Wherever comparisons are made there is sometimes merit, in statistical terms, in expressing comparisons also in terms of constant prices, and this is in fact extensively done.
May I draw the noble Lord's attention to Table 1.14 in the current White Paper on public expenditure, which expresses public expenditure in cost terms; to Table 1.13, which shows public sector capital spending, both in cash terms and in cost terms; and to Table 3.8 in last year's Budget red book, which shows constant price forecasts of expenditure, imports and gross domestic products, and so on, ad infinitum?
Lord Oram: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord: are not overseas aid statistics a particular example of the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has called the attention of the House? For example, in the recent information on overseas aid for 1982, figures are given for three years at current prices, apparently, without any allowance for the inflation factor. Since Government spokesmen often claim generosity in this field, is it not important to have a realistic rather than an inflated view of the situation?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to Table 1.14 in the public expenditure White Paper, which gives the information precisely in the form in which he is requesting it?
Lord Oram: My Lords, since this is a publication issued by the Overseas Development Administration about its work, is it not important that the figures in this publication should also be correct in this respect?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the suggestion by the noble Lord that information is not available is not correct. It is set out perfectly clearly in the public

3
expenditure White Paper, and the table was inserted specifically for that purpose. Overseas aid is shown as a separate and distinct item in that connection. So far as concerns the publication to which the noble Lord has referred. I will certainly look into the matter.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Her Majesty's Government's views should be greatly welcomed in that it demonstrates that they do not make the presumption or take the position that the economy will be for ever inflated?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the point raised by my noble friend is an important one.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that when, some time ago, the Government changed the system for assessing the rise in the cost of living the intention was that it should be to the advantage of the Government but it did not turn out that way; there was much concern in the City and among chambers of commerce at this particular system, which was then described as being able to "massage the figures" to the advantage of the Government and not give a true picture in the interests of businessmen who desired it?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not recognise any of the allegations that the noble Lord makes, but that is perhaps not surprising.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, would the noble Lord be willing to reconsider this matter? There is no party issue involved. Is it not the case that public expenditure White Papers used to contain all the figures in both cash and constant prices? Is there any reason why perhaps two or three tables out of the totality should not be given in constant prices as well as in current ones, and all the rest only in cash terms?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we have, in fact, got there before the noble Lord, because this year's public expenditure White Paper contains two such tables for which he asks.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in so far as the Minister denied what had happened, would he help me in putting down an Unstarred Question so that we can have a thorough debate on this subject, not in the interests of one party or the other but simply in the interests of honesty?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the figures are set down fully and completely. The noble Lord will find a vast amount of information in all the Government's statistical returns. I hesitated to bore your Lordships by reading out dozens of examples which I have brought along with me. So far as debates are concerned, that is a matter for the usual channels and not for me.

Missile Tender and the Exchange Rate
2.44 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what evidence they base the view, expressed in their reply to the parliamentary Question of 1st February about the Sea Eagle (H.L. debates, col. 753), that an acceptance of a tender from a United Kingdom firm could adversely affect the exchange rate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I did not actually make the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, ascribes to me in his Question. The point I was seeking to emphasise during the short debate on 1st February was that accepting United Kingdom tenders which are internationally uncompetitive will give the taxpayer poor value for money.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. But is he aware that I normally go by Hansard when I decide what a noble Lord has said, and according to the Hansard report on 1st February he said that it would be possible, if a tender was uncompetitive, to affect adversely
"public sector borrowing, interest rates, rate of inflation or the exchange rate". [Official Report: col. 753.]
Would the noble Lord agree that a British order, placed in Britain with British currency, would have to be of a gargantuan size and hopelessly uncompetitive to have any effect of that kind?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the words which the noble Lord ascribed to me in the Question omitted the reference to the internationally uncompetitive tender, which the noble Lord, I must confess, did refer to when he read out the quotation just now. That was the important point which I was seeking to make: that an internationally uncompetitive tender would have the adverse effects to which I referred.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, if my noble friend is going to list the disadvantages of buying from America, would he also list the disadvantage to this country if we do not buy missiles which have been researched and developed and which are nearly ready for production in this country, in terms of jobs in a very high technology field? Does he recall that, as in the case of Trident, an adverse exchange rate between the dollar and the pound can make the purchase of overseas equipment very much more expensive than was originally envisaged?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the other considerations to which my noble friend referred are, of course, equally valid.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the comments of my noble friend Lord Beswick, regarding the report of his statement in Hansard, are correct? Also, will he have regard to the fact that there are other considerations, some of which he mentioned; notably, first, that British industry is competitive on most grounds with foreign competitors, and, secondly, that the loss of orders in this country could lead to the dispersal of design teams and manufacturing capacity, which means that British industry will not be able to compete for future orders? This would, of course, have

5
effects upon our financial position and would also have social and employment consequences. Will the Minister look at the matter in a comprehensive way, rather than in the monetarist way in which the Government seem to be proceeding?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must stand by the Answer I gave originally, which was that the noble Lord's quotation from what I said, as contained in his original Question, omitted some very relevant words. But the other considerations to which the noble Lord referred are certainly to be taken into account.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would it not have been better if, on 1st February, the noble Lord had emphasised the point that, as regards British equipment with a high labour content—in the case of Sea Eagle 60 per cent. goes in wages—20 or 30 per cent. of the cost of the equipment would be immediately returned to the Treasury by way of taxation? In those circumstances, if the British tender is anywhere near the international figure, it would be a better buy.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a perfectly respectable point of view, but it is one which the Government will have to examine carefully in this particular case.

Crime Rate
2.48 p.m.
Lord Gainford: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm the recent announcement that crime in the capital fell by 4 per cent. in 1983.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I can confirm that the total number of notifiable offences recorded by the Metropolitan Police in 1983 was 4 per cent. less than in 1982.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that confirmation. Has he any information as to whether there has been any fall in the crimes where drugs are involved?
Lord Elton: My Lords. I do not think that, without notice. I can turn up the specific statistics for which my noble friend asks.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is very welcome news? But has he any comparable figures for the rest of the country, and can he say whether this fall in crime coincides with more policemen on foot on the beat, which many people think is the most effective deterrent to crime?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there has been an overall decline, we believe, of 1 per cent. over the police forces of the country, though the figures are subject to confirmation and may conceal areas where there have
6
been minor increases, as well as areas where there have been larger decreases. As to the noble Lord's second supplementary question, we see this fall as being a result of the new strategy introduced by the commissioner, but it is, as he himself has said, a little early to draw any final conclusions from the first batch of figures.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree, nevertheless, that the incidence of crime in the country as a whole, and in London also, is still very serious, especially juvenile crime? While this may not arise directly from the Question, could the noble Lord assist the House as to the rate of detection of crime, which has also been a disturbing feature of the criminal story?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the rate of offending is always a matter of concern, particularly when it is as high as it is at present. As to the rate of clear-up, I understand from the commissioner that the overall clear-up rate has increased from 16 to 17 per cent.: for offences of burglary, from 8 to 9 per cent.; for robbery and other violent theft, from 10 to 13 per cent.; and for sexual offences, from 44 to 51 per cent.

Recovery and Re-use of Implants
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: 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 advice has been given to medical practitioners regarding the recovery and re-use of cardiac pacemakers and other devices from deceased patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): Yes, my Lords, health authorities were given guidance in March last year about the ownership of devices or prostheses implanted surgically in, and intended to remain within, the patient's body and about the removal of such implants, particularly cardiac pacemakers, after the patient's death. Advice was given in May 1978 on the resterilisation of cardiac pacemakers in the rare cases where they are re-used for another patient.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that this information has not gone down to the general practitioners and that they spend a great deal of their time, when they are very busy, ringing the hospitals to see whether cardiac pacemakers are needed or wanted? Would not the Minister consider it to be advisable, as funeral directors are supposed to take out the devices, for general practitioners to know about this?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Baroness that this is a peripheral matter for general practitioners; it is more for the cardiac departments who have a prime interest in it. It is they who fit the devices in the first place. Re-use is also a matter for them.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the life of a pacemaker is only about seven years, would much be saved by this proposal? Since every heart is different, would it not be far more profitable to support (a) the current bio-chip development, which checks the condition of a living heart and uses the information to control the pacemaker, and (b) the next generation of bio-chip which will make sure that the pacemaker is exactly matched to the heart's needs?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is certainly true that more sophisticated pacemakers, using the techniques which the noble Lord has described, are becoming available both here and in other countries. There is also a great deal to be said for fitting those who need them with the relatively simple devices in greater numbers than could possibly be afforded, using the more expensive techniques.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend see a ready market in used pacemakers?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords. That is the reason why I answered the Question as I did.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, why is it that in this country pacemaker insertion is less than in any other Western European country, and only one-fifth of that in the United States of America? Would not the Minister agree with me that for those who can benefit from the pacemaker it is most wonderful and gives them a new lease of life?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is essentially another question; but I can tell the noble Baroness that in the United Kingdom in 1982 20.000 pacemakers were in place.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is a long waiting list for cardiac pacemakers?
Lord Glenarthur: Not without notice, my Lords.

Fowl Pest Outbreaks
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer which is to be made in another place to a Private Notice Question on fowl pest outbreaks.

Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Issue of warrant for transfer]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("under") and insert ("in accordance with")
The noble Lord said: In the unforeseen absence of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as I have my name to this amendment, may I beg to move it. The combined effect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to which I speak, with the leave of the Committee, is to ensure that the terms of the warrant issued by the Secretary of State form part of the material agreed upon by both states before transfer.
Amendment No. 2: Page 1. line 13, after ("arrangements") insert ("and the terms of the warrant to be issued hereunder")
This should ensure the elimination of mistakes regarding the terms of the warrant, which obviously is a matter of great importance to the prisoner and to the furtherance of diplomatic considerations. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Our difficulty with these amendments is that they would introduce an unnecessary and possibly harmful complication into the repatriation arrangements. The point is that the information required by a state for the purpose of agreeing to a transfer is likely to vary to some extent from state to state. Moreover, it will be for each state to satisfy itself that it has all the information it needs in a particular case. This will vary according to whether the transfer is inward or outward. The information required will generally coincide only in part with the details contained in a warrant for transfer to the United Kingdom and will not include the kind of detail contained in a warrant for transfer from the United Kingdom. Warrants for inward transfer would provide, for example, the authority for custody of the prisoner in the course of transfer to the United Kingdom, for the delivery of the prisoner to a place of custody in the United Kingdom and for the sentence to be served in the United Kingdom.
Of these matters, the other state would probably be concerned to agree specifically only the sentence to be served in the United Kingdom. It would, of course, require a good deal more information which would not be contained in the warrant. This might vary according to the terms of the arrangements negotiated with different countries and in the light of the circumstances of any particular case. Generally, however, it would include authoritative confirmation that the prisoner was a British citizen, information about the type of custodial regime in which the prisoner would be detained and details of the remission and parole conditions which would apply to the sentence.
Warrants for outward transfer, on the other hand, would simply authorise the handing over of the prisoner into the custody of the authorities of the other state. This would probably not be part of the information which the other state would require. The information which would generally be needed would include full personal details of the prisoner, details of the offence committed, and of the nature and length of the sentence imposed and of the time already served, and confirmation of any remission already earned. In neither case, therefore—inward or outward transfer—

9
would the information required by the other state be confined to, or necessarily even include, the details contained in the United Kingdom warrant.
In our view, other states might well be reluctant to record their formal agreement to matters which are of no particular concern to them. It is accordingly not only unnecessary for the United Kingdom legislation to make the agreement of the other state to the terms of the warrant a precondition of the issue of a warrant; it would in fact be quite inappropriate and could jeopardise the chances of agreement to a particular transfer. It could even affect the negotiation of an agreement if another state felt particularly strongly about being expected to agree to matters in which it had no real interest at all.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the explanation that he has given of the procedure. I can well understand some of the difficulties involved. However, the fact is that there could well be an error in the warrant, or an error relating to the matters contained in the warrant. Therefore, I should like to have an opportunity to read very carefully what the noble Lord the Minister has said. In the meantime—
Lord Melchett: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but if he is about to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may intervene before he does so.
Lord Mishcon: I now withdraw in favour of my noble friend Lord Melchett.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to my noble friend for withdrawing in favour of me and for not withdrawing the amendment just yet. Perhaps we may press the Minister a little harder on this amendment now. I listened very carefully to what he said and was not entirely clear that he answered the principal worry in my mind when putting my name to this amendment. That worry was, that should there be a mistake of some kind in the warrant, very real problems could arise. This amendment seeks to overcome those problems together with Amendment No. 2, with which it should be taken.
Both amendments would ensure that the terms of the warrant issued by the Secretary of State form part of the material which has to be agreed by all the parties concerned before the transfer takes place. I accept what the noble Lord said concerning the difference between warrants for people coming into the country and warrants for people leaving the country. None the less, can he tell us what will happen to the prisoner in particular if there has been a mistake made in the warrant and there is an attempt subsequently to change it in some way which might be very detrimental to the prisoner concerned?
Lord Elton: The intention of the legislation is that there shall be an agreement between three parties—that is, the home Government, the foreign Government (whichever way around that might be) and the prisoner. My first observation is that the prisoner and the prisoner's advisers will be aware of what is in the warrant and will have agreed to that. The noble Lord is suggesting that a flaw might be revealed
10
in the warrant at some unspecified later date. The amendment is addressed to the need to see as far as possible that that does not happen. Perhaps I may pause to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to our discussions, which we have awaited with great eagerness.
I am not sure at what stage the flaw in a warrant might be discovered or by whom, because that is not apparent from anything that has yet been said. I would presume that since the change is putatively against the interests of the prisoner, it will not have been changed by the prisoner and that it will have been changed—or the mistake will have been discovered and addressed—by the Government issuing the warrant. I am not sure that I can get much further on this point with the noble Lord beyond undertaking to consider further the difficulty he has raised. It seems to me that there is provision in the Bill for approval by the prisoner and the prisoner's advisers; I doubt whether release would take place without the prisoner taking advice. It lies within his hands to detect anything unfavourable in the warrant.
I know that the noble Lord is positing the opposite discovery; that the warrant says the man shall be kept in for only three years when it should have been five years—I take it that is what he is after. But the terms of the sentence included in the warrant will of course be a matter of material interest to the country holding the foreign prisoner as well as to the country to which the foreign prisoner is returning. The basis of their agreement will be that the length of the sentence specified in the warrant satisfies the demands of their own justice. That is what makes me wonder whether there is a need for the precautions which the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Melchett: The reason why I must press the Minister, and why I believe it will be very helpful if he can reconsider this point, is that were we talking simply about a transfer between Rochester borstal and Maidstone gaol, then matters would be as the Minister envisages them. But in talking about the transfer of a prisoner from, let us say, the Far East—in Thailand, or somewhere else—the situation will not be like that at all. I very much doubt whether the prisoner will have access to any advice—and if he does do so, it may be bad advice and not good advice. Also, the prisoner may be very sick, and that may be one of the reasons why the transfer is being promoted.
A host of other factors enter into it—not least the difficulties of translation and of working in at least two different languages. There is the possibility of errors being present in the warrant—to which, certainly, the prisoner will have agreed—which are then subsequently discovered by, say, the country to which the prisoner has been transferred. That Government will then insist that Her Majesty's Government have made a mistake and must have known there was a mistake (in, for example, translation) which must be recognised by keeping the prisoner in jail an extra 10 years. As I understand it, as the warrant is not, so far as the Bill is concerned, clearly something that is included as part of the material to which everyone has agreed, there is a danger of that happening to the prisoner. The noble Lord the Minister may not be able to take this point very much further today but I hope

11
he will consider it again and write to us before Report stage.
Lord Mishcon: I believe that it will be with the consent of even my noble friend Lord Melchett that at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. In doing so, I should like to emphasise the points he has made so clearly and which I was trying hard to make during the course of my few remarks. My noble friend, with his usual care, has made those points more clearly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("prisoner") and insert ("transferee").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord the Minister for having been a few minutes late and not being in my place for the last amendment. It seemed to me from what I heard the Minister say in response to the noble Lord. Lord Melchett, that he does understand the points which have been made and, if there is any need for correction, the Minister will take an opportunity to consider that point before Report stage.
Amendment No. 3 and the rather large number of other amendments which depend upon it arises from a point I made towards the end of my remarks at Second Reading. I said then that the Government may want to consider whether the use of the word "prisoner" used throughout this Bill was altogether appropriate, given that the Bill applies not only to prisoners but also to persons detained in other institutions. They may, for example, be patients detained in special hospitals; that is the principal example that springs to mind. I suggested during the course of my remarks on Second Reading that the phrase "sentenced persons", which is used in the treaty, might be incorporated into the Bill.
When I came to look at this point again, I found that the word "prisoner" occurred in no fewer than 61 other places. I thought that it would perhaps be rather cumbersome to substitute the words "sentenced person" for the word "prisoner" wherever it occurred. With some diffidence. I therefore propose that we use the term "transferee". It is not a word that I like very much but I believe the meaning should be clearer and embrace not just prisoners but also other categories of persons—principally, patients—who will be covered by transfers under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I almost left a pause for the noble Lord to mention the list of amendments to which he was speaking with Amendment No. 3, but no doubt we can take them as read, because they are legion.
I appreciate the feelings of those of your Lordships who do not want the word "prisoner" to apply to certain patients in mental hospitals. I am particularly sensitive to this consideration because I recall very clearly indeed the importance attached to nomenclature when we were dealing with the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, as it was, which I took through your Lordships' House a year or two ago. The
12
Committee does therefore have my sympathetic concern in this matter—but I believe we ought first to recognise what is involved.
The task to which the noble Lords who have drafted this impressive array of amendments have addressed themselves is, as I expect they have discovered, very far from being an easy one. What they are looking for is a term that is easily understood, which embraces all the classes of persons appropriate to the effect of this Act, which is neither offensive nor misleading, and which therefore is not in common use to convey a different meaning.
Almost all the people who might benefit from this Bill are accurately and unmistakably described by the word at present used for that purpose in the Bill—which is the word "prisoner". They are prisoners and have no good reason to object to being called as much.
A few noble Lords believe—and in this belief they had the support at Second Reading of my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve—that some could have reason to object to that description. The people to whom I refer are persons detained in a mental hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983 because they are subject to a hospital order or are treated as subject to one; that is, persons who have been found unfit to be tried or, in Scotland, found insane in bar of trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity. I do not include, however, patients who can legitimately be described as prisoners who are transferred to hospital from prison under the provisions of Section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983. I believe that draws up the parameters of the people we are talking about.
At this stage, I ought to repeat that the numbers of such people are likely to be few. By "few" I mean very few—so few that there are, so far as we are aware, none whatever at the present time to whom the Bill might apply. So, while I understand the anxiety of the noble Lords, I hope that they will understand why I am not anxious to take into the Bill such a very impressive array of amendments unless it will result in something that does not actually detract from it in some other way.
That brings me back to the chosen word: the word that is to substitute for "prisoner" almost everywhere that it appears in the Bill. I say "almost" because I think the noble Lord's count of 62 is not quite complete. What does matter is the fact that we are looking for, and have to find, a word that is not in common use to convey a different meaning. Sadly, "transferee" is not such a word. The word "transferee" is already in extensive use in English law and in that use it has a very specific meaning. That meaning is not "a transferred person". nor a person whose transfer has been agreed. It is fairly plainly and frequently "a person to whom property has been transferred". Therefore, I am afraid that the use that the noble Lords propose for this word, which seems to me to be merely a trifle quaint, would seem to others better versed in the law to be something of a malapropism. Given the very rare occasions on which it might be used in circumstances that could give offence, therefore. I do not think that its presence throughout the entire text of the Bill would be altogether welcome.
Your Lordships will forgive me if I continue for a moment. although I suspect that others will intervene

13
and perhaps I would be wiser to retain something further to say when they have done so, because people are never satisfied before they have said their piece and they are left with the difficulty of not knowing what to do if they have been persuaded by what has been said before. I hope I have explained why I do not much care for the word chosen by the noble Lords. If I have not made it clear. I must do so now. While I do not want to discourage the search for something to do the trick, I think it unlikely that it will succeed since we combed the field ourselves and found nothing. Nonetheless, they may be successful and wish to put something else before your Lordships.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Would the noble Lord consider "detainee"? Is there anything wrong with that word? I think there probably is, but I do not immediately see what.
Lord Elton: "Detainees" are usually detained in detention centres.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: No.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord says "No", but in common parlance a "detainee" is a person who is detained in a detention centre and a "prisoner" is a person who is kept in a prison. Perhaps this is just a matter of jargon. However, I do not want to exclude possibilities and I will certainly look at "detainees" and at anything else. What I do want to be certain of is that what we decide upon actually works better than what we have now.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: With respect, I think, that in ordinary English the word "detainee" means someone detained and has no reference to where. The reference to a detention centre, to many people in this country, would be meaningless because they do not know what a detention centre is.
Lord Elton: I am perfectly willing to accept that and I was perhaps rash to leap to a conclusion when the noble Lord made that suggestion. It does seem to me improbable that there was not an objection given that we have already looked at the lexicon, as it were, but we will go on looking.
Lord Somers: Without wishing to make a nuisance of myself, may I suggest that it would be possible in the list of definitions at the end of the Bill to say that "prisoner" includes, possibly, mental health patients or otherwise. No doubt the noble Lord can think of appropriate wording.
Lord Elton: It is not for me to argue the case for those noble Lords who are moving this amendment, but I think their purpose is to separate the term "prisoner" in the public mind from the people whose reputations they wish to preserve—few though they may be. If that can only be achieved by the general public reading the definition clause in the Bill I do not think that would be achieved.
I have another point, if noble Lords are to return to this, which I ought to put on record because of the implications raised by the major and longer amendment towards the end of the group. In removing
14
subsections 4 and 5 of Clause 1 and using their phraseology in the definition of "transferee" the amendment combines two concepts which the draftsmen took care to separate in the Bill. Subsections 4 and 5 of Clause I define the categories of person who may be the subject of transfer arrangements between the United Kingdom and other countries and do not use the term "prisoner". Subsection 1(b) of Clause 1, however, defines as the prisoner a particular person whose transfer has been agreed. The effect of the amendment is to give "transferee" the general meaning:
"a person who is, for the time being, detained in a prison, a hospital or other institution"
as well as the specific meaning in subsection 1(b) of the person whose transfer had been agreed. If noble Lords are returning to the charge perhaps they will look at that because I think they could alter their amendment so that it did not have that disadvantage.
I am reminded that the objection to "detainee" is that it covers people who are detained for trial but not yet sentenced and who are not, in fact, embraced by the Bill.
Lord Avebury: I think the trouble is that probably any word we chose would have had some other meaning in statute. With respect to the noble Lord, however that does not necessarily rule it out for all times, because there are cases where the same term has different meanings in different Acts. One that I always think of is "ordinary resident", which has a completely different meaning for the purposes of the income tax Acts than for the purpose of the immigration Acts, as the noble Lord will be aware because it crops up many times in the Home Office. The fact that the term "transferee" has a meaning in the law of property does not, ipso facto, rule it out for use in this context, particularly as the noble Lord has taken the trouble to go as far as Amendment No. 75 and sees that there is a definition of "transferee" which operates for the purposes of this Bill and does not attempt to extend it into any other area.
Therefore, I do not think there is likely to be any confusion by someone who is construing this Bill for the purpose of deciding who is to be transferred from Diyarbakir prison in Turkey to Long Lartin, with someone who is trying to buy a cottage in the village of Long Lartin. The two purposes are so very different and unlikely to overlap that the lawyers who have to deal with Acts of Parliament are not likely to suffer any disadvantage as a result.
I accept the point made by the Minister that in an ideal world it would be better if we could find a term not used in any other statutes. We will certainly continue to search between now and Report. We take on board the drafting point made by the Minister that we should have a way of referring to the particular individual who is to he transferred as distinct from the general body of people to whom the Bill might apply. We will give the matter further thought and hope to come hack on Report with a solution that is more acceptable to the Government. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, after ("given") insert ("in accordance with subsection (5) below").
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether with this amendment I can conveniently take Amendment No. 25.
Amendment No. 25: Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The Secretary of State shall use his best endeavours to ensure that prior to the prisoner giving his consent pursuant to subsection (1)(c) above, he is informed in writing in his native language of—

(a) the terms of the international arrangement in accordance with which the transfer is to take place;

(b) the meaning of the terms referred to in paragraph (a) above;

(c) the terms of the proposed warrant;

(d) the meaning of the said warrant including the longest period of imprisonment to which he is liable thereunder and the provisions governing remission and parole in respect thereof;

(e) the nature of any actual or possible further charges against him in the country to which he is to be transferred and the possible penalties; and

(f) the terms and meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.").

I should like to open my remarks with this observation. In my judgment, and in the judgment of those who have added their names to it, this is a very important amendment indeed. This Bill was introduced by the noble Lord the Minister in order to have proper arrangements for repatriation where the consent of the prisoner is a very vital factor.
At column 753 of the Official Report of this place for 21st December the Minister said:
"The consent of the prisoner is another fundamental requirement recommended by the working party and based on Canadian and American experience. It is an important feature of the Council of Europe Convention. Moreover, the Government's aim in introducing the legislation is purely humanitarian, and we therefore see the prisoner's consent to his transfer as essential".
I have quoted that as the background of the amendment. Your Lordships will see from it that in the Bill itself—which I imagine will be made the basis of any international agreement—we are asking that there should be firmly written in requisite conditions in order to see that the prisoner is in receipt of very proper information before he consents to repatriation.
I repeat that this proposal goes both ways. I am sure that we shall have in mind not only the question of prisoners transferred from here to the country of which they are normally subjects but also the question of our subjects, or people very much connected with this country, being transferred to this country.
There may be many in this country who are the subjects of another country and who, before giving their consent (obviously having been interviewed, probably in a language that is foreign to them), would require to know very much what they are doing if they are to be transferred back to their home country. That may be even more so, the Committee may think, in a case where the prisoner abroad is a British subject and is again interviewed by those who would speak to him in a foreign language. It would be imperative that he should know his position precisely.
I turn at once to Amendment No. 25. Your Lordships will see that the Secretary of State is asked to:
"use his best endeavours to ensure that prior to the prisoner giving his consent … he is informed in writing in his native language of',
16
the following six items. The first of them is:
"the terms of the international arrangement in accordance with which the transfer is to take place".
That is obviously a provision for him to know what the arrangement is only in broad terms. The second item is:
"the meaning of the terms referred to"
in the previous paragraph; namely, roughly what the whole question of the agreement to transfer means. The third item is:
"the terms of the proposed warrant".
That is essential from the prisoner's point of view. Item four is:
"the meaning of the … warrant including the longest period of imprisonment to which he is liable thereunder and the provisions governing remission and parole in respect thereof".
That is a very material matter before he gives his consent. Next:
"the nature of any actual or possible further charges against him in the country to which he is to be transferred and the possible penalties".
In other words, will he be worse off as a result of that transfer because of other charges that are known and are to be preferred against him? Lastly:
"the terms and meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974".
Your Lordships will obviously see the relevance of that provision from a British prisoner's point of view. The whole issue before us in this amendment is purely and simply to see that "consent" means consent.
It may be said that, while it is very easy for us to be able to legislate for what we can do in this country, it is extremely difficult to try to provide for what maybe done in a foreign country with which we have an international agreement. The European Convention is quite clear about that. It deals with the obvious possibility of consular representatives being able to fulfil these requirements. Quite naturally there should be no difficulty in seeing that our consular representative attends upon a British prisoner and explains to him exactly what these conditions and terms are before he signifies his consent, especially as the noble Lord the Minister has made very plain to us that these cases are rare.
I do not think that I can say any more, except that we regard this as being a vital provision and hope that the noble Lord the Minister will see his way clear to accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should certainly like to support this amendment. It is not clear from the Bill how much trouble will be taken to explain to the prisoner at either end. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is trying to provide for. We are often told that it is not necessary to put things in a Bill because they are implied, but in this case I do not think that implication is good enough. I do not think that I really need say very much more.
The difficulty of language is acute. We know that from dealing with prisoners in this country who are short of English. There is the difficulty of getting accurate translations. Secondly, there is room for confusion. A European Convention is one thing, but we visualise a situation where people who are not

17
signatories will have bilateral agreements, which will be different. The prisoner may become confused over that. I think a very strong case has been made for the amendment. I hope very much that without further elaboration from us the noble Lord the Minister will think it right to do something about this matter.
Lord Elton: We agree that a provision in the Bill relating to the prisoner being provided with information in writing in his own language would be reasonable. We have it in mind that in practice certain information should generally be provided to assist the prisoner to decide about transfer. The amendment proposed faces us with some difficulties. They are as much difficulties of practice as of principle, but they are real enough. I realise that what noble Lords are after is a principle and that it is not entirely fair to challenge an amendment in detail at the Committee stage. However, in order to put what I am about to say in perspective, I think that I ought to draw some of the difficulties to your Lordships' attention.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was good enough to point out that we are dealing with transfers in either direction, as it were. The words are, on the second line of page 2,
"into or out of the United Kingdom".
It would be very difficult, for example, to put together information in the prisoner's own language on the terms and meaning of the very complex Rehabilitation of Offenders Act if he was from Thailand. Perhaps that is not the best example, but if the prisoner came from a country which has a difficult language. That information is not in any case very relevant to the basic decision.
It would also be a considerable task to go into all the details of the relevant agreement. Moreover, it is far from clear how the Secretary of State, from the records at his disposal, could possibly forecast every conceivable further criminal charge against the person concerned. Furthermore, the references to the terms of the warrant suggest that the amendment is to apply only to transfers to the United Kingdom, whereas we think it is just as important to provide information for prisoners eligible for transfer from the United Kingdom. We would not wish them ignorantly to put themselves into some peril of which we could have informed them.
That said, we recognise the justice of the principle behind this amendment, and, what is more, we sympathise with it. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said, trouble should be taken to inform prisoners of the true situation. What I can hope to achieve will perhaps be of a slightly narrower scope than what is now before us for the reasons I have given. But if noble Lords would be kind enough to withdraw their amendment, I shall undertake to see whether we can prepare something which could be rather more easily achieved than what they now propose and which we could reasonably incorporate in the Bill to their satisfaction. If by any chance the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, or any of his noble friends, already has a view of what the essential elements are of the information to be given within the parameters which they have already drawn, or indeed outside them, that would be a helpful beginning. We
18
have our own views but I shall be interested in theirs, either in the House or possibly in writing.
Lord Melchett: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton. What he said is extremely welcome. As my noble friend said, this is really a very important point. The fact that the Government are prepared to meet at least some of it is a very welcome move. It does seem to me that it might be possible to specify rather more detailed information being given to people who are transferring to this country and who we would reasonably therefore expect to understand English and to whom the various things listed in the amendment, and in particular details of our domestic legislation, will be especially relevant. It seems to me not unreasonable for the Government to accept a rather more onerous duty in those circumstances than they would for example in explaining the domestic penal legislation in Thailand to a Thai citizen who is transferring from this country back to his own country. I wonder whether when the Minister is looking at this, he could consider that point, because although it would be in some ways undesirable to discriminate between people who we were transferring from this country and those coming here, I think it would be reasonable for the Government to take on rather more in terms of people who are coming to this country and indeed it would be quite practicable for them to do so. That seems to me to be something which will enable the noble Lord to go further to meet the details of the amendment than he might have thought up until now.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the noble Lord both for his welcome for what I have said and for his helpful suggestion. I attempted to draw out the difficulties that would relate to outward transfers because I do not see how the Secretary of State can be expected to know the detailed implications of the criminal law of every other country which may subscribe to a convention or make unilateral arrangements. On the other hand, he can be expected to have a reasonable working knowledge of the criminal law of this country and to recognise an obligation to see that it is brought to the attention—in so far as that lies within his hand of a prisoner in a foreign country whom it is proposed to transfer inwards. I think I have got your Lordships' intentions clear in my mind. As I say, if there are detailed points which occur to your Lordships in the next day or two I should be very interested to hear them; but we will address our minds to this matter.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Although the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has indicated that the desirability—indeed the necessity—that the consent should be an informed consent, I confess that I am a little worried about the provisions in Amendment No. 25, paragraph (e);
"The nature of any actual or possible further charges against him in the country to which he is to be transferred and the possible penalties".
I was thinking—perhaps not in a very clear way—of the difference between what is proposed here and the basis of extradition transfers, where there is of course a positive obligation on the country seeking the extradition not to impose upon the extraditee—if that horrid word is permitted—any penalties or risks of punishment over and above that which he already

19
suffers. That is a key element in extradition cases: once he gets home, the person extradited must not suddenly find himself the subject of many more charges. So I do not at the moment feel very happy about paragraph (e). Perhaps that aspect needs rather more thought. There is need for more information to be given in order to identify and establish the need for the consent to be informed. The Minister has conceded that fundamental point and I too will await with interest and perhaps my noble friends on all sides will conspire to provide appropriate words between now and the next stage.
Lord Elton; I hope "conspiracy" will not be necessary in any conference. But as regards the substance of what the noble and learned Lord has said, of course I take it very much on board. I just wanted to sound a word of caution on close parallels between extradition and transfer. In particular, may I remind the noble and learned Lord and others who would have taken part in the conspiracy or the confabulation, that we are to some extent bound by the convention. In other words, we cannot offer to your Lordships anything which would fall outside the convention for fear of losing what we are trying to gain.
Lord Mishcon: There is one firm principle that one learns when dealing with a Committee stage in your Lordships' House, and that is that if a principle which one regards as an important principle is admitted by the Government, and there is an undertaking from so responsible a Minister as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, not only to look into it but even to come forward with something which is acceptable to the Government, then one immediately withdraws the amendment. The only thing I say in addition to that, if I may, is that I welcomed the noble Lord's very courteous offer to have an exchange of views in regard to this. I—and I am sure I am speaking for other noble Lords who have been associated with this amendment—would be very happy, if he thought that it was an appropriate course, to hold a meeting on this matter in the hope that something could come out of that meeting which might take rather less time than correspondence. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: May I just say that I have not actually taken on board the thought of a full-blown meeting with a sort of sub-committee of the Committee, as it were; but the offer is kindly taken. Whether it is accepted or whether we would rather deal with the matter by post, I hope the noble Lord will not think me discourteous if I take leave just to think about that. It may well be that he puts things on paper that we should like to discuss; but if I have something on paper first, this would be very helpful.
Lord Mishcon: I accept that completely.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fowl Pest Outbreaks
3.37 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat the Answer which is being given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the recent outbreaks of fowl pest.
The Answer is as follows:
"Two outbreaks of Newcastle diseases in poultry have been confirmed. The first in Shropshire and the second near Thirsk, North Yorkshire. In accordance with the Governments' policy, the poultry in question have been or are being destroyed. Compensation is payable by the Minister which will be reimbursed under insurance arrangements made by the industry.
"All possible steps associated with the slaughter policies are being taken by the State Veterinary Service to prevent spread of the disease including declarations of infected areas, movement restrictions and tracings. It is not possible to determine the likely course of the disease."
My Lords, that concludes the Answer to the Private Notice Question asked in another place.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating here the Answer to the Question. It is rather disturbing that these two outbreaks were so very far apart. I wonder whether the Minister knows whether or not there is any connection between them. If there is not, I would say it is rather serious. We seem to have been shifting our policy on dealing with Newcastle disease, of fowl pest. over the years. I was a very humble member of the Plant Committee which reported in 1962, and I telephoned the Ministry to find out what had happened to our recommendations. I was rather put in my place and told that nobody knew anything about the Plant Report. The slaughter policy, I gather, was brought in in 1981. That was the policy brought in after the serious outbreaks at the end of the 1950s and in the early 1960s. I wonder whether the Ministry is satisfied with the slaughter policy. No doubt, they went back to it because the industry is financing its own insurance scheme. However, if we get more outbreaks, is the Minister still happy that the slaughter policy is the right one, and that we should not do as the Americans do, which is to vaccinate?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Question and to congratulate the Government on the steps that they have been taking. But is it not true to say that the risk of outbreaks of Newcastle disease and the damage that they can cause are much greater in conditions of intensive poultry keeping? Will the Government bear that in mind in their attitude when this subject comes up, for instance, in regard to the present draft directive of the European Community on standards for laying hens in battery cages? Do not the Government agree that one of the best methods of reducing this disease and ensuring against it lies in smaller intensification in poultry rearing?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for responding to the Answer to the

21
Private Notice Question being asked in another place. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me whether any connection had been established between the two outbreaks—one in Shropshire, and the other near Thirsk, in North Yorkshire. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked whether the Government thought there was some causal effect or connection between intensive poultry keeping and the disease. I have to say the same in reply to both points. The origin of this outbreak—the first since 1978—is currently under intense investigation, but at present no link between the two outbreaks has been found. Certainly I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that there is in some way a link between the intensive keeping of livestock and the outbreaks of this disease.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me whether the Government would adhere to their slaughter policy. As I say, we have been free of the disease since April 1978, and, if at all possible, we shall certainly maintain our slaughter policy. At the moment there are only two outbreaks. But I have to tell the House that there is a suspected case at Boston in Lincolnshire, involving turkeys. That is at present being investigated. There is in Buckinghamshire a case which has been under investigation for some time, and, as I understand it, so far the tests have most certainly proved negative. So we very much hope for the best, and we continue to work very hard on trying to find the origins and trying thereby to ensure that we can prevent the further spread of the disease.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the disease can be passed on to pheasants, pigeons, and those kind of birds?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, paramyxo virus has been found in pigeons. The noble Baroness will remember the cases reported involving racing pigeons. But it was a different strain of the disease. It was not the same as the strain which has now broken out among poultry.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether this type of disease is common in Europe at the moment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that I must write to my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas on that particular point. But, as he will very well know, we have been extremely anxious about the importation of the disease from Europe. It was as a result of that that we imposed controls. There was a case; and our import controls were established in November 1982, following a judgment in the European Court. So the answer to my noble friend is, yes, indeed, the disease is to be found. With regard to exactly how prevalent it is, I think that I must write to my noble friend to let him know.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend asked the noble Lord about vaccination. Will he say a few words about the Government's attitude to ring vaccination and tell us at what stage that might be activated? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that we were glad to hear about the compensation scheme, of which noble Lords are of course aware. But has the
22
possibility of a scheme for consequential loss been considered? For example, so far as I am aware, egg producers would not be covered by the present compensation scheme. One greatly hopes that the present outbreak will not extend beyond the present limits, but, if it did, egg producers could find themselves facing severe losses. Will the noble Lord be good enough to consider that point as well?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's point on vaccination, I think that I can only repeat what I said. Obviously vaccination is an option; it is an option which is followed in other countries. But we have now been free of the disease for six years, and we shall maintain the slaughter policy if it is at all possible. With regard to the possibility of extending the scheme to cover consequential loss, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made clear that he is of course aware of the way in which the present scheme works. It is a Government scheme to begin with, but then there is repayment to the Government through the British poultry health improvement scheme, which is an insurance scheme. Certainly I shall draw my right honourable friend's attention to the suggestion which the noble Lord has made.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, further to the noble Lord's question about vaccination, is my noble friend aware that it is a very much less attractive solution than slaughter, because, once vaccination becomes at all general, it seriously confuses the issue in diagnosis, due to the effect that it has on the blood condition of the birds? Therefore, if slaughter can be prosecuted properly, it is far the most effective solution to this dangerous disease.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am indeed aware of what my noble friend has said and I am grateful to him for his intervention.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, á propos the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, does the noble Lord the Minister know whether the outbreak is in laying hens in batteries, or in broilers? The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was a part-time member of the Plant Committee, which recommended a dead vaccine, which I think solves the problem to which he was referring.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with regard to the numbers of birds affected, there are about 250,000 layers and growers in the Shropshire area and 78,000 broilers in the Thirsk outbreak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what are the symptoms of this particular strain?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is basically a respiratory disease.

Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
3.48 p.m.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 7 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 8.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 17, leave out from ("or,") to end of line 19 and insert—
("where the prisoner because of his mental or physical condition is unable to understand the meaning, purpose and likely effects on him of the proposed transfer, by a person authorised to act on the prisoner's behalf as provided for by those arrangements,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment very much reflects the concern of the National Association for Mental Health, an organisation which obviously has the respect of your Lordships. The organisation's concern is once again based on the question of consent. As your Lordships' Committee will see, under Clause 1(1)(c) of the Bill as it stands there is considerable vagueness as to who is entitled to give the consent. There is the question of whether someone is entitled to give consent regardless of whether the patient concerned can really understand,
"the nature and quality of his act",
(if I may use that phrase) and what is involved.
We are anxious to see that this question, which was referred to by the noble Lord the Minister in his Second Reading speech, is clarified under the Bill. So we seek to say very clearly that where, because of the patient's mental or physical condition, he is,
"unable to understand the meaning, purpose and likely effects on him of the proposed transfer",
then a person authorised to act on his behalf, as provided for in the international arrangements, can do so. The amendment spells out a position which I believe the draftsman of this Bill intended to protect, but I think there is vagueness at the moment and clarification is therefore sought. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I want to support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, because I think that there are cases—the noble Lord the Minister will be aware of some of them—where foreign citizens in our psychiatric institutions will find it extremely difficult to act in an informed way over the choice that they have to make when this Bill becomes law. Certainly they will not be able to understand the provisions of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and it will be necessary—as is, indeed, envisaged—for somebody to exercise the power of choice on their behalf.
It is simply a question. I think, of spelling it out on the face of the Bill so that there cannot be any doubt. Having words of this kind there will mean that the person authorised to act on the prisoner's behalf can make that decision. There will not be any doubt as to whether, in those circumstances, the Minister has to look to that other person, or whether he has to depend on explanations being given to a patient which he may have great difficulty in comprehending.
24
I think that for the sake of clarity and definition, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says, it is better to have the words contained in the amendment spelt out in the Bill.
Lord Elton: We would indeed be content to make the second part of subsection 1(c) of Clause 1 more explicit. The way that noble Lords have sought to do this, unfortunately, is not entirely satisfactory, our main point being that the amendment does not refer to the possibility of consent being given on the prisoner's behalf because of his age. It is necessary to allow for the possibility of parents giving consent in the case of young children. This is provided for in the Council of Europe convention by reference to age as well as to physical and mental condition. So we will be happy to consider introducing an amendment at the next stage which meets the purpose of the noble Lord's proposed amendment and which also covers children. I hope that the Committee will find that satisfactory.
Lord Mishcon: Once again, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having admitted the main principle of the amendment. In the circumstances, therefore, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: I approach this amendment with some sense of mystery as to the reason for the use of the word "may" instead of the word "shall". The word "may" presumably gives the right to the Sectretary of State—should he want to exercise it—to have some sort of secondary discretion, because under Clause 1(1)(b) he has to agree to a proposed transfer before it can take place. Having so agreed, it does seem extremely odd that he should not then proceed, in all the circumstances, to issue a warrant.
I am not given to being of a suspicious nature, but I did wonder—and others have wondered, too—whether the Secretary of State has given himself this secondary discretion because of another clause in the Bill which deals with the question of the payment of charges for the transferee. This is to be a humanitarian measure, and I quote the words of the noble Lord the Minister in so describing it. It would be quite dreadful if a power were given to the Secretary of State whereby, someone having gone through all the motions and given his consent, he had this hanging over his head because transfer charges had not been paid.
As I said, it may be that I and others have been unduly suspicious, and that the noble Lord the Minister and the Government have no such contingency in mind. If that be so, I am sure that they will agree to the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to support the amendment. There is a great reluctance on the part of draftsmen to say "shall" to Secretaries of State, but I think we must try to get over that because the terms of Clause 1 are that three things should be agreed. One is that the Secretary of State shall agree.

25
Having agreed, I cannot see why he should have the option of disagreeing later. I am sure that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, regarding financial motive is beneath contempt and could not possibly be true of this Government. But, if they can give any other reason, we shall be interested. If not, it seems quite ridiculous that the Secretary of State should first of all have to agree before the thing can happen and then have to agree again. This cannot be right, and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to help us.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: I merely want to say that the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has also been expressed to me, and I should like to support what he said.
Lord Denning: "May" is often construed by the courts as meaning "shall". It just leaves room for the very exceptional case, and it would not be necessary to impose such a complete burden on the Secretary of State. I should have thought that "may" was perfectly all right.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for that intervention, although it may deny us one of those fascinating, periodic and ritual debates that we have in your Lordships' House at intervals of about six months on the difference between "may" and "shall".
All that is required of me, I think, is to say two things. One (which I can say) is that the provision is not so framed in this clause as to enable the Secretary of State to say, "Right, then you cannot come home", in connection with a later clause. We shall be discussing the principles of payment and recovery of costs later.
The second is that circumstances may arise when the Home Secretary not only can but ought to change his mind. Those circumstances will be rare, as the noble and learned Lord has said. But suppose that after everything is arranged—and these things do happen—the prisoner murders another prisoner or commits grievous bodily harm against a prison officer, or it is discovered that he was (and this has only just come to light) closely involved and perhaps guilty of a different and serious crime before his conviction for the present offence. I have drawn at random three instances where the Home Secretary may very well not wish to release a prisoner who at an earlier stage he had agreed should be released. In at least two of those circumstances, I should have thought your Lordships must agree, he should not be sent off scot-free to another country.
Lord Melchett: Can I say, first of all, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that I think that in this case there is a difference from some others that he may have in mind. As has been pointed out, the Government have, as it were, a double discretion: they already may or may not consent to a transfer in the first place: and then, when all the details are agreed—including their consent having been given under their own discretion—they have a second discretion about whether or not to go ahead with it. The noble Lord has given us some examples which he thinks might justify that being done. I must say that I have my doubts for a number of reasons.
26
It seems to me that all the parties to this agreement may have good grounds for second thoughts once it has been concluded. The prisoner may hear, two days after he has signed the documents agreeing to the transfer, of the likelihood that prisoners in the particular country where he is serving his sentence are to be given a free pardon. It may be in his interests to stay where he is for another week or two to get a free pardon and be released immediately rather than to come back to this country and serve the remainder of his sentence.
I just wonder whether the Government will allow the same discretion to everybody else that they are reserving to themselves; the second bite of discretion, as it were, in this case. If they are not going to give that same sort of discretion to anybody else to break off an agreement that has been concluded if it happens to suit them for some reason and after the Government have at their own discretion decided to enter into it, I am not sure the Government should retain that right.
Lord Mishcon: Before the Minister finally replies to the discussion, I should like to put the following matter to him. I can see—unlike, if he will forgive me, my noble friend Lord Melchett—the possibility of some intervening circumstance of a very weighty nature, such as the noble Lord the Minister has indicated. However, that does not really affect the main principle of my argument. although it does affect the way in which an amendment ought to be put.
According to the Minister's examples, the amendment ought to be phrased along the lines that, "unless there is some intervening material circumstance, he shall", and then it is mandatory. If in his reply the noble Lord the Minister could kindly indicate whether an amendment along those lines would at least receive his favourable attention, that would be enough of a hint to me to see that the appropriate wording goes down for the Report stage. I am perfectly prepared to concede the intervening circumstance.
In reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—and I always do this with the utmost deference—let me say that he has taught a very humble colleague a lesson which means that before the courts I will now be able to argue that "may" equals "shall", and "shall" equals "may".
Lord Denning: It does very often.
Lord Mishcon: Moreover, I shall be able to cite the noble and learned Lord as my authority for so saying!
Lord Denning: It is in the books, too.
Lord Avebury: The noble and learned Lord will have heard the Minister say that cases may well arise in which there is the commission of further offences by the individual in between the time the Secretary of State first agrees and the time the transfer is due to be exercised, in which case obviously the person will have to go through the process of trial, and so on. If that is the only case that the noble Lord wants to advance in which the Secretary of State would wish to use his discretion, I wonder whether that matter could be written into the Bill. Perhaps the wording might be

27
"shall, unless", and the Minister could then think of some words to describe the circumstances which he has outlined, where a further offence has been committed by the prisoner or the detained person in the intervening period between the agreement having been given and the transfer effected. It would not be difficult, would it, to write it into the Bill? In that way the area of discretion which is open to the Minister could be prescribed clearly on the face of the Bill instead of being left open-ended. I think that Parliament always prefers to do that. In spite of the admiration that it has for the present Minister, it does not like to give completely unfettered powers to all his successors. If the Minister has successfully outlined the circumstances in which the discretion would be used, I am sure that Parliament would like to see it written on to the face of the Bill.
Lord Elton: I always listen to flattery with close attention. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has entirely convinced me of my own ability to complete an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might properly exercise his discretion. Your Lordships will appreciate that I am now thinking on my feet. What about a prisoner who is going to go back to a country in which he expects to be received by a friendly regime, but that regime has been overthrown by one which has sworn to spill the blood of people like him on the streets? I should have thought that your Lordships would have every sympathy with a case like that. Of course, under those circumstances I can hastily assure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that it would be open to the prisoner to withdraw his consent. That is open to him at any stage until he is actually removed, and I dare say that that will be a matter of reassurance to the noble Lord.
However, I look forward with interest to any revised draft that noble Lords opposite may produce for the Report stage. If anything occurs to me to help them in the interim, I will certainly let them know. But, as your Lordships will appreciate in 30 seconds I have thought of another example and that makes me hesitate to commit the Government to putting on the face of the Bill a definitive list of the reasons why the issue of the warrant should not be mandatory on the Secretary of State. There might be danger in that, but I shall look closely at any ways round the danger that noble Lords may propose.
Lord Melchett: I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will do that, because as he knows I strongly support the degree of discretion which the Bill has incorporated in it. I accept the argument that the Government put forward on, I think, Second Reading, that there will be a very large variety of circumstances in which we need to be free to enter into bilateral arrangements with other countries and to meet their requirements to allow people to be transferred back to the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, there does rest upon the Government a particular responsibility because given the very wide discretion and the unusual circumstances to which the Bill gives rise of people being imprisoned in this country for offences committed abroad which would not have been offences if, for example, they had occurred in the
28
United Kingdom, the Government need to be certain that any discretion they do have in the Bill really is necessary.
As regards the second example which the noble Lord put forward, it is surely for the prisoner to make the decision as to whether or not he wants to proceed with the transfer, and I am grateful for the noble Lord's assurance that that is possible. So I do not think that that adds to his argument. I hope that he will look at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. If there is the particular problem of the prisoner committing a further offence, and if it is not possible for the prisoner, in the country in which he is held—whether this country or another country—to be arrested and charged with that offence and for that to negate the transfer agreement (which I would want to look at). then it may be that the best answer is to write the specific instance into the Bill and to remove any possibility that the "may" will in fact be interpreted by the courts as meaning what it says.
Viscount Hanworth: I have not listened to the whole of this debate, but it occurs to me that there might be a compromise by putting in the words, "unless new circumstances arise", which, although it does not define what they are, would at least show what one is trying to achieve.
Lord Mishcon: I am not quite sure whether the fact that a noble Lord is not present when I make a contribution to the Committee, however humble, necessarily means that it is a contribution to which that noble Lord would have listened even if he had been present. But I can only say that that was the contribution I endeavoured to make myself: in other words, putting some words into the amendment at the Report stage.
I feel, along with those who have spoken, that it is not just an obligation on Members of the Opposition, or on Members from whatever quarter they may come in your Lordships' Committee, to make a contribution which is acceptable by way of wording. It must he clear to the Minister that there is a feeling in the Committee that there should be some definite mandatory duty on the Secretary of State, having gone as far as this, to proceed with the issue of the warrant unless there is—and I put it this way—some material factor in the intervening period. I have put it that way because what I am fearful of—and it very often happens—is that one gets an indication in a debate that possibly it would be a good idea to put down an amendment for Report. and then when the Report stage comes the Government see some fault in the amendment—not that the noble Lord the Minister acts in this way—and it is all too late when it comes to Third Reading.
This is an important point, and perhaps the noble Lord the Minister, in his kindness, will at least think about the question of whether the Government would wish to import words into the Bill which will in some way fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State to change his mind in this period. If he were to do that, I personally would be very grateful. I am not asking him to promise to do it; I am merely asking him to consider doing it.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is always courteous and persuasive. I recognise the anxiety of noble Lords. Of

29
course we will consider further what they have said, and we will do so with the genuine intention of seeing if there is something we can bring forward to mitigate their anxieties. But I hope that noble Lords will not forget the contributions I made earlier in this short debate, and thus be lulled into a sense of false optimism or into feeling that I have in some way misled them if I do not actually succeed in coming forward with what will satisfy them. That, in its turn, may lead noble Lords to think about it themselves. But I will think about it.
Lord Mishcon: I intend to remain the optimist that I am, but I completely accept what the noble Lord the Minister has said, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
4.10 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 8, after ("to") insert ("all the circumstances including").
The noble Lord said: As this clause is presently drafted, it allows the Secretary of State to consider the transfer into the United Kingdom of a non-citizen only when that person has close ties with the United Kingdom. Although, of course, close ties would be a powerful element in consideration of a transfer, we suggest that the words "all the circumstances" should be inserted here and that the close ties should be associated with that phrase. If the Secretary of State has an absolute discretion in relation to all persons whose transfer he agrees, it is unnecessarily restrictive to limit his consideration of a particular individual in this way.
It may be that very few cases would arise where it is appropriate to accept a prisoner or patient who did not have close ties with Great Britain but, as the noble Lord has shown on previous amendments, it is always easy to construct particular examples showing how a power could be used and how everybody would think it ought to be used. In this case it may be easy to do so as well. Perhaps I may cite a couple of examples at random.
Let us suppose that we restore diplomatic relations with Argentina and that a resident of the Malvinas, visiting Buenos Aires, commits a serious offence there. Would it be quite out of the question for him to serve his sentence in Great Britain unless he had some close relatives here? If that person applied for a transfer to a cultural-social environment which was more familiar to him in the United Kingdom, although he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom—and the noble Lord will remember that in the Nationality Act we did not extend citizenship to persons living in the Falklands—would it be beyond the bounds of possibility for that person to return to the United Kingdom and serve his sentence here?
To take another example, there is the case of a person who lives in Jersey and who commits an offence in, say, Italy. That person is not a British citizen and may have no close ties or connections with the United Kingdom. Prior to committing the offence, he may have lived the whole of his existence in the
30
Channel Islands, and then he goes to Italy and commits a serious offence there and is imprisoned. Would it be beyond the bounds of reason that that person might apply to be transferred back to the United Kingdom to serve the completion of his sentence? The noble Lord will be aware that in the case of long sentence prisoners from the Channel Islands, there are no facilities for them in their own prisons. So, we have quite a few persons who hail from the Channel Islands serving life sentences in the United Kingdom.
A third example is the case of British overseas citizens. Of course, a British overseas citizen does not have a country to which he might be transferred, but the environment in the United Kingdom might be a great deal better for him than the environment in some dictatorship overseas where he happens to have committed an offence. Again, would it be outside the discretion of the Secretary of State to consider that that person might be acceptable within the prison system of the United Kingdom?
I cite those examples to illustrate the general point—and I do not say that it will happen very frequently; it might happen only once in a blue moon—that we would want to accept a person in our prisons who does not have close ties or connections with the United Kingdom. But I think that the Minister and the Government would be wise to have this discretion written into the Bill so that in those very exceptional cases it could be exercised. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his explanation of the thinking behind his amendment because it relieved me of misconception. I had expected him to be hoping that the Secretary of State would act as a sort of Scarlet Pimpernel, snatching Polish-speaking correspondents of the BBC World Service from other parts of Eastern Europe to serve their term in this country rather than that which their conduct had offended.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, cited three examples. The first was the Falkland Islands, and I am strongly of the opinion that the Falkland islanders now have the privileges which the noble Lord thinks they lack. I seem to remember that we had a debate of some historic importance on the matter and I would have thought that it would have given the noble Lord some memorable satisfaction, but there we are.
As to the Channel Islands, Clause 9(4) enables the provisions of the Bill to be extended by Order in Council to the Channel Islands, and that is the normal way in which provisions of legislation of this sort are extended. Your Lordships will be well aware that we are not in a position to legislate for the Channel Islands ourselves.
Perhaps I may give examples of cases in which the Secretary of State's discretionary power might be used. There is that of the foreign spouse of a British citizen or that of a person resident in the United Kingdom for many years whose only citizenship was still that of his country of origin. It might also be used, if the need should arise, in the case of Commonwealth citizens who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom because before the 1981 Act came into force they had either been born to a United Kingdom parent or had married a man who had the right of abode. People

31
other than British citizens and Commonwealth citizens with the right of abode would be subject to immigration control. A decision whether or not to repatriate them will include consideration of whether it would be in accordance with immigration policy to admit them.
The noble Lord had led me into ground which I was not expecting to cover. In replying, I daresay that I have given him information on which he would like to reflect. I wonder whether he would take the opportunity to do that between now and the Report stage?
Lord Avebury: Obviously, I shall consider very carefully what the Minister has said, but I think that the kernel of my remarks still remains, that although I gave particular illustrations with which the noble Lord has dealt, there may be others which could be produced. The whole nature of the amendment presupposes that the circumstances will be very unusual, that we cannot envisage them at this stage, otherwise we would be able to write them into the Bill, and that the Minister is not bound to use this discretion—he does so only if in all the circumstances, in spite of the fact that the person does not have the close ties or connections with the United Kingdom which the Minister briefly described at the end of his remarks, it would be appropriate to admit him.
I am not sure that between now and the Report stage it will be possible for us to think of all the cases that could arise, however carefully we apply our minds to this. Therefore, I still hope that in the end I might persuade the noble Lord that, even if no case could be produced which would justify his saying that that individual should be admitted, notwithstanding the fact that he is neither a citizen nor has the close ties or connections which are set out here, nevertheless it would be appropriate for him to be admitted. If he cannot think of that example, I would still hope that the Minister would agree to something like this when we return to it on Report. However, I shall certainly undertake—and this is the wrong way round, is it not?—to consider very carefully what the Minister has said.
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I could put a question to the noble Lord the Minister. It seems to me that the burden of proof is on the Government. In drafting this Bill, and in the approach that they have adopted, the Government have said that discretion is necessary because they cannot foresee all the many different circumstances that will arise. I believe that that is a basic proposition that the Committee has accepted.
In some other circumstances it seems to me to be a little disingenuous for the noble Lord to turn round on the rest of us and say. "You provide me with all the detailed cases which will arise in the future, during all the years when this Bill will be an Act of Parliament. with all the different countries with which we shall have dealings, and in all the strange individual circumstances in which we shall wish to transfer prisoners to the United Kingdom; and when you have done that, I will consider your amendment". For the Government to say (if this really is their view) that they
32
will be prepared to consider transferring people to this country, whatever the circumstances that may arise, only if those people meet the formula in the Bill—that is, that they have close ties with the United Kingdom—seems to be a proposition difficult to support.
I think that there might be circumstances in which some greater flexibility would be desirable. Bearing in mind the general approach which the Government have adopted to this problem, I hope that the noble Lord will at least be prepared to cast his mind over the possibility that there will be other circumstances. Of course, the Secretary of State will always have the veto; nobody is compelling the Government or any future Government to do anything. But when we make the law in the first place, I believe that we should leave the possibility open.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Elton: I quite see the force of the last thing that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, which was that whatever was decided it would be protected as to its limits by the operation of the Home Secretary's veto. But I do not think I am in such a difficulty as he imagines over the rest of what he proposes. As I understand it, it is perfectly right that the Bill should commit the Government to bringing back into this country people who, if they had committed no offence, would have a right to live in this country, and who, having offended, were detained by a government which agreed with our Government that they could properly be transferred to this country to serve the sentence, and that Government agreed with ours what the extent of that sentence should be on the face of the warrant, or however expressed, to which the prisoner himself agreed.
But what the noble Lord is actually seeking to do is to say that there may be circumstances in which anybody in the world might qualify for the charitable, as it were, occupancy of our prison cells who could not be admitted under ordinary immigration law. As I would describe the Secretary of State's discretion, it seems to me to extend to all the cases that we could properly commit him to consider, and I am driven back then by what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said to wonder whether in fact what they had in mind was some glamorous, Scarlet Pimpernel act by which this Government could snatch people from difficulty in another country. But that could not happen because the Government of the other country would, under the terms of the Bill itself and the convention, have to be a party to the agreement.
There is no question of rescuing people from an oppressive regime, even indeed if they are British citizens, without their consent. If they are not British citizens then their claim on the accommodation of this country's prison service, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, at least will agree, is heavily overloaded, is a questionable claim. Therefore, I cannot now offer quite such a friendly, interested view of the noble Lord's amendment when, as I suspect, he brings it back at Report stage, but he is adept at proving me wrong, usually by quoting my own arguments, so that it is always possible that he will succeed.
Lord Avebury: I certainly do not want to introduce all these people that the noble Lord described who are suffering under oppressive regimes overseas. It might be nice to be able to bring them all back here but that was not the intention of the amendment, as the noble Lord understands now. There certainly are going to be borderline cases. Without wishing to tempt providence by saying that the Home Office has been generous in its treatment of certain individuals, I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that certain Commonwealth citizens who had been admitted here as dependants but who had never acquired British nationality because they were not registered by their parents, and who have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment overseas which have resulted in their absence from the United Kingdom for a period of over two years and who have thus not qualified to come here as returning residents under the immigration law as it stands, have nevertheless been readmitted by the Secretary of State in the exercise of his discretion.
That fits in with what the noble Lord has just said, and I was glad that he has put on the record that it would be the intention of the Government, once this Bill becomes law, to see that there is, if you like, a no detriment provision applying to the persons who have had an indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom. In other words, anybody who had indefinite leave to enter here, and then went abroad and committed an offence which resulted in a term of imprisonment, would qualify as having a close tie or connection with the United Kingdom within the meaning of this clause.
That is a valuable concession, for which I am grateful to the Minister. But it illustrates the fact that there are certain people who would not ordinarily be qualified to enter the United Kingdom and who depend on the goodwill of the Secretary of State on conclusion of their sentences now to come back here and who, after this Bill becomes law, would similarly depend on the goodwill of the Secretary of State to agree that their ties, or connections, with the United Kingdom are close enough to justify the application of this clause as it stands without the additional words which I sought to insert.
With the noble Lord's fairly broad interpretation I should probably be quite happy even though there may be wholly exceptional and far-fetched examples which I was not able to construct, and which none of us can imagine, where, after the Bill becomes law, the Secretary of State will say, "If only I had listened to this amendment then I should have been able to admit this person whose claims are so obviously tempting to our sympathy. But as the person does not have the close tie or connection which is provided for under the clause I am not able to do that". I hope that that will not arise but I fear that in one or two, or a small number, of cases it may unless we accept this amendment, or something like it. Does the Minister want to intervene?
Lord Elton: It may not have been clear from what I said, but I understand that in fact the Secretary of State's discretion would extend as far as his discretion to admit people outside the immigration rules. If that is the case I think that the noble Lord's anxiety is almost met, because that would be the effect of what
34
he is trying to put into the Bill. I think I ought to write to him in confirmation of that.
Lord Melchett: There is a case which has occurred to me as I have been listening to the debate. Perhaps it would be helpful if I put a suggestion, though it is off the top of my head and may not be sensible. Can the noble Lord tell me either today or at some future point whether this would fall within the definition? If, with widespread popular support from the people of Great Britain, somebody recruited a group of mercenaries from this country to go to fight against an evil regime and those mercenaries were caught and incarcerated for hundreds of years in prison and then were subject to a transfer and were going to come back to complete their sentences here when it was discovered that one of them was a stateless person who had no ties with the United Kingdom other than that he had been recruited along with a number of other United Kingdom citizens—he had never been to this country but had no other country in the world to which he could be transferred or which was prepared to take him—the Government would be faced with the prospect of half-a-dozen returning heroes, as it were, and one of their colleagues left languishing in jail. In those circumstances where the person had never been here, had no relatives here, and his only connection was the recruiting sergeant who had also recruited a number of people from this country, would his case be considered?
Lord Elton: The properly cautious reply to that is that every case would have to be considered on its merits.
Lord Melchett: Would the Act which the noble Lord is steering through this House allow the Government to consider the merits of that particular case, or would it be ruled out?
Lord Elton: Indeed, with only the knowledge that the noble Lord has given to us I would say that the Secretary of State would be able to consider it, but what I cannot tell him is what his conclusion would be, which is what I think is more germane.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his offer to write to me. We could save quite a lot of trouble if we do not have to take up individual cases of prisoners who serve sentences of more than two years overseas and are therefore dependent upon the discretion of the Secretary of State to agree to their return to the United Kingdom even though they were given indefinite leave to remain, for instance, as dependent children prior to the commission of that offence in some foreign country.
If we did not have to take up those cases individually with him but had a blanket assurance that they would be admitted having had indefinite leave to enter, this would be most valuable, and if that was then extended to the cases that could arise under this Bill where such persons were serving sentences overseas, and are deemed to have a close tie or connection with the United Kingdom by virtue of their having been admitted as the dependant of a person who is settled

35
here, then this would certainly be a step in the right direction.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just illustrated it is possible to think of further examples off the top of one's head. I was wrong in taking the Falklands, as the noble Lord the Minister pointed out. Perhaps I should have said Gibraltar, where I think the rule under the Nationality Act was that a person could apply for British citizenship but did not have it automatically. A citizen of Gibraltar who had not applied for British citizenship would be in the position that I postulated for the resident of the Malvinas who had committed an offence in Buenos Aires. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with the construction of further artificial examples, because that was not really the point. The point was that the circumstances were those that we could not foresee which required the words "all the circumstances" to be written in here.
We have had a good innings on this and we will consider it more carefully between now and Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("() Where the consent of the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (1)(b) above is refused, such refusal shall he in writing and accompanied by a statement of reasons.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment on which the issue is perfectly clear. There is no right of appeal in the Bill against the refusal of the Secretary of State to agree to a transfer of this kind. It seems to me and to my noble friends that there should be an obligation in the Bill to give his reasons in those circumstances. The pressure varies a little with subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b). Where a person is a British citizen, it would be monstrous, if he agrees and the holding country agrees to the transfer, but the Secretary of State here does not agree to having him brought back, that he should not be given the reasons for the refusal. What those reasons could be, one does not know, but one can imagine the reasons of public policy, which we do not need to visualise. There would not be many such cases, I believe. However, it would be most unreasonable for a British citizen, once the Bill becomes an Act, to be refused the privilege, or almost the right, to be given reasons.
Under subsection (2)(b), it is easy for the Secretary of State to give reasons. All he has to say is that the ties are not close enough. That should not present any problems. Under paragraph (c) it is simply a question of transfer or retransfer and the situation does not arise. I do not think it is worth spending more time on this. It is an obvious point and I am interested to know what the Government have to say about it.
Lord Elton: It is indeed our intention that the Secretary of State's decisions on requests for transfer should be conveyed in writing. Indeed it is difficult to know how else that could be done because there would have to be written communication between the authorities concerned in this and the other state
36
involved. A statutory requirement to that effect would not seem necessary but that is not the heart of the matter to which the noble Lord has addressed himself. As I hope I made clear on Second Reading, where the requirements of the relevant international arrangements are met, the Secretary of State will not normally withhold consent to a transfer except for compelling reasons of public policy. On the rare occasions when a refusal may be necessary, however, it may not always be in the public interest for the reasons for refusal to be explained. From the way he is swaying his head I can see that the noble Lord will want an example. An example of the type of case in which it might be difficult to give full reasons for withholding consent for transfer would be, for instance, where information had come to light about a prisoner's involvement in other criminal activities which might lead to a further charge against him and others and where to reveal such information at that stage might prejudice the chances of apprehending, or collecting evidence about, those involved.
Another example might be where the reasons for withholding consent were concerned with terrorist activities and where considerations of national security might be involved; obviously reasons which revealed sources of confidential intelligence could not be revealed. The best I can do for the noble Lord is to say it is our honest intention—I know what I say cannot bind successor Governments—not unreasonably to withhold agreement to a transfer either of our own people into this country or of other prisoners out of this country on any occasion. We shall normally be perfectly open about why the decisions are taken. But the danger is that if we put a mandatory provision in the Bill for reasons to be given, I think I am right in saying that the reasonability of the reasons become justiciable and one then gets into an area where a door that ought to be kept closed is occasionally prised open. There is no sinister intention in what I am saying; it is a matter of prudence and experience.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I accept that there is no sinister intention, but there may be a sinister effect over the years. People's attitude to criminals vary and people here may say that they do not want some fearful criminal who has done something awful in another country back here and that we should allow that chap to stew in his own juice over there. This is the kind of thing which is not in the spirit of the Bill and which in my opinion would be absolutely unjust and should be protected against. Things change very fast and, under a Nazi government, I am quite sure we should have got a reply of that kind. I think the Bill should be strong enough to deal with it.
Over terrorism it might be a good answer to say, "I am not prepared to have this man back. I already have too many of his kind in my prisons". This is already true in this country with the IRA terrorists, though it does not apply to most of them because they come from within our jurisdiction. That would be a perfectly good answer and I cannot see why it should not be made. The idea that the criminal might be suspected of something else and therefore it would be unfortunate to interfere with the trial which the holding country were to put him under is not sound because the holding country would not agree to his removal.

37
I do not think the noble Lord has satisfied me at all about this. It is a question of the British citizen, who has the full rights given—or perhaps one should say privileges rather than rights—under the Bill, and who in 20 years could be denied them for no good reason. I am not happy about this.
Lord Elton: I shall take these points seriatim. The only way I can see of dealing with this is to construct another hypothetical example. Let us say that in a British prison there is a person who is gaoled for four years for fraud and he is a Swiss financier. How he became Swiss is something that the story need not reveal. Weeks after a proposal that he should be returned has been made, there arrives on the Secretary of State's desk a dossier which shows that he is the Mr. Big whose activities before he was locked up resulted in a constant flow of vital information extracted from various other nefarious people and collected by him and sent abroad to an enemy of the State. If the Secretary of State were to be obliged to say anything even so general in publishing his reasons as that he had decided not to let him go on grounds of national security, all the people from whom Mr. Big was collecting information would be alerted to the fact that they were in danger and all the birds would have flown by the time the arrests were to be made.
That may seem rather fanciful but it illustrates a principle that there will be occasions on which the requirement to give reasons could not but have the effect that the national interest would be affected. I cannot say the extent to which it would be affected. The noble Lord cannot say the number of occasions on which it would be affected.
It seems to me that a Secretary of State of whatever government in this country is likely to be acting on principles which are at least as fair as and probably fairer than those of other countries. I do not think it is the function of a Government framing this sort of legislation to provide against the advent of a Nazi government in this country. If it was, I can tell your Lordships that if the legislation militated against the object of the Nazi government this building would be burnt to the ground as the Reichstag was.
Lord Melchett: I must say that the noble Lord has not convinced me, either. I can see there might be occasions when the grounds for refusing a transfer were national security of one sort or another and the Government would not want to have to go to court and reveal the source of the evidence on which they based that decision. I should have thought that that would be a comparatively simple matter to accommodate in an amendment, so as to ensure that was not something which could be looked at in detail in court and that the Government had to give their reasons unless national security was involved or something of that sort.
But the noble Lord then came back and said that even to reveal that there were grounds of national security might itself produce some disadvantage. He suggested that he might have been a little fanciful, and I think I would agree with him. There will come a point—and I hope the noble Lord will consider this—where the rights of a citizen being denied are so important that the small risk of something rather
38
fanciful occurring, as the noble Lord has suggested, is one which the Government must run. This does leave an enormous amount of discretion, as the Minister knows, in the hands of the Secretary of State—discretion which we should not dream of giving in any other circumstances. It is a discretion which is going to involve somebody possibly serving 50 years in jail or five, for example. It is an awesome power which is being given to an individual Minister in the Government.
Lord Elton: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I cannot think of who the people serving 50 years in jail in this country would be, and it would be those to whom the noble Lord's proposals would apply, in the circumstances which we have discussed, because, since we are dealing in hypothetical cases—and this is the difficulty that is always involved in so doing—we are talking about a threat to the security of this country and not of another country, and the Secretary of State is not going to refuse to have a British prisoner repatriated to Britain in order to protect British security unless he cannot imagine how he is going to keep him inside any jail. So it seems to me we are considering whether or not to let people go from this country and, if so, it seems to me that the noble Lord has overdrawn his case.
Lord Melchett: With respect, I do not think I have: and I can envisage plenty of circumstances in which Ministers might decide that they do not wish to have a British citizen repatriated to this country because of the threat he poses to this country's security. That seems to me much more likely than objecting to the transfer of someone out of this country. After all, the whole problem about posing a threat to national security is that it is not something the Government are prepared to stand up in court and prove. As the noble Lord knows from the position in Northern Ireland, this will be information from informers, and so on, which for one reason or another will not stand up in court or which the Government are not prepared to reveal in court.
One would have to be very naive to assume that the Government would not use such circumstances to refuse to have people brought hack to this country. In those circumstances, it could well be giving them the sort of power over a person's life that I have described. That is why I think this is a very important case in which the reasons, if they are not concerned with national security, must be produced in writing so that a person can contest them in court.
Lord Elton: At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I would just say that the debate we have been listening to must have put a number of ideas into the mind of the mover of this amendment, one of which emerged fairly late on: that we are in the habit of discussing the conditions of those on "outward tickets" and those on "inward tickets" as if the cases were the same. What the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said has made it clear that they are not. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, may wish to consider this further. Your Lordships know I always reflect on everything that is said between Committee and Report so far as I can, and that is probably where this ought to be left for the moment.
Lord Mishcon: I intervene only because I believe—I shall be reprimanded if I am wrong—that we are going a little astray. And, for once, I believe that the noble Lord the Minister is responsible for our going a little astray; and it is not like him at all. It looks as though the debate is taking place upon this amendment with the Minister concentrating not on those who may be transferred into this country but on those who may be transferred out of it. I would ask him to look at the clause to which this amendment refers. It is subsection (2) on page 2 and it provides specifically for the issue or non-issue of a warrant,
"providing for the transfer of any person into the United Kingdom".
Therefore, with great respect, when he carries the debate to cover those who are transferred out of the United Kingdom, he is not as consistent as he always is, either with his own text or with that of the Bill. If I may concentrate, therefore, on what the amendment intends—and it is transferring into the United Kingdom—we are quite obviously considering the case of a British subject who may be languishing in a gaol and it is not just a question of the term of the imprisonment but of the conditions of the imprisonment which are so often such as one would want to rescue him from.
Some civil servant recommends—and it may be that a very busy Minister may not have time to consider all the facts leading to the recommendation—in regard to a British subject languishing abroad that a warrant should not be issued for his transfer into the United Kingdom. If that occurs, quite obviously a grave injustice can be done. There is no right of redress at all and no right to make representations which are of any moment at all, because the prisoner does not even know the cause of the refusal and therefore what he ought to be concentrating on in regard to his representations.
In exactly the same way as my noble friend Lord Melchett said, there ought to be an exception for the rare case of public interest, if I may put it that way, because that is a wider term than "national security". I would not even mind saying that where the Minister or the Secretary of State certifies that a matter of public interest is involved, the reason need not be disclosed. I should be prepared to leave it at that. I know that is not the amendment which is before us at the moment but I am trying to get the principle clear at this stage. Then one would say immediately that reasons must be given so that the prisoner can correct what may be a misapprehension.
For example, it may very well be that at the Home Office somebody has confused this man with somebody else or has looked up the records and, in finding the name "John Smith", has in fact found two John Smiths and then said, "We don't want this man back here: look at that horrible sexual crime he committed some years ago." Or there may be a suggestion that John Smith is connected in some way with bank robbers or things of that kind, whereas they have got hold of the wrong person. John Smith could make his position clear if the reason for refusal were given, and there is nothing in the national interest which is disturbed by talking about a previous conviction and revealing that is the reason for refusal, or that he broke out of our jail and we would not want him to break out of jail again.
40
These are matters of sheer justice, and where you have not got a court of appeal and where you are anxious to go away from courts as much as you possibly can—that is recognised—I submit that you must act with justice. I repeat that we are dealing in this paragraph, as I see it—I stand to be corrected—purely with people to be transferred into our jurisdiction.
Lord Gifford: As I understand the amendment, it is contemplating the introduction of a new subsection which will fit between (2) and (3) of the Bill as it stands. The amendment refers us back to a consent of the Secretary of State pursuant to "Section 4(1)(b) below ". It does not talk in terms of consent but about the agreement of the Secretary of State and the appropriate authority of the other territory. It may be that. if the spirit of this amendment finally became incorporated, the word "consent" would not be quite appropriate. But clearly what is intended is to cover all agreements made by the Secretary of State and they, under subsection (1), cover—and I say it with great respect and deference to my noble friend Lord Mishcon—transfers into and out of the United Kingdom.
Having, I hope, started on the right basis, may I just support the spirit behind this amendment, whether it applies to transfers in or transfers out, or both? I ask noble Lords, and particularly the Minister, to bear in mind the predicament of the prisoner in whose case a transfer has been requested and who learns, either by direct communication or by the silence of the authorities, that nothing will be done in his case. The effect that that has on somebody who believes, rightly or wrongly, that he ought to be transferred can be quite cataclysmic. People in prison, above all, need to know the reasons why rights or privileges to which they believe they are entitled are not being afforded, and I thoroughly endorse the words of my noble friend Lord Mishcon when he talked about people who may want to supply further information to get round an objection which otherwise might be made. So I hope that a balance can be struck and that reasons can be given, even though in one or two fanciful cases, there may be reasons why the Secretary of State might not want to give them.
Lord Avebury: May I—
Lord Mishcon: I only want to correct myself, if I may. It is my normal habit, as it is with all your Lordships, to confess immediately when I find I am wrong, and I do that. I had read subsection (2)(b) instead of subsection (1)(a) and I am most grateful to my noble friend for pointing it out. It goes both ways and I apologise for wasting the time of the Committee with a bad point.
Lord Elton: On the contrary, it had the very salutary effect of making me examine very carefully my own reasoning, which is not a bad thing to do. But I think that the noble Lord is right in his retraction. Perhaps it would accelerate matters if I said that the number of occasions when an inward transfer would be refused seems to me to be extremely small. It really is quite possible that there might be no objection to conceding

41
this principle on inward transfers. The not altogether fanciful illustration which I gave revealed a principle which it is important to protect on outward transfers.
It seems to me that some of your Lordships regard the direction as immaterial to the importance of the amendment. I doubt whether I can satisfy them. But those who feel that they are concerned particularly about the inward transfer of prisoners may find that I am able to satisfy them at Report stage. But, without further thought, I could not undertake to bring forward what the noble Lord wants.
Lord Avebury: I only wanted to ask the noble Lord a very brief question about the outward-going prisoners. When he spoke about terrorists, I wondered whether—and it seemed to me possible from the way he expressed himself—the Minister was envisaging that the Secretary of State would refuse his consent to a transfer in the case of whole classes of persons convicted of certain types of offence. I do not know whether or not I was right in that. But, obviously, in the case of a security risk you could not send a prisoner back to the country from which he was sent as a spy to the United Kingdom. I can understand that. It would be a very good reason for not repatriating him. But, in the case of the terrorist, I do not see that any such general rule applies, and it would be unfortunate if we decided that anybody convicted of an offence which would prove rather difficult to define—if the Minister were to make a general rule—was to be excluded from the benefit of the Bill.
Lord Elton: That was very far from my intention. My intention was to say that the giving of reasons might prejudice an operation against terrorism or drug smuggling, which I regard as as great an evil, if not a greater one. Where that might happen, I should have thought your Lordships would wish the Secretary of State to stay his hand. As to categories of prisoner, I have said nothing and neither does the Bill.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I ask my noble friend this question? It has occurred to me that we are talking about the Secretary of State taking the initiative. Could it be that the prisoner himself—I am asking for guidance on this, because it is important —could ask to be transferred and put his reasons to the Secretary of State? I cannot find it in the Bill, but presumably it is there.
Lord Elton: The first circumstance, the sine qua non, is an agreement between the governments. The transfer has to take place under that umbrella. Once that umbrella is established, it is my understanding that anybody can take advantage of it, and the initiative can be taken by the prisoner, by the foreign government or by the British Government.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: We have had a useful discussion. I shall in due course withdraw this amendment, but I shall certainly come back on Report. We have had a clue as to the way in which we ought to go, which we shall have to examine very carefully. It may be that we should treat inward and outward cases differently. I am not quite convinced of this. But I should like to look at it very carefully and
42
I think that I should like to put down an amendment in due course on Report, on which I shall probably want to divide the House if we cannot get satisfaction, because this is an absolutely vital point. But, at the moment, I am very happy, as the noble Lord suggested, to take this away and look at it and see what we can do at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("() for the avoidance of doubt the provisions in subsection (1) above governing the issue of a warrant shall apply to such warrant for the transfer for the purpose of temporary return of the prisoner as is referred to in section 4(1) below.").
The noble Lord said: We should be able to deal with this amendment more quickly. It is a probing amendment and it is to satisfy us that the provisions of Clause 1(1) include the prisoner's consent to all transfers under, for example, Clause 4(1)(b) and he does not have to be asked again for a special consent. It is simply that we require to be assured that this is the case. If it is the case, I have no more to say. If it is not the case, I shall have to go away and think about it. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The doubt to which the noble Lord's amendment refers is, perhaps, more easily avoided than most, though there are always doubts in studying the drafting of Bills. There is only one clause in the Bill which provides for the issue of a warrant and that is Clause 1. All references in the Bill to warrants are references to warrants in Clause 1, because they are references to warrants "under this Act". It follows that they are references to warrants issued under Clause 1. Clause 4 does not create a power to issue a warrant. That power is created only under Clause 1. What it does do is to provide for a warrant for an inward transfer and a warrant for an outward transfer or vice versa to be combined in a single document where the transfer is for temporary purposes only. Such transfers will be necessary to enable appeals to be heard in, for instance, long running cases. I hope that that clears up the matter.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think that it does. I should like to read what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 14, after ("(3)") insert ("(a)")
The noble Lord said: I think that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendment No. 18 with this one.
Amendment No. 18: Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("(b) For the purpose of paragraph (a) above, where notice of withdrawal of consent is received by the Secretary of State after the issue of the warrant but the withdrawal itself took place prior to the issue of the warrant, the warrant shall be treated as invalid.").
The Bill envisages that the detained prisoner has to give his consent to the transfer, as we have already

43
discussed, and as the treaty itself provides. It provides further that the consent may be withdrawn, but only up to the time when the warrant is issued by the Secretary of State in respect of the transfer. What we are saying in this amendment, and in No. 18, is that it would not be fair to make the right to withdrawal of consent by a British prisoner overseas dependent on the prison and the postal authorities there. We envisage that it might take a period of several weeks for the withdrawal of consent to get from, for example, the civil rights centre in Riyadh or the Liberdad prison—so Orwellian a name—in Montevideo to Queen Anne's Gate. It would be wrong if the prisoner were debarred from withdrawing his consent by reason of the delays imposed by the administrative machinery and the postal authorities between those places and London. It may be fettering the imagination to postulate that any person in one of those institutions might prefer it to the delightful régime which the Minister provides in Gartree or Albany, but if that person does have such a bizarre preference there is no reason why he should not be indulged. Clause 6 allows for the revocation of a warrant, and in those circumstances it would be appropriate if that power could be exercised, seldom though it might be wanted. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I hope I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. His concern is that the Secretary of State, by issuing a warrant, might cause a prisoner to be whisked back to his welcoming but vindictive land because he was unaware that the prisoner had changed his heart on the matter. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 does not refer to the timing of notification of the withdrawal of consent to the Secretary of State. The validity of the warrant will therefore depend, among other things, upon the chronology of events. If the prisoner withdrew his consent at a point in time which preceded the issue of the Secretary of State's warrant, the warrant would, as a matter of law, be invalid, because one of the requirements for the issue of the warrant would not have been met. Even if notification of the withdrawal of consent reached the Secretary of State several days after the issue of the warrant. this would not affect the position in law and the warrant would still be invalid, provided that it could be shown that consent was withdrawn before the time that the warrant was issued.
Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. I shall assume that everybody else will interpret the Bill as he does and that there is no doubt, as there was in the minds of those who advised us, about the matter being entirely clear. However, I am very happy to accept the assurances which the noble Lord has given to the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 19 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 20 to 23.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 23, after ("required") insert ("against his will").
The noble Lord said: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take Amendments Nos. 20 to 24 together.
Amendment No. 21: Page 2, line 23, after ("in") insert ("or confined to").
Amendment No. 22: Page 2, line 24, leave out ("institution") and insert ("place").
Amendment No. 23: Page 2, line 24, leave out ("either").
Amendment No. 24: Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (5).
I refer the Committee to the present reading of subsection (4). The Committee will find that it relates to the person to whom the Bill applies. That person is somebody who is required to be detained in a prison, a hospital or any other institution,
"(a) by virtue of an order made in the course of the exercise by a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom, or in any country or territory outside the British Islands, of its criminal jurisdiction.
I do not need to go any further in order to make clear the principle of this amendment. It has been said more than once that this is a humanitarian measure. Therefore we have to be very careful not to except from these provisions people whom we ought to have in mind.
I have made clear to your Lordships that the present reading of the Bill is limited to criminal jurisdiction by tribunals and courts. I am thinking of British subjects, those intimately connected with this country, who are in places of detention abroad and who may not at present come within the compass of subsection (4). In some countries, prison sentences can be imposed for ordinary civil matters—indeed, for civil debts—and one is limited at the moment to the criminal jurisdiction of courts. Secondly, in some countries an individual has the right to imprison. It would necessarily, therefore, be a court or a tribunal. Thirdly, some countries have a code which we would call a penal code but which they put forward as a matter of religious, not criminal law. We must have very closely in mind in relation to British subjects those countries which exercise religious jurisdiction under which, as I have already said, terms of imprisonment can be invoked without there being anything which relates to criminal law jurisdiction. It is with that in mind that this amendment is moved.
Lord Elton: The effect of these amendments would be to broaden the scope of the Bill—I am not trying to make a drafting point to the noble Lord, nor am I certain whether he intends this—to embrace anybody who was detained by anybody else, for whatever reason. I appreciate that the noble Lord's intention is to embrace persons imprisoned for civil debt and people imprisoned under penal codes based on religious laws. But the amendment goes further. I take it that that is not his intention?
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord is quite right.
Lord Elton: We have introduced this legislation because there is clearly a readiness now among many countries in the world to enter into arrangements for the repatriation of persons serving custodial sentences as a result of having been convicted of criminal offences. All international discussions of this issue

45
have been about people convicted of criminal offences. We have no information to suggest that any country would be willing to contemplate the repatriation of persons imprisoned for civil debt, for instance. Even if one country was willing, we, and I suspect most other countries, would obviously have great difficulty in agreeing to such arrangements because of the added problems of recovering a debt once the person had left the country. During the negotiations on the Council of Europe Convention, several countries made it quite clear that they could not even contemplate agreeing to the transfer of prisoners against whom fines or other financial debts were outstanding. I hope noble Lords understand, as they did earlier, that in this legislation we cannot go outside the bounds of the convention.
On debt, therefore, I am afraid that there is nothing we can do. On religion, on the other hand, I am glad to say that it seems to us that there is nothing which needs to be done. The reason I say that is this: noble Lords are concerned about countries where the penal code is based on religious law. At least I take it that that is the case. It is our view that there would be no difficulty about regarding such codes as criminal jurisdictions for the purposes of the Bill. They would therefore fall within the terms of Clause 1(4) and the persons detained under them after conviction would be covered by the provisions of the Bill.
To recapitulate, we are not empowered by the convention, and would see great difficulties in doing so anyway, to apply these arrangements to people imprisoned for debt or for the non-payment of fines. But on criminal matters we see no difficulties because that is the intention of the convention and the Bill, and our strong advice is that for those purposes the fact that jurisdiction is based on religious rather than on what we would think of as legalistic or juristic considerations would in no way put that jurisdiction outside the application of the Bill.
Lord Melchett: That assurance is helpful, although it would be more helpful if the Minister could tell us where in the Bill is his authority for saying what he has just said. A number of us looking at the Bill thought that it was restricted to people convicted of criminal offences by a court or tribunal. There was a worry that a country might announce that it had no criminal code or crime which people could transgress against, because it had adopted some other system, and that the Government might be precluded by the terms of the Bill from entering into a transfer arrangement with such a country.
While I am on my feet, may I take up with the Minister a point which he has made twice: that the Bill cannot go beyond the Council of Europe convention. That, surely, is incorrect. What I hope the Minister means is that we must not put anything into the Bill which will prevent Her Majesty's Government from ratifying or implementing the Council of Europe convention. I thought that the Government's whole case for the Bill was based on the idea that we must allow in this Bill for bilateral treaties and other conventions which do go beyond the Council of Europe convention and which incorporate different provisions and allow for different arrangements we need to make.
46
As I understand it, the argument is for maximum flexiblity in this Bill, and this amendment would import that much more flexibility. After all, the Minister says that other countries cannot at the moment contemplate transferring prisoners who are in prison for civil debt. But might that not be a possibility in the future? Is it a possibility that the Government really want to rule out completely in terms of legislation, when they are prepared to incorporate flexibility in so many other provisions?
Lord Elton: To take the noble Lord's second point first, he is absolutely right—my concern is that we should do nothing that will inhibit the operation of the convention. Indeed, a doubt flickered in my mind when I uttered those words a second time. I thought that I might merely confuse if I sought to qualify them—but the noble Lord has just done that for me, and I am grateful.
On the noble Lord's first point, the Bill does not define what is a criminal jurisdiction; I understand that would be a matter for the courts. The advice I have is that there would be no doubt in the mind of the court that the kind of code of conduct and punishment to which the noble Lord referred is in effect a criminal jurisdiction, whatever the people in whose country it is applied may choose to call it.
Lord Mishcon: I have listened with the greatest care to what the noble Lord the Minister has said, but I am in a state of some little confusion in respect of his remarks on religious institutions imposing a term of imprisonment as a result of religious law. I thought that I caught the Minister correctly in his very recent observation when he said that it would be a matter for interpretation by the courts. If we were thinking in terms of the English courts, I would be perfectly happy—but all the examples anyone can think of relate to British subjects abroad who would not be receiving the benefit of a ruling by an English court, and nor would the English court's ruling avail them.
In those circumstances, while I should very much like to consider with my noble friends with whose names this amendment is associated our position before we reach Report stage, having regard to the Minister's reply—and although I personally can see some weight in what he said about civil debt—what would comfort me very much indeed is if the Minister can at least say that it will be an undertaking of the Government that in any agreements which they reach with countries abroad it will be made perfectly clear that our understanding and their understanding of a criminal jurisdiction encompass religious jurisdiction where imprisonment might result.
If we can have an undertaking that such will be made abundantly clear in any agreements ever entered into with any of the countries, that would at least give us some solace on this side, even if it is not made clear in the Bill. But to say that our courts might give a certain interpretation in regard to criminal jurisdiction completely overlooks what other courts in other countries might decide.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord will recognise that neither I nor Her Majesty's Government can do anything to bind a foreign government. When I refer to the courts, I mean the courts in their supervision of the

47
conduct of our own Government and our own Home Secretary. Our own Home Secretary would be perfectly able to operate all the apparatus of this Bill—or Act, as it will be—in regard to a country operating what the noble Lord called a religious jurisdiction, free of the worry that a British court might find him ultra vires.
What no British court can do is to pronounce upon the vires of another government in another country. Plainly, I cannot undertake to specify what will be in an agreement with another country for precisely the same reason. I cannot bind foreign countries to agree that a specific area in which they seek to control the behaviour of their citizens is or is not relevant under the Act. All I can do is say that Her Majesty's Government will seek to find an agreement with other countries which gives the maximum benefit to the maximum number of British citizens who may wish later to avail themselves of the operation of the Act.
That implies that we shall do everything that we can, where it might prove necessary, to secure an explicit undertaking from the Government of a foreign country that they do indeed regard certain areas of conduct and punishment as being within the operation of their mirror of our Act for the purposes of either the bilateral arrangements we have or for the operation of the convention.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, follows me. I am trying to say, "Yes" to everything the noble Lord has asked me so far as it is possible. But I cannot say, "Yes" in respect of what other countries will determine in their courts as to their law.
Lord Mishcon: It was precisely because of that difficulty that I did not want the Committee, any more than the Minister would want the Committee, to be under the impression from the Minister's remarks that we can dismiss this amendment because, without any doubt at all, if ever we entered into an agreement with another country it would be obvious—and they would have to agree to this—that, because of the wording of this Bill, religious convictions and sentences came under the banner of criminal jurisdiction.
It is valuable that the Minister has taken on board that at all times when negotiating an agreement with a foreign country it should be our aim to have religious matters so covered. On that basis, and so that I may at least consider the position with my noble friends who have associated themselves with this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]
5.18 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
(" (5A) In the case of a transfer into the United Kingdom pursuant to this section or section 4 below no criminal charges in respect of offences allegedly committed by the prisoner prior to his transfer into the United Kingdom shall be brought in the United Kingdom unless either:

(a) notice of liability to be so charged has been given to the prisoner pursuant to subsection (5)(c) above prior to his giving his consent to the transfer, or

48

(b) the alleged involvement of the prisoner in any offence with which he is charged after his transfer was not known to the Secretary of State prior to the said transfer.

(5B) Nothing in subsection (5A) above shall affect the right of a private citizen to bring proceedings of any sort against a prisoner.")
The noble Lord said: This, again, is rather a simple amendment. I shall probably be told that it is not necessary; still, I should like to be reassured on that point. We are trying to confirm the principle which the noble Lord himself laid down at Second Reading, when he said that it will be the prisoner who will be the ultimate judge. In other words, he said that the most important of the three decisions to be made is ultimately that of the prisoner. Before he can make up his mind, he must be sure that he understands the possibility of further charges when and if he is brought home.
This amendment suggests, in the simplest possible way, that a new subsection (5A) be inserted at the end of line 40 on page 2 of the Bill which simply writes this down. The exceptions are (a) and (b), which state that no charges will be brought in the United Kingdom unless:

"(a) notice of liability to be so charged has been given to the prisoner pursuant to subsection (5)(c) … or

(b) the alleged involvement of the prisoner in any offence with which he is charged after his transfer was not known to the Secretary of State".

In other words, anything that is known to the Secretary of State in the way of a charge or a further charge when he gets back must be disclosed to the prisoner. The new subsection (5B) maintains the right for civil cases to be brought against him without exception. He is, therefore, fully aware of that.
It is obviously very important that if a man is an habitual criminal and has committed an offence in a foreign country it is quite likely that there will be other charges which he would like to have taken into consideration at some stage or other. He must know what they are and must decide whether to come back and face them rather than stay where he is, where the charges cannot be brought against him. I do not think I can say anything more. It is a fairly clear issue. It is very desirable to put down in writing the obligation that this information should be given to the prisoner so that he can make up his mind properly. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment follows the lines of the speciality rule in extradition. I agree there is a need for such a rule in extradition arrangements where a country has asked for the extradition of a person to stand trial on specific charges, but the arrangements with which we are now concerned are very different. The prisoner will be seeking repatriation to this country for his own benefit, and that of his family, and his transfer will depend upon his consent. The prisoner himself should be well aware of any charges that could be brought against him for any past activities in this country. Therefore, there is no justification for placing an obligation on the Secretary of State to inform him of any outstanding charges. If any such charges did come to the notice of the Secretary of State when considering a repatriation request, I should add, in all fairness, that the prisoner would be informed. But to say that is not the same as to accept that there should

49
be an obligation to notify the prisoner of such charges or of such liability to be charged.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Is there the slightest difference in those two things? It seems to me that there is not. If anything which comes to the knowledge of the Secretary of State would be notified to the prisoner, what is the difference from saying that he has a duty to do so?
Lord Elton: I am anxious not to split hairs with the noble Lord, and I am always in danger of doing that. I think I should take advice on this, which I shall do. The principal difficulty may well prove to be what is meant in the Bill by the term "the Secretary of State". It may be that the Secretary of State is technically seized of information which is, for example, in the hands of a junior consular official or some outstation of the immigration department. It could be that the information does not come to hand in time to be of use. That would then put the Secretary of State in breach of the Act if the prisoner came back to this country and was charged, and it could be proved that the information was in the system but not in the head of my right honourable friend who has responsibility for these matters. I can see that the noble Lord is not much more satisfied with what I am saying than I am myself. I will look at this further.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: Although I wholly agree with the principle of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, which is based on British judgment and logic, I think we have to appreciate that so many times in other countries people are taken to prison and for months are not charged. They are sometimes held in appalling conditions and their one desire is to get home. We have evidence that time and again the Foreign Office has asked what charges have been laid against a person but has been given a negative reply. In those circumstances, would it not militate against a man who is desperate to get out of the appalling conditions in which he finds himself and to get home at any price, if necessary throwing himself on the mercy of British justice and not that of the country in which he is being held?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If I may reply to that across the Floor, this amendment is entirely concerned with charges which the prisoner will meet when he gets back to this country. It has nothing to do with the foreign country. If the foreign country has charges against him, presumably it will not agree to his transfer. It is simply the case of a man who has committed crimes in this country, and knows that he has because he has got away with some of them, and where other charges may be pending. He will want to know what will happen when he gets to this country and how many charges remain. In so far as the Secretary of State knows that, the noble Lord has already said that the Secretary of State will have a normal duty to inform the prisoner. In so far as he does not, the amendment, in (5A)(b), relieves him of any duty; so I think I am quite happy about that. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the amendment. We seem to be agreeing in such a tremendous way that something ought to materialise in the end.
Lord Melchett: It is worth stressing that many prisoners, in having to decide on whether to accept a transfer, will have some very difficult choices to make. Although they may find themselves in much better conditions if they return here to serve the remainder of their sentence, they will also return to face a sentence of a length which they can be fairly certain of, although I agree there are some uncertainties about parole. Nevertheless, they will have a fairly clear idea of how long they will spend in prison. However, in many other countries where people will be serving sentences there are irregular amnesties and people may be let out on the whim of an individual, and so on, so they will have to gamble, as it were, on the likelihood of getting a fairly early release from very bad conditions against serving a slightly longer sentence in better conditions. Obviously one of the factors that will be important to them is to know not only whether they will, on return, have to serve the remainder of the sentence for the offence of which they have been convicted abroad but also whether they will face further, perhaps serious, charges. These may be charges connected with the offence of which they have been convicted abroad and for which they may feel they have already been sufficiently sentenced. There are a number of situations one can see in which it would be important for the prisoner to have access to such information.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I hope that the Government will be able to see some way of meeting this amendment. I accept the need to protect the Secretary of State—and the amendment was drafted with this very much in mind—from simply being in ignorance of some charges, resulting in the police being unable to proceed. That was not the intention of the amendment as drafted. It may not completely and effectively meet that point, but I do not believe that it would be beyond the wit of the advisers of the noble Lord to draft an amendment which would meet that problem.
Lord Elton: I will read with care what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said. I think that what he said went further than the amendment. The amendment is curtailed by (5A)(b). What the noble Lord seemed to want is for the Home Secretary to have to inquire of every police force in the United Kingdom whether the prisoner has a criminal record or is wanted for an unsolved crime, or whatever. That is something to which I could not commit him because it would be both extensive and expensive. I said some time ago that I would be looking at what has been said. I think I would be well advised to say nothing more and to do just that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On that I am grateful and quite content to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the near agreement—we seem to be very close—will produce something on which we can entirely agree at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 2 [Tranfers out of the United Kingdom]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 38 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: I am hoping that the noble Lord the Minister will be good enough at least to listen to the point that I wish to make on the Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill? It is of some concern to the National Association for Mental Health. I shall well understand it if he cannot give me a reply now but I would ask him whether he will, with his usual courtesy, write to me so that I can, in turn, assure the association that the matter has been given proper attention.
The point was raised on Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Ennals. He mentioned Section 86 of the Mental Health Act 1983, where there was already a power vested in the Secretary of State to transfer abroad alien patients—I believe that is the term used in the section—including those under a hospital order. But before the Secretary of State could do that he had to have the approval of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
In exercising the power that will be given under this Bill in regard to those who are so afflicted, the Secretary of State does not have to obtain the consent of the patient. The concern is expressed in this way. Clarification is sought as to the type of advice the Home Secretary would require before exercising his powers under this Bill. Will independent advice as to the patient's current needs and state of health, of exactly the same sort as that which would be provided by the tribunal under the Mental Health Act 1983, be taken into consideration? The concern is obviously that the mental patient should not suffer as a result of the transfer. The evidence as to the suffering could be obtained only from some medical source. The anxiety relates to whether that guidance will be sought—and I am sure that it will—and the nature of it. Perhaps an assurance can be given now. If, however, I have caught the Minister unaware—and I have not given him any notice of this point—I shall well understand it and would appreciate a letter from him.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for bringing to my attention this concern, of which I was not, in fact, aware. He will recall that under his Amendment No. 7 we agreed that people who suffered from this sort of mental disability would need to be spoken for by somebody who did not so suffer and who could speak in their interest. As far as I am aware, that is the extent of the protection within the Bill.
The noble Lord has asked for an assurance that certain steps, which on the face of them would appear to be perfectly reasonable, should be undertaken. I think that I ought in common prudence to examine the question and take advice on it. It may be that something more, less or slightly different from what the noble Lord wants might be required; but I see that there is an anxiety there which should be addressed.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Transfer into the United Kingdom]:
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): The Question is, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: Again, I should like to raise a point on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? Clause 3 deals with transfers out of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord the Minister may remember the anxiety expressed in some quarters about what would happen if a terrorist was convicted and sentenced for terrorism in this country and we had entered into an agreement with a country which might favour the type of terrorism for which that person was responsible or the so-called cause of terrorism that that person advocated. The fear was that a sentence might prove absolutely nugatory because, on a transfer abroad, for all we know and in spite of provisions in the agreement there might be almost nursing-home treatment, if not a hero's welcome.
We have gone a long way in our legislation in regard to terrorism—some of which your Lordships' House is now considering—to make this a very serious matter. Before we leave Clause 3, I should like the noble Lord's assurance that what he said on Second Reading about the Secretary of State's attitude on matters of that kind can be taken in a very concrete form by this Committee. Otherwise, we might have to consider at Report stage putting in an exception in the case of convictions for terrorism. This is a matter that must be very present in our minds at the moment. I say that with the deepest of regret. But we should be lacking in our duty if we pass Clause 3 without having some kind of statement on this matter from the Secretary of State via the Minister.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the Minister replies, may I point out that we have an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on Clause 3 which I believe we should take before we discuss whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Unless prohibited by the international arrangement in accordance with which the prisoner is transferred, a provision contained in a warrant by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above—

(a) shall be no more severe than could have been contained in an order made as mentioned in paragraph (a) or, as the case may be, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above in respect of the type of conduct which resulted in the detention giving rise to the transfer; and

(b) shall make full allowance for the period already spent in custody by the prisoner (including time so spent prior to and during his trial) in respect of the conduct which resulted in the detention giving rise to transfer.")

The noble Lord said: I am always obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for his interventions. I sometimes find them helpful, but not always.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It is always a pleasure for me.
Lord Mishcon: It is absolutely true that I have down a further amendment to Clause 3, and it is more suitable that I move it before raising the other matter. We have at least given the noble Lord the Minister an opportunity to consider what I have said when we come to consider whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. I hope not to repeat it word for word.
I do not know whether your Lordships will remember, but I can well recollect an amused smile on the Minister's face as on Second Reading we came to Clause 3(2) of the Bill. I must confess that if ever I wanted to choose, out of fairly contemporary legislation, an example of words that are almost impossible to comprehend I should have a go at Clause 3(2). It reads:
Subject to section 4(2) and (3) below, a provision shall not be contained by virtue of subsection (1) (c) above in a warrant under this Act unless it is a provision for or with respect to the detention of a person in a prison, a hospital or any other institution which, at the time the warrant is issued, may be contained in an order made—

(a) in the course of the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, by a court in the part of the United Kingdom in which the prisoner is to be detained; or

(b) otherwise than by a court but for the purpose of giving effect to an order made as mentioned in paragraph (a) above".

The Opposition are prepared to award a prize—I shall not indicate what—to any noble Lord on the Government side of the Committee, including those on the Front Bench, who can take your Lordships through that and explain exactly what it means in five minutes flat! That is a bit of an unfair point for me to make. When the noble Lord the Minister came across this provision, he said:
"That is a passage in the Bill which I find difficult to follow, and I hope that those words are helpful".—(Official Report, 21/12/83; col. 754.]
"Those words" were the preceding words. I have read them and I understand them, which is something that I cannot say about the provision, but I must confess that I do not really find them very helpful.
I looked at the Notes on Clauses to this Bill, which, most courteously, have been supplied and which are very helpful. They indicate—and this is very serious—that this clause empowers the Secretary of State to imprison someone for a time in excess of the United Kingdom maximum if he finds it necessary. That is an extraordinary power to give. I think your Lordships' Committee is satisfied that one must unfortunately look with some amount of consent at the position that we will imprison here somebody who has been imprisoned abroad for an offence which is not known to our own criminal law. In other words, we have got to swallow the fact—because it may be for the good of a British subject—that if you are sentenced in Saudi Arabia, for example, to a long term of imprisonment because you have been found to be in possession of a bottle of whisky, if we had an agreement with Saudi Arabia, what we would have to do is precisely what is envisaged by this Bill and accept such a person into our prisons in order to finish that sentence. Some of us, I remember, debated the matter on Second Reading when we were looking at the possible agreement with South Africa and what that might mean. I can remember the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Lord the Minister convincing me against what I had said from this Front Bench, that this would be very probably in the interests of the
54
person concerned, and in those circumstances we would have to stomach it.
This I can swallow. If there is an international agreement which specifies that the balance of the sentence has to be served in accordance with the sentence of that other country, and that sentence happens to exceed the maximum laid down in our criminal law, your Lordships' Committee will have to swallow that one. But what I cannot swallow—and I hope the Committee will not swallow—is where that is not in the agreement, there is some power vested in the Secretary of State to increase the sentence or to impose a sentence in this country which exceeds the maximum sentence in this country which is imposed for that particular offence. If my interpretation—not of this subsection, which I cannot interpret for your Lordships—of the Notes on Clauses is right, then the first part of this amendment is quite obviously necessary.
It may very well be that I should have split these amendments into two; but if I may turn to paragraph (b) of this amendment, this merely makes statutory, puts into the Bill, the statement of intent which I have seen in the explanatory paragraph 2 of the schedule in the Notes on Clauses. It is vital because of the statement in the Bill and in the explanatory notes that the starting date for calculation of remission, and thus the earliest date of release, will be the date of delivery of the prisoner to a prison or other institution in the United Kingdom. I am making the full allowance for the time spent abroad. The Secretary of State should surely be mindful of the fact that under United Kingdom law every day actually served effectively counts as a day and a half as a diminution of the sentence imposed by reason of the arrangements for remission. In giving full effect to time spent abroad, obviously the Secretary of State should make similar allowance.
I believe that I can best bring this home to your Lordships by giving an example. Say that a person had been sentenced to 12 years abroad and is to be transferred to the United Kingdom after serving four years abroad. The calculation by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the warrant should surely be as follows: take the total sentence of 12 years; deduct the time already served—four years—you get a balance remaining to be served of eight years. Give the credit for remission and time served abroad—two years—take the two years from the eight years and you get the balance to be served in the United Kingdom, which is six years.
The net result of that would be to put such a prisoner in exactly the same position as a prisoner sentenced in the United Kingdom. Unless full allowance is made in this way, a prisoner could serve longer than is justifiable. The prisoner would have served four years abroad and have to serve a further five and a third years in the United Kingdom before becoming eligible for final release, which would mean a total of nine and a third years of a 12 year sentence instead of the eight year period which would be just.
The Home Office has stated that the system of release on parole will take care of such inequities and disparities. We cannot accept that a prisoners' fate should be left to a further exercise of discretion, and one has to have in mind some of the recent

55
pronouncements which have worried quite a few of us on the whole question of release on parole so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned. Prisoners transferred to the United Kingdom will be dealt with by the domestic system of parole. Many of them would suffer unduly from restrictions on it, and their burden would then be double. I beg to move.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: There is one thing which I think the noble Lord has not taken into account, which is that, in relation to by bilateral agreements, you have got to get the best bilateral agreement that you can, and if you are dealing, for example, with South Africa, I doubt very much whether they would agree that somebody who had committed what they call a racial crime and we call ordinary behaviour, should be released when they get here. Until you get a series of different bilateral agreements to consider, I do not think you ought to start laying down things in the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State taking advantage of such things. My own view is that this should be up to the prisoner to choose. Would he rather come here and serve a sentence under conditions he is aware of, which, in British law he would not be liable to, or would he rather go on serving it there? I think it is perfectly clear that he should be given that decision, and in most cases he would choose to come here to be decently treated.
Lord Mishcon: I said before that some interventions of my noble friend, Lord Donaldson, were most helpful. His previous one was, and this one quite obviously does not come within that description. I thought I had made it clear—and I apologise to your Lordships as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, if I did not make it clear: it must be my fault—that if an international arrangement made it obligatory upon the United Kingdom and therefore the Secretary of State to impose a balance of a sentence which would exceed the maximum in this country if the offence had been committed here, I immediately conceded that the Secretary of State would have no alternative. My complaint was that that was not a limitation that was put upon the Secretary of State's power, and the bare fact would appear to be—if the explanatory notes are right—that, irrespective of the international agreement making him do this, he could do it himself.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred to the problem of remission. This is extremely important because prisoners will want to know exactly where they stand before deciding whether to take advantage of the transfer arrangements. As I understand it, the period which a prisoner has served in a country overseas, if it is a party to the convention, will be governed by the remission arrangements in that country. In other words, to take Lord Mishcon's question about the person who was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and has served four years' imprisonment in an overseas country, then he will not necessarily attract the additional one third towards the sentence which would be appropriate in the case of a sentence being served in the United Kingdom. As I
56
understand it, it will depend entirely on what the remission arrangements are in France, Germany or wherever it is he happens to be serving his sentence. Then the balance of the sentence will have remission applied to it according to the United Kingdom rules once he has been transferred. Perhaps the Minister can correct me if that is wrong. I think that it is an important point that we should try to understand.
Similarly, if a person is transferred from the United Kingdom to a country overseas in the circumstances of the sentence which the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, postulates—he has been given 12 years and has done four here—then he will attract another two years towards the completion of his sentence by reason of the remission arrangements that apply in the United Kingdom, and those would have to be enforced in the receiving country to which he goes if it is a party to the Council of Europe Convention. As I also understand it, it would be the intention of the Government to see that wherever possible the bilateral arrangements that we enter into with other countries follow the same pattern, though that may not be feasible in every case.
I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says is perfectly true. One would never have read into subsection (2) the meaning which is ascribed to it, according to his description, and it is absolutely vital that we try to redraft the clause in a way which will make clear its meaning and certainly bring out the points about both the maximum sentence and the applicability of remission arrangements as between one country and another.
Lord Elton: I entirely understand the difficulty which noble Lords have in unravelling the provisions of Clause 3(2). I greatly wish that they were clearer, and the dissatisfaction of Members of your Lordships' Committee with the obscurity of what we have found necessary to insert is noted. But whether in fact it will prove as easy to improve the drafting as one always thinks it will is quite another matter and I shall not give an undertaking on that.
However, having said that. I also perfectly understand the anxiety of noble Lords who succeed in unravelling the provisions of Clause 3(2) and find the breadth of discretion which they give to the Secretary of State in drawing up the terms of a sentence contained in the warrant. The warrant is the vehicle in which the translation of the sentence awarded by a foreign court into British custodial terms is conveyed, and noble Lords have noted that the Secretary of State is not restricted as to how he may achieve that translation or the length of sentence that may result. That is a difficulty to which we have addressed ourselves, and in view of your Lordships' concern we are prepared to address ourselves to it further, if your Lordships give us the opportunity to do so.
However, I must point out that, while we may be able to improve on what we have at present, I very much doubt whether we shall attain 100 per cent. of what your Lordships and indeed Her Majesty's Government would like to see in its place. There are two reasons for this. One is that some British people may well wish to be transferred home to serve sentences for acts of which they have been convicted which would not have constituted offences at all if they had been committed at home. The noble Lord, Lord

57
Donaldson, has ably directed the Committee's attention to that point. Recently we have been discussing the applicability of the Bill to religious laws in foreign countries, and the Committee can well imagine the kind of thing that I mean. For that reason we cannot hope exactly to parallel the intention of subsection (2)(a) of the amendment.
We must also take care to remember that the transfers will not be automatic. The agreement of the foreign government will be required, and there is bound to be an element of negotiation involved. We must not create circumstances under which such a government would refuse to transfer on grounds of inadequacy of sentence, even if the aspiring transferee would have been quite happy to have settled for slightly more than would be normal in British jurisprudence in order that he might serve the sentence in a British, rather than a foreign, gaol. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has addressed himself to that point, too.
I ought also to say, I think, that I cannot see a British Home Secretary deliberately and unnecessarily awarding sentences above those which British courts would award under any circumstances, except where it was imperative to get a British subject out of a foreign penal system. Nonetheless, if the noble Lord will stay his hand, we will try to see whether we cannot reduce the discretion to recognisable bounds and to something which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, could swallow (to use his words).
I should now like to turn to the second leg of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right in saying that the terms for remission will vary according to the individual country and the individual agreement. But having said that, we will also consider what guidance, if any, we can effectively put into the Bill on matters of remission.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for what he has said in regard principally to the first leg of the amendment. As I indicated, the two legs of the amendment should have been separated, and I apologise to the Committee for that. I shall wait with great interest to see what the Government put forward as a result of this amendment being tabled. In regard to the second leg of the amendment, I am again certainly grateful to the noble Lord for the consideration that he proposes to give to it. Therefore in that respect, too, I await what he has to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
5.56 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I have been caught out, and rightly so, for having earlier made a speech that ought to be made at this stage. Having committed that sin, let me not commit the dual sin of repeating a speech and boring Members of your Lordships' Committee with it. I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister and the Members of the Committee listened to what I had to
58
say earlier. As your Lordships will remember, it concerned the question of terrorists who are convicted and sentenced here and what may happen in the circumstances which I previously adumbrated.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say—
Lord Elton: Having been addressed twice, I think I ought to reply at least once. On the general question, I was careful to say earlier that we were not proposing to create categories of offence, but to look at each case on its merits. I shall read with very great care what the noble Lord has said because it concerns a matter of great interest to myself and the Government, and indeed to all your Lordships—the question of the advisability or otherwise of returning people to a hero's welcome for deeds which we believe to be a crime against humanity—and I should expect to be able to reply to the noble Lord in reassuring terms.
There is one point in that context that I should in any case like to put on the record at this stage. Prisoner transfer arrangements which the United Kingdom enters into under the proposed legislation will provide for the repatriation of individual prisoners under the conditions provided in the arrangements. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, there is no question of these arrangements providing for the exchange of one prisoner for another. We must guard against the possibility that British nationals overseas might be unjustly arrested with a view to trading them for prisoners in the United Kingdom. British nationals could thus be put at risk if the United Kingdom were to contemplate exchanging prisoners. Therefore the British Government will accept the repatriation of individual prisoners only in accordance with the merits of each prisoner's case and the conditions provided in the relevant prisoner transfer arrangement with the country concerned.
That addresses a segment of the area of the noble Lord's concern, which, I recognise, goes wider. I should rather respond to it after reflection, if the noble Lord will be content in that regard, and I am sure that he can manufacture an opportunity for me to do so.
Lord Avebury: In answer to an earlier intervention of mine the Minister said that there was nothing in the Bill about the treatment of special categories of prisoner and that during the course of our proceedings he had said nothing about the singling out of special categories. But what he has now said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, makes me feel a little anxious, because in regard to terrorists he said that we must guard against those individuals being treated as though they were heroes when they were welcomed back to their countries of origin. That is of course an argument which applies to terrorists in general and means that one does not examine a particular prisoner. One says to oneself that if anyone who has committed an offence that falls into this class is sent back home it is possible that when he lands in Dublin, or Dun Laoghaire, there will be a large reception committee to cheer him on as he goes to the Irish prison, and that therefore this would render it undesirable that anybody who is an Irish citizen and

59
who has committed an offence of a particular kind should ever be repatriated to his country of origin. I think it is better that we should be clear exactly where we stand.
I hesitated to raise this point originally, but now that the Minister has mentioned it I think it is as well that we should know exactly where we stand. After all, as my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge pointed out, we do have quite a few people who are convicted of what are known as IRA types of offences in the prisons of Great Britain. Some consideration will have to be given as to whether those who were originally domiciled in the Republic of Ireland should be allowed to go back there. It has always been the policy of Her Majesty's Government—as the noble Lord the Minister will confirm—that we are not even prepared to allow them to go back to the Six Counties, let alone the Republic, even where there are very strong family ties in favour of them doing so, and possibly compassionate grounds. The noble Lord the Minister will remember one particular case where a prisoner's father was extremely ill and dying of cancer, and yet it was still not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to allow that person to go back and see his father before he died.
We shall have to address our minds to this. Are we to make a blanket rule which excludes these Irish prisoners in the United Kingdom from the possibility of benefiting under the terms of the Bill because of the danger that they might be received in the way that the noble Lord describes on their return to Ireland? Or do we consider the cases on their own merits, by disregarding the perception of the offences in the country of origin and the way in which the return of a particular individual on his repatriation, would be received? The two approaches are fundamentally contradictory. If you look at the man's offence and the terms of the Convention of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, you reach one conclusion. If you look at the PR effect, if you like, of the person's arrival back in the country of origin, then you may reach quite another. That is a consideration which does not find its way into the Bill. I hope, on reflection, that the noble Lord the Minister will exclude it from the consideration of cases on their own merits which he spoke about almost in the same breath.
It is very important, from my point of view, that we should clear this up as soon as possible, so that we can decide whether to do anything about it when we come to Report stage.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If I may comment on what my noble friend said, over Eire, the rule is perfectly simple: there is, or will be, an agreement that sentences would be served over there that would have been served here, and there is no way round that. If a certain number of people—who certainly would not be supported by the Irish Government—cheer, too bad. In relation to Northern Ireland, that is part of Great Britain, and the Home Secretary does what he likes.
Lord Mishcon: I was comforted by what the noble Lord the Minister said, and I would not interfere in any way at all with the reflection that he wishes to give to this matter. I was, of course, not limiting myself by
60
any manner of means to a consideration of terrorists coming from Ireland. This is, unfortunately, a modern scourge, and it is not just terrorists from Ireland who have committed crimes upon our soil. There is an ambassador of a certain country who will suffer for the rest of his life from a most dreadful injury as a result of a crime perpetrated over here. It was that general sort of consideration that I had in mind.
Lord Elton: If I can reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I did take care to say that I thought it was unwise to create categories of offence within the Bill, and I also took care to say that I was aware of the difficulties of, for instance—I may have left out the words "for instance"—returning somebody to a hero's welcome for something which we thought was a crime against humanity.
The Committee will recall that at Second Reading I did in fact go into this issue in some detail. In column 758 of Hansard. I said:
"Terrorists are criminals and are dealt with in the same way as other criminals in accordance with the seriousness of their crimes. I have already declared that the Secretary of State will not normally withhold his consent to the transfer of a particular prisoner unless he considers there are compelling reasons of public policy for so doing. Considerations of public policy might lead to a decision to refuse the transfer of any prisoner who had been convicted of particularly horrific crimes and who might be regarded as undeserving of any degree of public sympathy; for instance, in the case of a murderer, a particularly ruthless and unprincipled drug trafficker, or someone who had killed or maimed in the name of some political cause or committed other acts of a terrorist nature. Each case"—
I said, and I repeat—
"will be dealt with on its merits taking due account of all relevant facts, including the considerations I have mentioned". [Official Report, 21/12/83; col. 758.)
I do not think it is possible to be clearer or, indeed, to go any further than that.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Temporary return]:
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 not moved.]
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("may")
The noble Lord said: May I also speak to Amendments Nos. 52, 53. 54 and 56?
Amendment No. 52: Page 6, line 17, after ("(a)") insert ("may")
Amendment No. 53: Page 6, line 22, after ("(b) insert ("shall")
Amendment No. 54: Page 6, line 22, leave out ("for how") and insert ("that").
Amendment No. 56: Page 6, line 25, at end insert ("as part of the time served by the prisoner in detention in the United Kingdom.")
This is an elaborate way of altering Clause 4(2)(b) to read:
"shall provide that any period during which the prisoner is, by virtue of the later warrant, out of that part of the United Kingdom is to be treated for the purposes of the provisions contained in the earlier warrant as part of the time served by the prisoner in detention in the United Kingdom".
It is very near the point we were discussing before, that in so far as the prisoner is out of this country and detained, that period shall count towards his total sentence. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: As drafted, Clause 4(2) refers to warrants issued for the temporary transfer out of the

61
United Kingdom of prisoners previously brought into the United Kingdom under another warrant under this Bill. The part of the warrants to which it is addressed is that part described in Clause 3(1)(c) which specifies the terms or provisions under which the prisoner is to be held. Clause 4(2)(a) provides that this warrant can be drawn up so as to repeat the provision made in the original warrant or to provide for those provisions to revive on the prisoner's return.
The language used is made a little more elaborate by meeting the need to provide for cases where such a prisoner may first be held in one part of the United Kingdom and, after his temporary absence abroad, be held in another perhaps nearer his home. It could well be that he might be held in the first instance temporarily in England, and in the second, more permanently, in Scotland. The way the Bill is drafted makes it possible to accomplish his removal from one jurisdiction to another whilst not affecting the length of his sentence.
Clause 4(2)(b) makes it possible for the temporary transfer warrant also to specify the way in which detention abroad shall be treated as regards counting towards the earliest date of release and so on. Both Clauses 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) are drafted in permissive terms. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to leave 4(2)(a) permissive but to make 4(2)(b) mandatory, so the warrant must provide in all cases that the whole of the time the prisoner is out of this country shall count towards his release date. I am sorry for the long preamble. I found it entirely necessary to say that in order to get to the point I have reached, and I hope it, will be helpful to the Committee.
I can quite see the justice which the noble Lord is seeking to do; or rather the injustice which he is seeking to prevent. The earliest date of release clock should not be stopped while foreign judicial proceedings drag their weary way to completion. Her Majesty's Government have every intention that the clock should indeed continue to run while the prisoner is detained in custody on temporary transfer abroad, and I should like that duly noted. What the noble Lord has perhaps overlooked is that the offender in question may not spent all of his time abroad in custody under those arrangements. He may be bailed or conditionally released or he may simply have escaped. The noble Lord's amendment would then have the effect of keeping the clock running even while the prisoner was at liberty, and it would do so regardless of whether that liberty was lawful or not.
In such cases the Secretary of State must not be forced to reduce the effective length of sentence by the length of time spent at liberty, without any discretion as to the circumstances. I do not suppose that, on reflection, the noble Lord would actually wish to deny him that discretion, since it would seem to defeat justice entirely. Perhaps therefore he would be satisfied with my assurance that under the Bill it is intended that the clock shall run while the person is properly held under the arrangements made between the countries.
Lord Melchett: I do not think that that is good enough. Why cannot the Bill say that the time during which the prisoner is out of the country and in custody will count towards the period? That would meet the
62
noble Lord's point that if he is out of the country and bailed or escapes, it should not be counted as imprisonment. The great danger, of which I think the noble Lord is aware, is that if elements of discretion are left in the Bill, for which there are no discernable reasons whatever, people are bound to start worrying and imputing even rather bad motives to the Government. The noble Lord has made a perfectly simple point and it could be perfectly simply incorporated in the legislation.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I think that it is covered at the beginning of subsection (2) where it says:
"Where the prisoner is required, when that warrant is issued, to be detained".
Does that not do it?
Lord Elton: I think that it does not, but for reasons which do not immediately spring to mind. In other words, I have more sympathy with what the noble Lord is now trying to achieve, which is slightly different fromwhat, on the face of the amendment, he was trying to achieve. If your Lordships will bear with me, I will probe the matter further. It may be that we can do something. I would not want your Lordships to leap to the conclusion that we will do something, but we are well disposed to looking at the matter.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful and happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52, to 57 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Operation of warrant and retaking prisioners]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 65 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Revocation etc. of warrants]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 8, line 7, at end insert—
("Provided that nothing in this subsection shall empower the Secretary of State to issue a new warrant containing provisions less favourable than those in the original warrant unless—

(i) the terms of the original warrant expressly reserve the right so to do; and

(ii) the less favourable provisions are inserted to give effect to a specific requirement of the international arrangements in accordance with which the original transfer took place.")

The noble Lord said: This clause provides that the Secretary of State may revoke a warrant and reissue it with new provisions. One can understand that a power of this kind is necessary so that where the sentencing state, for instance, grants a free pardon, the prisoner is then released forthwith. But we should like to be assured that it could only be used to increase the length of time that a person spends in custody where this is specifically permitted by some clause in the international agreement in question, and where the original warrant allows for such an increase. That is what the amendment is designed to secure. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: There should be only very occasional need for the Secretary of State to issue a new warrant imposing a longer term of detention. We can therefore agree in principle with the aim of the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord is seized of what I am saying. I regret that one can never be absolutely satisfied with anybody else's drafting. The term "less favourable" in this case seems to us a little imprecise. If the noble Lord would consider withdrawing the amendment, I would undertake to consider how to introduce a Government amendment on similar lines at the next stage.
Lord Avebury: I am of course delighted to do so, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 8, line 26, at end insert ("except where such a defect relates to erroneous material information given to the prisoner prior to his consenting to the transfer.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Let us suppose a person consents to a transfer on the basis that, having been sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment abroad and having served 16 years before the warrant, he is going to be detained then for another four years in the United Kingdom, but the authorities then discover that it should have been 14 years and that the four years specified in the warrant was a misprint: could they then reissue the warrant and, if so, does the noble Lord the Minister consider that that is entirely fair if the person has made up his mind to accept the transfer on the basis of that information that was given wrongly, although in good faith? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord may be a little surprised to learn that, on the whole, we feel that an amendment on the general lines he proposes would be reasonable in view of the wide discretion which the Secretary of State will have to vary or revoke transfer warrants. We should prefer to consider the precise form further, and we would wish to consider it in conjunction with the amendment I have already undertaken to consider requiring particular information to be given prior to consent. Both objectives may perhaps be achieved with a single amendment.
Lord Avebury: Once again I am extraordinarily grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Expenses]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 8, line 31, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 68. and I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 69 and 71:
Amendment No. 69: Page 8, line 31, leave out ("either before or")
Amendment No. 71: Page 8, line 34, leave out ("or persons acting on his behalf')
These amendments concern the arrangements in Clause 7 by which the Secretary of State recovers the costs of repatriating British citizens from overseas prisons. We noted what the Minister said on Second Reading about the anomaly that would arise if the prisoners about whom we are concerned here were repatriated at public expense when tourists who are stranded overseas have to reimburse the cost which is incurred in meeting their fares.
However, the destitute tourist who is coming back here is returning to freedom and to at least the possibility of earning money out of which he could make the payments towards those transport costs. But the prisoner, about whom we are talking, is returning, by definition, to a further period of imprisonment —maybe several more years in custody—and during that time, as I understand it, the payment which is sought to be levied on him, if he is not able to meet it out of his capital, will be subject to interest at commercial rates, which will pile up during the remainder of the sentence.
We are not saying in this group of amendments that nobody should ever be asked to contribute anything towards the costs of repatriation, but it may be that some prisoners could afford to do so. However, we make this permissive. The Secretary of State is not obliged to recover the money from the prisoner or his relatives in every case, because after the word "arrangements" in this subsection, there appears in the Bill, as it stands, the qualifying phrase, "(if any)".
We think that there is not probably any real difference between us and the Minister on the need for the power, but it becomes clearer that the Secretary of State does have the option if the word "may" is used instead of the word "shall" at the beginning of the clause. I take the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made earlier on this subject.
Secondly, we do not like the notion of using the issue of the warrant as a means of extracting the money from the prisoner or his relatives. I know that the noble Lord has given an assurance on an earlier amendment that that was not the intention, but it certainly appears to be the intention if we look at the clause as it stands. If the Secretary of State has the right to demand payment before the warrant is issued—as he does in the Bill as it stands—then he could, as it were, hold the prisoner, or patient or his relatives to ransom and say that he will not issue the warrant until the money is lodged with him for the purpose of paying the fare.
Thirdly, it seems to us wrong to let the Secretary of State exert pressure on the relatives to pay these costs, as the clause seems to envisage. We need to have a more thorough explanation than we have heard so far from the Minister of how that will work. If the transfer is not dependent on payment being received or promised—and I do not see how it could be as there is nothing in the treaty on this matter—then the payment will not be very easy to collect, because the relatives will be entitled to say that if the Council of Europe develops the repatriation scheme (and this was a matter of discussion extending over a great many years and there was never any question of a prisoner or his relatives being asked to pay at that time), then they are under no moral obligation to meet any request that the

65
Secretaryof State makes. As I see it, nor are they under any legal obligation, though no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
Therefore, I think that we need a pretty thorough explanation of how the demands will be levied on the prisoner or his relatives, and exactly what powers the Secretary of State has to compel them to make these payments, either before he issues the warrant or before the person is transferred back to this country. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Clause 7 deals with expenses incurred through the operation of the machinery set up by the Bill. Those expenses may be fairly considerable because they may involve somebody travelling halfway across the world to bring someone else back in conditions of security, and perhaps staying overnight in secure conditions on the way back. I ought to make it clear, as the Bill itself makes it clear, that the Secretary of State will not be in a position to recover the expenses of any escorts; he is concerned only with the expenses of the prisoner himself.
Clause 7(2) provides for the recovery of those expenses by the Secretary of State from the prisoner or those acting for him. Those arrangements can, under the Bill as drafted, be made either before or after the warrant is issued, and the amendment at which we are looking at the moment would mean that they could only be made after the issue of the warrant. However, the noble Lord has actually addressed a wider group of amendments than I expected him to take at this stage. I am quite seized of the noble Lord's anxiety. He does not wish British prisoners to languish in foreign gaols or, for that matter, foreign prisoners to be held in British gaols unnecessarily while negotiations are carried out about who shall pay for their journeys and how much they shall pay.
I can say that it is not our intention that they shall languish in foreign gaols merely because the prisoner cannot guarantee being able to repay the cost of his fare and has no relatives or friends willing to help him out. But we must take all reasonable steps to ensure that where the prisoner does have the means, or will have access to funds on his return, the fare is paid either by him or by somebody for him. To send somebody across Europe may be expensive, and I have to remind the noble Lord—it has already been mentioned once—that British citizens stranded innocently abroad with their families have to pay back, and have to undertake to pay back, any sums necessary to get them home. If the noble Lord's amendment sought simply to ensure that any convict with a reasonable case could get a free ticket home, then I think your Lordships would have little patience with it.
I understand that the noble Lord is seeking an assurance that the Secretary of State will not use these circumstances to leave people languishing abroad. That is an undertaking that I can give. It is very difficult to be more precise, because if the prisoner is genuinely broke and genuinely ought to come home under the arrangements, then we shall genuinely bring him back. What I cannot tell the noble Lord at this stage is precisely the means that we shall take to assure ourselves of the fact that he is broke. I can only say that they will be interpreted in a humane way, but a way
66
which would prevent the exploitation of the system which is proper for returning holidaymakers, so that the holidaymakers themselves do not suffer from it because they have to repay and the prisoner does not.
Lord Melchett: We are dealing with people who are in rather different circumstances than stranded holidaymakers. Some of these are being kept in quite appalling conditions, maybe at very great risk to their health or personal safety. I am sure that the noble Lord does not need reminding of the quite appalling problems which face some British citizens in prisons in some countries overseas. There is a very genuine concern at the combination of the Government's interest in recovering expenses with their very wide discretionary powers, not just at one stage but at two stages (and we have already discussed those powers in this connection); that is, as to whether they will agree to a transfer and then avoid carrying the transfer through even if it has been agreed to by all the parties. There is concern that that provision is there so that the Government can try to get the money from the prisoner, or from dependants of the prisoner in this country, before the transfer takes place.
The noble Lord has given a very clear undertaking that that will not be done. But, as he knows, that sort of undertaking, while given in Parliament, will not necessarily be carried into effect as transfers take place in increasing numbers over many years under successive Governments, Ministers, and so on. I should have thought that, if that is the Government's intention (as I am sure it is, and as the noble Lord has said), it would be possible to include in the Bill something to the effect that the inability of a prisoner or of a prisoner's relatives or advisers in this country to meet the costs will not be available as a reason for the Secretary of State to exercise the discretion to prevent the transfer going ahead. That would completely answer the worries which a number of us have on this point.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. The argument is fairly obvious and does not need infinite repetition. But when the prisoner is asked whether he agrees to be repatriated, we do not want him to be told that unless he can pay a certain percentage of the cost he will not be. That is what we do not want. What the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has added might deal with the matter. Most of us think that this is wrong as it stands, but there are a splendid couple of words in line 33 which say:
"shall … make such arrangements (if any)".
To some extent I think that that reduces the force of "must" to "may", anyway.
Lord Elton: I should have referred to those splendid words, as the noble Lord calls them, had I known that these amendments would be taken as a group, and not reserved some of my fire for a later stage. Let us be clear about what we are trying to do. We are trying to identify people who, under the terms of an international agreement or convention, qualify to be repatriated, in this case to this country. That is a quite separate exercise from discovering whether or not they can pay for their ticket.

67
I am anxious not to tie the hands of the Secretary of State as to when the arrangements for making repayment. if there is to be repayment, should be embarked upon. One approach suggested in the group of amendments is that the Home Secretary should not seek to make those arrangements before the warrant had been agreed to. That would simply slow things up. I sympathise with what noble Lords are trying to do, and I shall look carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has suggested, because I think it slightly escaped me while he was delivering it.
However, we cannot say that nobody shall pay for their ticket home because that would evidently be unjust and would outrage many people who have had to pay back for honest journeys. Nor can we say that everybody will pay for their ticket home, because we may be dealing with people who have very large Swiss bank accounts or very wealthy uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, children or parents, or who have very large stables of horses waiting for them to gamble with when they come out. So as we cannot say "nobody" and as we cannot say "everybody", I suppose that we could say that "most" people should; but that is not legislative language and the difficulty is to express what we mean.
It is possible that I may have missed something in what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. said, which might get round that difficulty. Other noble Lords might find a way round that difficulty at a later stage. At present. I do not see a way round it. Therefore, I can go no further than say what it is we intend. If it were possible to express what we mean more clearly in statutory language, there would be no objection to doing it.
Lord Melchett: Let me put one thought in the noble Lord's mind. If anyone has stables full of horses or, indeed, any other considerable assets in this country, once he returns it should not be beyond the wit of the Government to recover the expenses from him. I do not regard that as a major difficulty. On the other hand, the worry is that some people who have very genuine difficulties in meeting the bill will be told that before they can be transferred they must meet it in some way. As there is the real risk that people will be threatened by the Government saying, "You find the money and then you will get transferred" we need it met in some way in the Bill.
Lord Elton: No Government. however ingenious, would be able to find the means of getting the money back if the power to do so is not in the Bill.
Lord Avebury: I am still none the wiser on the powers of the Minister. It says that the Minister may make such arrangements. It does not say how he is going to compel the prisoner, or these hypothetical uncles or aunts, to make the payments if they are not prepared to do so. The Minister has already said that he is not going to hold up the issue of the warrant, so that there is no bargaining power there if he goes to the prisoner and says, "You have these resources in the United Kingdom so you are well able to pay the cost." In those circumstances, everybody would agree that it is only reasonable that the prisoner should pay if he has these assets in the United Kingdom.
68
But what the Minister has said is first that there is no question of pressure being brought to bear on him before the issue of the warrant. Secondly, there has to be some kind of assessment of his ability to pay from an examination of assets at his disposal in the United Kingdom, or whatever, although I should think that there would be few people after several years in Bangkok or Montevideo who would be able to pay, as the Minister says, the substantial amount of money required to bring them back home.
Therefore, the Minister makes some sort of assessment of means and asks the person whether he voluntarily will agree to pay something which, if he had been a tourist, the Government would have had the power to compel him to pay. And the Government say, "Don't you think it is unreasonable that you should be brought back home at public expense when the tourist would have to pay, and would have been obliged to pay by law? Even though we have not got power to make you do this, won't you contribute to the Exchequer to see that there is not this unfair difference between you and the tourist?" The prisoner will obviously say. "Why should I if the Minister has no power to compel me?"
Similarly if you go to the rich uncles and aunts there would be even less inclination for them to stump up. I cannot see much point in having this clause in the Bill unless there is a power in the Secretary of State to compel an unwilling contributor to stump up towards his fare. Nothing the Minister said gave me any indication that such a power is in the Bill.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has put his finger on a difficulty to which I do not have an immediate answer. Everything he says suggested that I ought not to have made the restrained noises I did in reassuring your Lordships that nobody would ever be faced with staying abroad unless they paid for their ticket to come home. I shall certainly look at what I have said with a view to whether I have said the right thing at the same time as I look at the whole question that the noble Lord raised.
Lord Avebury: I thought that there must be something that I had spotted, although it was not immediately apparent on the face of Clause 7, that in the last resort the Minister would have the power to recover these charges. But I now see it is only a request which is going to be made to the prisoner and/or to the persons acting on his behalf, which the Minister has clarified could be his relatives. We have probably gone as far as we can in this discussion this evening. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 74 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation and certificates]:
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
6.35 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 9, line 8, leave out ("the criminal jurisdiction of a court or tribunal") and insert ("criminal jurisdiction, in relation to a court or tribunal in a country or territory outside the British Islands,").
The noble Lord said: This is my solitary appearance on the positive side, as it were. This is essentially a drafting amendment, the purpose of which is to remove any misunderstanding that might arise about the possible application of subsection (2) of Clause 8 to any jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. There is in fact no such jurisdiction to which it is intended to apply. The amendment makes it clear that the subsection applies only to any jurisdictions of the sort described which may exist outside the British islands. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Somers: I cannot see anywhere in the Bill where the Secretary of State is defined. I presume that it is the Home Secretary, but I wonder whether it ought to be put down in black and white in the Bill.
Lord Elton: For reasons which entirely escape me, apparently it never is. The noble Lord is right in supposing that it is the Home Secretary. Apparently those who come to legislation are gifted with insight which I do not always have and know who the Secretary of State referred to is. If we were to name him I think we should be in breach of a convention. It occurs to me that if the Secretary of State for the Home Office happened to be in bed with 'flu, or abroad, it would have to be another Secretary of State anyway, and that is probably the reason.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
(" Annual reports by the Secretary of State.
.The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament annually a report by him on the discharge by him during the preceding year of his responsibilities under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: This is an obvious thing to ask for. This is an entirely new field. We have never done any of it before and Parliament should hear how it is going. Among other things, Parliament would like to know how much money is recovered, which we were discussing in the previous amendment. Without further argument I think that this is a desirable amendment to the Bill as a whole, and I hope it can he accepted.
Lord Elton: It is quite unusual to include in new legislation a permanent statutory requirement for the presentation of an annual report for the purposes of monitoring the operation of that legislation. Any necessary monitoring is usually facilitated by the maintenance of relevant statistics and in certain cases by monitoring a research study after a few years' operation. We certainly intend to record a fair amount of factual information about the operation of prisoner repatriation arrangements, and this will be available as necessary for the purpose of answering specific inquiries.
Given your Lordships' interest, those inquiries will doubtless be numerous and may well emanate from your Lordships in person. It seems to me that Members' questions directed at individual cases
70
together with annual statistics duly published provide a better means of monitoring the working of this Bill than what is now proposed, particularly as once we have cleared the initial backlog the traffic each year is likely to be small. I inquired as to the likely traffic and I understand it is expected to be two, three or four cases a year. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be content to write, or to get somebody else to write, on each occasion or at the end of each year. I would be happier with that than with setting up the machinery of an annual report.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If the noble Lord is correct in his estimate it would be ridiculous to ask for more; but I should like to ask that the question of expenditure recovered and all of the problems about that be included in these statistics, and I look forward to writing to the noble Lord year after year on this question.
Lord Melchett: I am not sure that this is something that can he dismissed quite as easily as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested. It may be a small number of cases, as the noble Lord suggests, but that will be after a considerable period of time. I do not know whether he would be prepared to give us an estimate of when he expects the backlog to be completed. My impression is that it is going to be a considerable number of years.
Even when that backlog has been cleared we are still dealing with the exercise of considerable ministerial discretion leading to people being placed in prison and deprived of their liberty in this country after a process which does not begin to resemble the trial, with the rules of natural justice applied, the publicity, and so on, which we expect in this country before somebody is incarcerated against their will. In those circumstances, it behoves the Government, and those of us who support the Bill, as I do very strongly, to see whether there are not ways to make the exercise of this enormous discretion and great power, without the normal checks and balances which our judicial system provides, more open and more subject to public scrutiny than will otherwise be the case. For the Secretary of State to have to report, even if only one case a year, to say how the discretion had been exercised, in what circumstances and with what consequences for the individual, does not seem to be too onerous a burden. I hope the Minister will pause and reflect on the great powers we are giving to Secretaries of State for many years to come. After all, a judge has to give a judgment in open court. Judges are subject to being reported by the press, to being criticised, to being appealed against; a number of safeguards, to say nothing of the other rules of natural justice which apply in those circumstances, all of which are completely swept aside by the Bill—for good reason, I accept: nevertheless, swept aside they are.
The noble Lord has gone a long way to meeting a number of the amendments this evening. If he can fulfil at Report stage the undertakings he has given, he will have gone a long way to improving the Bill. We are still left with enormous discretion in ministerial hands and in circumstances quite unknown previously in this country. I do not think that. in those circumstances, a brief annual report to Parliament is too much to ask for.
Lord Mishcon: I rise to make a few quick points on something which has been well ventilated. I promise to make them as fresh points.
The first is that quite obviously if the numbers are few the report could be a couple of pages and therefore will not cause any damage to anybody. The second point I make is rather more material. Parliament will have no way at all of finding out how this matter is working, not only in relation to the use of the discretion by the Secretary of State—which my noble friend Lord Melchett and others have already mentioned—but more particularly how it is working out from the point of view of mutuality among the various nations with whom we will have these agreements. That is tremendously important. We ought to know whether our treatment in regard to prisoners of other nations in this country—which I am sure we will carry out with great fairness under the Bill—is being properly reciprocated by other nations; whether difficulties are being encountered which Parliament would want to look in to, either by revising the Act or by some other means in relation to the convention that already exists.
It would be sensible if the noble Lord the Minister would consider this. I can see his point in saying that we have here an Act of Parliament which will be on the statute book for many years and that this will impose an obligation to do this every year. It could easily be done, but, because this is an innovative measure, it could be an annual report, for example, for the first five or 10 years of its operation and then could be renewable or otherwise by an order made in Parliament. I should have thought that that would be a way of overcoming the perpetuity rule, if I may put it that way, which might otherwise be in the Bill. We ought to be able to see the mutuality of this and how it is working out internationally and otherwise, quite apart from the statistics and the fees and charges that may have been collected.
Lord Avebury: We are not only talking about the cases, surely, where an applicant has successfully requested the Secretary of State to transfer him either to or from this country. We are talking about the total universe of applications made by individuals who are otherwise suitably qualified under the terms of the treaty. In other words, they have more than six months left to serve, they have exhausted their rights of appeal, and so on.
What one would like to know in an annual report of this kind is what is the total number of applications that have been made by suitably qualified persons, both in our prisons and in countries overseas where British citizens are held in custody and what was the fate of those applications in each of the countries. If one takes that as the subject of the annual report, which my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge is asking for, that must be a great deal more than two or three cases such as mentioned by the Minister. Speaking from memory, we have 3,600-odd citizens of foreign countries in the prisons of Great Britain. That comes from the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is good enough to give me on 30th April every year, so my figures relate to 1983.
Lord Elton: That reveals a very admirable process for checking how these things work.
Lord Avebury: Yes, that is an overall figure, which the noble Lord gives me of the number of persons who are citizens of Commonwealth and foreign countries respectively in our prisons as at that date, 30th April each year. I think the Minister said that there were about 800 British prisoners in overseas prisons at any one time. It is unbelievable that we could be thinking in terms of only two or three cases from that universe of applicants who are suitably qualified. I should have thought that the report would be a slightly more weighty document than the noble Lord originally had in mind.
Some of those people may turn out to be excluded for one reason or another and they will not all be transferred. What my noble friend and others would like to know is how many applications there are in any one year from foreigners of various nationalities in our prisons to be repatriated to their countries and from British prisoners in Thailand, Turkey or wherever to come back here. In the case of each country or each nationality in our prisons, what percentage or how many of those were successful? There will still be the individual cases that we take up with the noble Lord the Minister, or with the Foreign Office as the case may be, and we would continue to do that just as we do now.
It will be of interest to your Lordships and to the people of the country as a whole to know how these arrangements are working; whether on balance we have more British prisoners coming back to this country than foreigners going back to their homeland and in what circumstances refusals are meted out, if any. One would like to be able to monitor all sorts of questions of a statistical nature as well as being able to follow individual cases. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will agree that my noble friend's suggestion has some merit.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I do not propose to divide the Committee on this, but we have shown that we want to be told by the noble Lord the Minister, at the next stage or possibly in the final speech on the Question, That this Bill do now pass, what sort of statistics will be kept regularly, so that at least we know how to get hold of them. I should be content with that, rather than laying a report before Parliament if the amount of information is small. If, after a year or two, it becomes complicated, we shall ask for something more. As long as the noble Lord will make some sort of accurate response to what we can expect to know at the end of the first, second and third years about how this is working, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: I should be perfectly happy to come back with proposals about what to put in the annual statistics, and that seems to me to be quite reasonable.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
In the Schedule [Operation of certain enactments in relation to the prisoner]:
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 92 not moved.]
6.49 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 12, line 1, at end insert ("except where the offence is not an offence in the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where a person has been convicted overseas for conduct that is not an offence in the United Kingdom he would not have to suffer the additional indignity or disadvantage of having the period that he spent in custody here entered on his record. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This amendment may be based on a misunderstanding of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the equivalent Northern Ireland order. As I understand it, the aim of the amendment is to ensure that a conviction overseas for behaviour which would not constitute a criminal offence in the United Kingdom is not included in the person's criminal record in this country.
Lord Avebury: But it is.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord assures us that that is so. In that case, I fear the amendment would not achieve the desired effect. It would however create confusion as to the appropriate rehabilitation period for the conviction in such a case. The rehabilitation of offenders legislation does not affect the maintenance of criminal records; it is concerned with a person's right in law to have convictions disregarded for most purposes after a period of time, which is governed by the sentence imposed.
The legislation does not apply to sentences of imprisonment exceeding 30 months. It does apply to convictions by or before courts outside the United Kingdom. Simply to avoid doubt as to whether it is, on the one hand, a sentence originally pronounced or, on the other, that part of it which remains to be served in the United Kingdom following the transfer—I regret that I have read out half a sentence which I had not intended to read out so if your Lordships feel a sense of similarity when I now start again, the first part of the sentence is the part that I did mean to read out. The purpose of paragraph 6 of the Schedule is to provide that the length of the term specified in the transfer warrant to be served in the United Kingdom following repatriation should not affect the operation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the Northern Irish Order of 1978. Those enactments both apply to convictions outside the United Kingdom and it would be wrong for repatriation under the provisions of this Bill to interfere with this normal operation. For example, a prisoner sentenced to three years' imprisonment in, say, France would not be eligible for rehabilitation under the 1974 Act or the 1978 order, which excludes from rehabilitation sentences in excess of 30 months. If he were repatriated to the United Kingdom after serving one year of his sentence, one of the relevant provisions in the warrant would be liability to serve a further term of two years. The effect of paragraph 6 in that case would be that for the
74
purposes of the rehabilitation legislation there could be no doubt but that the outstanding term of two years would be disregarded and the original sentence of three years would continue to be material. I do not doubt that the noble Lord will wish to read that, as I shall.
Lord Avebury: I am afraid that this is not the right place for me to be pressing the point on the Minister; but he correctly divined the purpose of the amendment, that whereas something is not an offence in the United Kingdom, it should not appear on the criminal record of the person being repatriated. It may well be that what is needed here is an amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. which could be dealt with in other legislation. I will obviously need to study the rather complicated remarks of the Minister and to think about how this can best be tackled before we come back to it on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved amendment No. 96:
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("the relevant provisions take effect") and insert ("he was convicted in the country from which he is being transferred.").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 7 of the schedule deals with the disqualification of a person from membership of another place, and says that for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act 1981 it is the date of the original sentence that matters and not the date on the transfer warrant. Paragraph 8, on the other hand, to which this amendment applies, dates the disqualification for possession of a firearm in Northern Ireland from the date of the transfer. It may well be that a period of disqualification from the date of conviction of more than eight years is justifiable. If that is so, however, it would apply to all persons convicted of serious offences either at home or abroad. In general, the effect of a sentence in an overseas country ought to be the same as a sentence in the United Kingdom whether for the purposes of the Representation of the People Act, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act or the firearms legislation in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: In supporting what my noble friend has just said, I should like to pay my tribute—and I imagine that others would want to join with me—to the fact that we have received a great deal of assistance from the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad. They have raised many points and given us a lot of data, upon which we have brought amendments before your Lordships this afternoon.
Lord Elton: In congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the closeness with which he has read the provisions of this Bill, I have to say that the reason why the effective date for disqualification under the Northern Ireland Firearms Order is the effective date of the Secretary of State's warrant is because the Northern Ireland order does not apply to convictions outside the United Kingdom and therefore can only apply to a sentence served within the United Kingdom.
This differs with good reason from the approach in paragraph 7 of the schedule. In that case the date of

75
conviction in the sentencing state applies because Section I of the Representation of the People Act 1981 applies to persons convicted of offences in the United Kingdom or elsewhere: so there is no actual inconsistency of treatment here in the Bill. The difference is simply a reflection of differences of approach which were adopted in two completely different and unconnected existing statutes. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment is not appropriate.
Lord Avebury: In thanking the Minister for that reply, may I also take the opportunity of echoing what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and paying my respects to the National Council for the Welfare of Prisoners Abroad, not only for the advice they have given us on this Bill but also for the invaluable work they have done over the years in trying to help prisoners abroad, in promoting the cause of prisoner transfer treaties and in looking after the interests of individuals who may have nobody else to assist them and who are serving very long sentences in harsh conditions in overseas countries. On a vestigial budget, they do a fantastic job and their work in advising your Lordships on this Bill has been an extremely good example of the effectiveness of a small pressure group. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks on this amendment and for the courteous and helpful way in which he has received the points we have made during the course of the Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
Lord Elton: I always like to take a moment, appropriate or otherwise, to thank noble Lords for their patience and courtesy. I hope they will agree that the Government have been anything but inflexible on this. How well I shall perform when I come back with all my promised returns remains to be seen, but the effort will be genuine. I am grateful to noble Lords for the ideas they have given to Her Majesty's Government and also to the organisation standing behind them, which they have been kind enough to mention.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I say how agreeable it is for once to find myself agreeing very largely with the noble Lord on the Front Bench.
Lord Mishcon: May I merely say one sentence: I hope the reasonableness of the noble Lord the Minister is but a precedent for things to come.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Education (Grants and Awards) Bill
7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Education support grants]:
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 3, as No. 1 is simply a paving amendment for No. 3.
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("; and
(c) shall, to the extent to which it has not at the end of a year been paid to local education authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section, be added to the aggregate amount of rate support grant determined by the Secretary of State as the amount available for grants for that year in accordance with section 54 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.").
At the Committee stage on 14th February, I moved an amendment, which was No. 9, designed to ensure that if funds made available for education support grants exceeded expenditure in this area, the residue should be returned to LEAs. This elicited from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, at cols. 170–171 of the Official Report on that day, a reply which required some study and I therefore withdrew the amendment in order to study his answer. I have to confess, however, that I am still not fully satisfied by what the noble Earl said.
If I may, I will quote the most significant passage. He said:
"We envisage that this process of making bids will be completed well in advance of the beginning of the financial year"—
I am leaving out the words in parenthesis—
"and before the RSG report for that year is laid before Parliament. Hence the estimates of the amount of education support grants made in the RSG report will be able to take account of whether the bids from LEAs are more or less than the figure originally proposed. If their applications fall short of the total originally envisaged by the Government, the estimate in the RSG report would reflect that. Therefore, if local authorities whose bids have been accepted spend at the level at which they had wanted to spend, the total grant set aside for ESGs would not be underspent."
I submit that this does not cover all the possible eventualities. Will any shortfall below the Government's intended figure simply be reincorporated in the RSG estimates? If that is the intention, the Bill does not make it plain.
There is another circumstance in which the amount determined under Clause 2 might not be fully spent, even when it has been awarded. As I understand it, LEA finances fall into three phases: first, the preliminary stage before the determination of a precise amount: secondly, the time during which the amount allocated is being spent: and, thirdly, the final reckoning up of the account which runs well past the year in question, as obviously it must, since expenditure is still taking place up to the last day of the financial year. It is therefore quite possible that the full amount for a scheme might have been allocated but not spent by the end of the year. The fact that it takes so long to close the books seems to me to make it desirable that Ministers should be obliged to return any money allocated but underspent to the RSG, so that it does not just leak out of the system, back into the Consolidated Fund or go somewhere else, and that is the purpose of these two amendments.
This is a complicated field and it is my purpose to be helpful. I am not convinced that the Government have thought through how this grant system is to work out on the ground, and I believe that what I am proposing will be an improvement on the Government's drafting of the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to

77
accept the helping hand which I am extending to him. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for offering a helping hand, but I think that the helping hand is unecessary. I shall once again try to explain to him just what the situation is, and I apologise for the fact that I was unable to satisfy him during the Committee stage that his amendment is unnecessary.
As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any money set aside by the Government for education support grants is actually paid to local authorities—paid either as education support grants or, if payments fall short of expectations, as part of rate support grants. I think that there is nothing between the noble Lord and myself so far. In fact, a significant shortfall is very unlikely. To explain why that is so, I must remind noble Lords of the wider arrangements for grant payments to local authorities.
The Bill sets an upper limit on the amount of expenditure which may be approved and on the rate at which grant may be paid on that expenditure. The effect is that, in 1983–84 terms, the maximum amount of education support grant payable in respect of that year would have been about £33 million. That compares with a total amount of grant to local authorities of £8,830 million. The figure of £33 million is a maximum. The total amount of education support grant would not necessarily reach that maximum. Indeed, in the first year or so of the scheme it will be significantly less than the maximum figure.
The amount of grant actually payable will depend principally upon two factors: first, how much expenditure within the upper limit of one-half of 1 per cent. the Government think it appropriate to support through education support grants in the year in question; and, secondly, how local authorities respond to the Government's initiative. They may decide not to apply on the scale envisaged for grants in the areas specified. In that case, the grant payable would fall short of the Government's original intention.
The point I want to emphasise to the noble Lord is that both these factors will be taken into account when the Government come to set aside part of the total local authority grant for payment as education support grants. This will be done in the annual rate support grant report in November or December, preceding the start of the financial year. The RSG report fixes the total of Exchequer grant for local authorities; it estimates the amount to be paid in specific grants and it determines how the remainder will be distributed to local authorities as rate support grants.
It is not the general practice to adjust the total of rate support grants to reflect the amounts actually paid in specific grants. If this were done, it would introduce additional uncertainty into local authorities' budgeting, because the total of rate support grants might go up or down. In practice, therefore, the amount determined for rate support grants is a cash figure and it is not adjusted. The effect of the amendment would be to require that if the estimate in the rate support grant report of the amount payable in education support grants proved too high, the balance would be added to the sum remaining for rate support grants.
78
As I have explained, this is unlikely to be a particular problem for education support grants. The estimate for these grants is not likely to prove significantly inaccurate, since it will be based on the amount of expenditure to be approved for the year in question. Under our timetable for education support grants, local authorities would have submitted their applications for grant and these would have been considered and approved before the estimate of total education support grant was made in the RSG report.
In other words, it will not be a case of deducting, say, £33 million from the total regardless of the amount actually likely to be paid. The sum deducted, particularly in the early years, is likely to be less than £33 million. It will be related to the amount which local authorities have indicated they wish to spend. Therefore, the estimate should be accurate. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord that the problem he envisages is, in practice, unlikely to arise and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask one or two questions. They will probably be stupid ones, because it is very much easier to ask questions after one has read what the noble Earl has said. Am I to understand that if f30 million has been taken out of the rate support grant, and there have been bids but all the money has not been spent, the remainder will then go back into the general rate support grant and be distributed to all local authorities, or will there be any method of carry-over? If authorities have bid but they have not been able to spend all of the money in one year and they wish to carry on with their schemes, will they be able to carry that money over to the second year? How will that be affected?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, yes, the noble Baroness's first point is quite true. If £33 million is put aside and only £20 million is put in for by the local authority, that will go back into the rate support grant in general and into the pool. As regards the carry-over, there is a distinction between the grant payable in respect of a year and the grant payable in that year. This is because we envisage that grants will be paid in arrears; for example, at the end of each quarter. This would mean, for example, that the final instalment of grant in respect of 1985–86 would be paid in the following financial year, but this will not affect the total amount of education support grant payable in respect of 1985–86.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his attempt to clarify our understanding of this part of the Bill. It seems to me that he is still very largely relying upon the unlikelihood of certain events taking place. These amendments are designed to plug the gap where something unlikely, in his terms, takes place. It seems to me to be important to establish the principle which the noble Baroness, Lady David, was getting at: that if only £20 million or £15 million are allocated in one year, this is the only amount which is deducted from the totality of the rate support grant. I take the noble Earl's point that this will build up, but eventually we shall presumably get to a period in which the whole of the £33 million, or whatever it may be, will be on offer.

79
The other point upon which the noble Earl has shed some light is the carry-over, a point which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. My amendment was also designed to take care of the carry-over. We are almost back to the situation we reached during the Committee stage. In other words. I shall have to read very carefully what the noble Earl has said. If I feel that it still does not meet my anxieties and still leaves me unsatisfied, it will not be improper, as the matter has already been aired and as I should not be introducing a new item at a late stage of the Bill, to return to it at Third Reading and possibly to divide upon it then. However, I beg leave now to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 8. leave out ("70") and insert ("75")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this, too, is a money amendment; much of the discussion on the Bill has related to money. The purpose of the amendment is simply to increase the maximum grant available under the Bill from 70 to 75 per cent. We discussed the matter briefly during the Committee stage. It was then a fall-back amendment in relation to the principal amendment, in which we asked the Committee to agree that 75 per cent. should be the minimum grant. We are coming back to the point and are asking the Minister to consider increasing the amount available to a maximum of 75 per cent.
It is a small amendment. Nevertheless, it would provide an extra 5 per cent., which might be an added incentive. The noble Earl said that in the first few years it is anticipated that we shall build up to the maximum grant available. In other words, he suggested that bids might be a little slow in coming forward. If there were the possibility of this extra 5 per cent., local authorities might be encouraged to come forward with their bids. The local authority associations support this amendment. They are of the opinion that the money, which we are told is being redeployed at the margins, lies within the discretion of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the view of the local authority associations is that all of this money should come from the Exchequer. If, however, that is not to be, our hope is that at least the maximum can be 75 per cent.
When we looked at the matter earlier it was pointed out that many local authorities, in particular many of the county authorities, are moving into the penalty area. Some of these authorities are spending on education at a level lower than that at which the Government themselves expect them to spend in order to provide the necessary services. This being so, the extra 5 per cent. from the Exchequer could help some of these authorities to keep out of the penalty area. It is a small concession for which we are asking, but it would be salutary for the local authorities.
I do not know whether the noble Earl has seen The Times Educational Supplement of 2nd March, whose editorial, headed "It Takes Two to Co-operate", refers to some of the issues which in recent months have been a matter of contention between the Government and the local authorities. It instances the education
80
support grant as one of the issues over which local authorities believe that the Government are taking unto themselves greater powers than hitherto—in recent years, at any rate. If the Government were to look sympathetically at the amendment, it could be a means of bridge-building between the Government and the local education authorities. The amendment is worthy of being given consideration by the Minister. I hope he will do so sympathetically. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I must begin by disagreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who said that this subject was touched on briefly at the Committee stage. I seem to remember that the rate at which the education support grant should be paid was discussed at length during the Committee stage. I stressed then that setting the rate involved striking a balance between different considerations. In the Government's view, an upper limit of 70 per cent. would strike the right balance. The noble Baroness may prefer a different figure, but at the end of the day the choice of an upper limit is a matter of judgment and is necessarily arbitrary.
Before I discuss the prospective merits of 70 per cent. and 75 per cent., I should like to remind noble Lords and noble Baronesses that these represent upper limits on the rate of grant. The actual rate of grant to be paid on particular activities will be specified in the regulations so that local authorities will know how much grant they will receive when they consider applying for grant for particular activities. But the possible activities supported by education support grants are likely to vary widely—more widely, I suspect, than the range of activities supported under the urban programme. The appropriate rate of grant may be different for different activities, though, as I have said before, I think it unlikely that the rate for any activity would be below 50 per cent.
As to whether the upper limit should be 70 per cent. or 75 per cent., it was suggested during the Committee stage that the analogy of the urban programme would suggest 75 per cent., yet the urban programme is only one of many specific grants paid to local authorities. The police grant is paid at 50 per cent., and the transport supplementary grant, in 1984–85, at approximately 55 per cent. No single rate is appropriate for every type of grant.
As I said earlier, it is a question of striking a balance. The grants are intended to encourage local authorities to redeploy their expenditure into areas to be specified in regulations approved both here and in another place. The rate of grant must be sufficiently attractive to encourage local authorities to participate. At the same time, the final decision about the deployment of expenditure will remain with local authorities themselves. The rate should not be so high as to eliminate the authority's own contribution.
One point which I made at the Committee stage and which I should like to repeat is that the balance of expenditure which is not met by an education support grant will attract block grant. Hence, if the rate of grant for an activity was 70 per cent., the 30 per cent. contributed by the authority would itself be supported by block grant, except for any authority which received no block grant. In fact, if some authorities redeploy their expenditure into activities supported by

81
education support grant, they may find themselves receiving more grant than they would otherwise have done. Taking all these considerations into account, an upper limit of 70 per cent. on the rate of grant seems to the Government to provide an appropriate balance. As I have said, I believe that this is a matter for judgment. The Government judge that 70 per cent. is the right sum, and that view was supported by your Lordships in Committee. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, we did not in fact vote on this particular amendment; we voted on 75 per cent. being both the maximum and the minimum. This amendment would give the Government greater flexibility, and I am therefore very surprised that they are not accepting it. I thought that the Government would be glad to have the extra room to manoeuvre. We cannot do anything if that is what the Government have decided, because we know that they have the voting power—or I imagine so. As my noble friend has said, this amendment would give local authorities a little more encouragement to make bids for these projects. I suppose that it is no use asking the Minister to think again, but this is an area where there could have been some flexibility on the part of the Government. There has been very little flexibility during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House so far.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady David I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to be more flexible. We all understand, as he has said, that we are talking about an upper limit of 70 per cent. The noble Earl has advised us on a number of occasions that he does not believe the lower limit is likely to go below 50 per cent. One would assume that the major projects which the Government want to encourage would carry the 70 per cent. grant. This amendment would have increased the grant to 75 per cent., thus making it more possible for some local authorities to move into areas of Government priority—because we are talking about Government priorities.
I am sorry that the Minister has taken the view that he has. I had hoped that he would give a little encouragement to local authorities on this occasion. But as he seems to be so intransigent on this point, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
7.22 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 4.
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Financial provision for specified areas
In any year in which educational support grants are made there shall be included in the regulations provision for projects in the following areas:

(a) the integration into schools of pupils with special needs;

(b) nursery education;

(c) projects on environmental education;

(d) improving the standard of mathematics teaching in schools; and

(e) improving the standard of science teaching in schools.").

The noble Baroness said: At Committee stage we had a number of amendments suggesting that a certain percentage of the education support grant money should be put aside for various different provisions. That caused a certain amount of criticism. Sums were done by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who added together 20 and 20 and 20 and 20, and made the result 100. So we thought we ought to try to find a different method of tackling the problem at Report stage. That explains the form which Amendment No.4 takes. I will introduce this amendment and speak to (a),
"the integration into schools of pupils with special needs",
and (c),
"projects on environmental education".
Some of my noble friends will then speak on other aspects.
We had quite a discussion at Committee stage about integrating pupils who had been in special schools into ordinary schools. There was a good deal of support all round the Committee for that being one of the projects. As I said then, so far only 11 per cent. of children with special needs are in maintained ordinary schools. Already, 42 special schools have been closed. No applications have so far been rejected, so it is likely that there will be a considerable move over. No doubt there will be problems, and a great many matters to be considered and things to be done.
It is accepted, I believe, that it is very expensive to integrate children with special needs. Since Committee stage I have received a guess of what it will cost to implement the 1981 Act if it is to be done properly. This estimate came from the Leeds City Council. The estimates were made in a note from the officers to the chairman of the education committee. I shall read a little of the note and give some of the estimates that the officers made:
"The real problem … is that the financial commitment in implementing this Act really has no limit and in the end, local authorities will simply do what they feel they can afford. The following, nevertheless, is based on what we might realistically be expected to do if the terms of the Act are taken seriously".
There then follows a list of the items on which the local authority ought to spend money if it is going to integrate the pupils properly:
"Each school should have a co-ordinator of special needs and each person given this responsibility is likely to need a course of training".
It is reckoned that that might cost £300,000. Then:
"Secondly, it is important that all teachers should have some training in the meeting of special needs as defined and recognised by the Act. If this were to be done with due care, it could involve a one-week residential course for every teacher in an ordinary school. In Leeds, therefore, we could be talking about a bill for £480,000….
"If special schools are to be centres of excellence, they are bound to need extra resources in addition to staffing resources; even at £1,000 per school per year, this is £26,000.
"Similarly, the need for the reinforcement of the non-teaching support in ordinary schools is likely to grow as more handicapped pupils stay in the ordinary schools".
The estimate for that was £60,000.
In addition, there will of course be central administrative costs. These are already arising in getting the estimates prepared and all that this involves. A figure of £36,000 was estimated for that item. I have added all those up, and they total £1,112,000. It will be very difficult for any local authority to raise anywhere near that sum of money. So it would seem that a project

83
from the education support grant would be a very sensible thing to do, so far as these particular children are concerned. There will be a lot of experimentation and a lot of expense. I hope very much that the Minister will think this is a good cause to support.
The other project I wish to talk about is that concerning environmental education. This was not moved in Committee because we appeared then to be in a rush towards the end and it seemed better not to discuss it at that stage. In the Second Reading debate I asked that environmental education should be an activity supported by the new grants, and I shall elaborate on that theme now. People in general are beginning to appreciate how much the quality of human society depends on that of the natural environment, and how easy it is to destroy, by the carelessness of pollution or by the greed of short-term exploitation, the natural resources without which humanity's future will be nasty, brutish and short. For the most part, people are still only superficially informed, and there exists a great gap between education and public understanding. The process of education in environmental issues cannot start too soon in a child's life; it should certainly permeate the primary school.
Such education is surely fundamental, particularly in modern conditions. Its purpose, as defined in Environmental Education: A Review, published by the DES in 1981, is to help people understand something of the processes of the physical world and to gain a basic knowledge of ecological principles and relationships; to understand something of the economic, technological, planning and political processes which affect man's use of the environment; to develop insights into other people's environments, life styles and problems; to understand something of the interdependence of peoples; and to develop a concern both for their own environment and for the environment of others.
We are now, it appears, in a period of unprecedented change in the educational provision for the 12 to 18 age group. An opportunity exists for extending and consolidating environmental education and so correcting the mismatch between the curriculum of schools and public understanding. The young, whose future world we older people have already shaped and in some part already destroyed, are entitled to an education which will help them to see further and more clearly ahead than we have done. The curriculum needs for environmental education have been detailed over the past two decades, nationally and internationally, through government and non-government conferences and seminars. The knowledge of what needs to be done is there. What is lacking is the will and, consequently, the finance.
Members of the present Government have, in the past, emphasised the crucial role that education has to play. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, then a Minister in the DES, wrote in 1981,
"of a new urgency in our concern for the state of the environment and the condition of life within it—a concern which recent disturbing events in our towns and cities have done nothing to diminish.".
The noble Baroness said that at the time of the Liverpool riots. Mr. Michael Heseltine, on Second Reading of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, said:
84
"We believe that for the countryside in general the best practical way forward is a positive policy of environmental education, discussions and debate.".
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who I had hoped might be here, has recently retired as President of the Council for Environmental Education. Miss Sheila Browne, now the principal of Newnham College, but lately the chief HMI. has taken his place as president of that council. So I hope that that shows there is enthusiasm in the DES for this project. She has shown a great deal of interest in it.
There are a number of other noble Lords who have been very involved: the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who is chairman of the all-party conservation group; the noble Earl. Lord Cranbrook, chairman of the EC Sub-Committee on the Environment; my noble friend Lady White, whose name was down to my amendment in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Melchett who we all know is very concerned. So I think there would be, if only they were here, a good deal of support round the House for this amendment—perhaps they intended to be here and found it was rather late. A lot of work has been done but it certainly needs a good push. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Ministers in their innovations and experiments with the curriculum (which, after all, are the raison d'etre for this Bill) will be willing to make environmental education one of the activities which they decide to support.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I support my noble friend in this new clause—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Question has not yet been put.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): The Question is that this clause be inserted.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am sorry, my Lords. To start again, I support my noble friend in this amendment and will speak particularly on how it relates to nursery education. First, I should like to remind your Lordships that it is now 10 years since the Plowden Report and White Paper set out the Government's aim regarding nursery provision. That aim was that nursery education should become available, without charge within the limits estimated by Plowden, to those three and four year-olds whose parents wished them to benefit from it. Plowden estimated that provision would be needed for 90 per cent. of four year-olds and 50 per cent. of three year-olds. However, the sad truth today is that, those 10 years having elapsed, there are in fact places available for only just over 40 per cent. of all three and four year-olds put together. Therefore, there is no doubt that there has been only minuscule progress made in the direction that the Prime Minister, who was at that time Secretary of State for Education, had hoped for.
The purpose of this new clause is to prevent the numbers from slipping even further. We believe that the educational support grants should be used in various different ways. First, they should be used to encourage the conversion of surplus primary school accommodation into nursery schools or classes;

85
secondly, they should be used to encourage local education authorities with a poor record of provision: and, thirdly they should be used to encourage the establishment of nursery centres. As the Minister will know, these centres are established to meet the needs of parents and children on a flexible basis throughout the normal working day, and they provide children with a very caring environment which also meets some educational need.
There can be no doubt that nursery education provides both an educational and a social advantage. I am governor of a small ILEA nursery school in Chelsea and I am constantly amazed at the real educational value to these small children—a fact, of course, which has been proved by educationists. Certainly, from the point of view of nursery schools in the more deprived areas, they are there to counter the pressures at home which are particularly felt in one-parent families and in households where the mother is working—in fact, in those households which have been most hit by the present economic climate. Furthermore, the need to safeguard nursery provision will become even more critical if the rate capping legislation goes through, when non-statutory provision will be seriously threatened.
Finally, it is a fact that the spread of nursery schools over the country is very uneven and it seems extremely unfair that some parents and their children should be penalised purely through the accident of where they live. Therefore, the new clause would do a great deal to ensure that resources are made available to develop nursery education throughout all parts of the country and in this way help those children who are at present deprived. I hope that the Minister will look at this favourably and in the light in which I have tried to present it.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I appreciate that this amendment is a composite version of several previous separate amendments and as such succeeds in avoiding some of the logical and practical difficulties previously encountered. I have very great sympathy for the areas recommended for special consideration. I very much hope that pupils with special needs will be helped in the ways indicated and that there will be more provision of nursery education, the need for which I wholeheartedly respect and recognise. I also hope that standards of teaching in science and mathematics will be improved. For example, I have on a previous occasion drawn the attention of your Lordships to the sober fact shown in recent research that British schoolchildren are two years behind their German counterparts in mathematical attainment. That is an inexcusable situation and surely merits urgent attention.
However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the basic principle of the amendment, which in effect earmarks certain portions of money available for the education support grants. It is unacceptable for three reasons concerned with freedom, flexibility and fragmentation. First, it is unacceptable because the whole purpose of this legislataion is to give the Secretary of State the freedom to decide on educational priorities. This amendment would reduce that autonomy which the Bill is designed to ensure. Secondly, the identification in advace of categories for special
86
provision on a year-by-year basis reduces the flexibility which is an important feature of the whole education support grant idea—that grants should be available for projects as they meet changing educational priorities. Thirdly, there is a danger that a predetermined commitment to an excessive number of projects will lead to a fragmentation of funding, with insufficient money to do justice to all the projects deemed appropriate for financial support.
Indeed, perhaps some of the examples of the use for which money is required for children with special needs which were enumerated by the noble Baroness, Lady David, make that point precisely. Although I do not wish to indicate any lack of support for the areas mentioned, I suggest that the amendment is incompatible with both the spirit and the logic of the Bill.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment. As my noble friend Lady David said, it is different in form from the various amendments that we had at the Committee stage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, indicated, in its present form it is perhaps more acceptable, although I am sorry that she did not find it sufficiently acceptable to give it her support. The amendment enables us to see more clearly the different and competing demands on the education system—competing certainly in terms of finance but very often complementary in terms of educational needs, as I think both my noble friends Lady David and Lady Ewart-Biggs have indicated.
One of the problems of piecemeal legislation such as we have before us today and such as we have had in some of the initiatives that the Government have taken—for example, the TVEI initiative—is that the education system tends to get a bit out of phase. For example, let me refer again to The Times Educational Supplement of 2nd March. It says:
"Already it is being quietly hinted that when the time comes for the MSC to hand over responsibility for TVEI to the DES, Parliament will be asked to increase the funds available for Education Support Grants from a half of one per cent. of RSG to 5 or 10 per cent. or whatever sum by then reflects the ambitions and appetites of the DES".
That may be a problem that we shall have to face in the future.
One of the problems that we face at the moment in relation to TVEI is that the new batch of schemes that have recently been approved are likely to cause a shortage of technical teachers. In fact, I think it is true to say that the first batch of TVEI schemes poached on some of the technical teachers in the existing educational system. I think that this is particularly so as the TVEI posts often mean appointments at a higher grade.
While we on this side of the House very much accept that innovation and pilot projects are necessary, we believe that it is important to ensure that we are not creating problems bigger than the ones that we are trying to solve. That could perhaps have been said of the way we put forward the amendments in Committee. On this occasion, by putting forward a group of five subjects we are able to see how some of them interrelate.
I want to refer, in particular, to two of the subjects mentioned in the amendment; namely, the standard of

87
mathematics teaching and the standard of science teaching. I talked about the standard of mathematics teaching at Committee stage. The two subjects have much in common. In the first place, the basic ingredient of economic competitiveness in this country will depend on an increasing number of people being trained in mathematics and science. We should take that very seriously indeed. Secondly, there is a shortage of competent teachers in both subjects. In both areas, we are beginning to make an inroad. I understand that the Department of Education and Science has earmarked in the next financial year a small sum of money for in-service training for science teachers, but largely in the area of primary schools and management for heads of department. It is a small beginning. Perhaps the Minister will be able to encourage us by saying that it will be something that will be built on.
At the Committee stage the Minister reminded us that, as part of the new in-service training grant, £2·1 million had been set aside for mathematics in-service training and that another small amount of money had been set aside for research and development projects in the field of mathematics for low attainers. This is all very welcome, but, again, we have to ask whether it is enough. Incidentally, will it be as much as the training programme for technical teachers which the MSC is said to be about to launch? I am not hitting at that training project. If it comes off, it will be very welcome indeed in view of the growing shortage of technical teachers. But, as I said at the beginning, the fact is that by looking at things piecemeal, we tend to get them out of gear.
The third similarity between mathematics and science is that both are regarded as male subjects. I come back to this problem. I have referred to it before. It is a problem that will not go away. No matter how much the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, talks about the need for flexibility, this is a problem that will be with us for some time. I feel that encouraging more girls to take mathematics or science subjects at university level would be an effective way of increasing the number of teachers in these subjects, since a higher proportion of girls go into teaching than into industry. If more of them were coming through the universities, a greater proportion, I believe, would go into teaching. I add, though, that I am not advocating that as a long-term pattern. I should like to see more women in industry and more with technical qualifications going into industry. In the short term, that would have the added advantage of providing not only more teachers but also more role models for girls in the schools in these subjects. That, in turn, might again attract more girls into the subject.
This whole area requires a great deal of thought and attention. In looking at the improvement in teaching mathematics and science, I hope that this matter will not be overlooked by the Minister and his colleagues. By focusing on a wider perspective, I had hoped that the amendment would have brought forward more support from the Government Benches.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at the Committee stage we had five new clauses which each proposed that 20 per cent. of the expenditure should be
88
earmarked for a particular activity. I think that all the noble Baronesses who have spoken mentioned this. It was of course open to the criticism that all of the expenditure was therefore earmarked. However, I should like to congratulate the noble Baronesses opposite on their ingenuity in devising an alternative procedure which would not involve earmarking 100 per cent. of the expenditure supported by ESGs. I think, however, that it would be inappropriate to build the proposed new clause into the Bill, and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. I believe that fundamental difficulties remain in specifying the purposes of the grants in this way.
In opposing the amendment, I do not wish to suggest that the Government are in any way unsympathetic to the areas of education that it specifies. I should however like to say a few words about each of these areas. Two of them, of course, are included in the preliminary list of activities for support in 1985–86 which my right honourable friend has proposed for discussion with the local authority associations.
First of all, children with special needs. The importance of moving towards the integration where possible of pupils with special needs into ordinary schools was discussed during the Committee stage. This is an area of education which I know attracts strong sympathy and support from all parts of the House. My right honourable friend is well aware of the useful contribution which education support grants could make in the area of assisting to meet special educational needs. His initial list of possibilities includes two which would assist in meeting special educational needs. The first was grants to assist in the establishment of resource centres in ordinary schools. The second possibility was assistance in the provision of microelectronic aids for handicapped children. I know that my right hnourable friend will consider carefully the views expressed in this debate and any views expressed by the local authority associations on the most appropriate way of using ESGs to assist in the implementation of the 1981 Act.
Support for the teaching of mathematics has also been mentioned. The Government attaches a high priority to action in this area in the light of the report of the committee chaired by Professor Cockcroft. For example as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said, the Government set aside over £2 million within the new scheme for in-service training grants to support attendance by mathematics teachers on in-service courses, and my right honourable friend has mentioned this as a possible area for education support grants. One possibility which my right honourable friend wishes to discuss with the associations is the appointment of additional teachers to act as advisers and to support development work within schools.
The Government share the view of parents and educationalists and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, about the value of nursery education. We already have in the urban programme a source of selective funding for those areas most in need of provision for the under fives. Some £10 million to £15 million of expenditure was supported in this way in 1981–82. I think, it is interesting that this compares with a potential maximum of about £45 million to £50 million for education support grants as a whole.

89
Within limited resources, successive Governments have judged that the priorities for new nursery provision should be the handicapped and those from socially disadvantaged areas. As a result, some 70 per cent. of existing nursery provision is already made in areas of special social need. Participation in those areas is of course much higher than the national average.
I accept that there is a growing demand for the provision of nursery education. But this is not an area for the kind of pump-priming and innovative work which ESGs are particularly intended to support. Rather it is a matter of making progress within the constraints of what the country, and therefore individual LEAs, can afford. Therefore we do not envisage nursery education as an area to be supported through ESGs.
Next, environmental education. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has argued that we should specify that the mechanism of education support grants should be used to support work to promote environmental education. The noble Baroness has a special interest in environmental education, since she chaired the education review group which helped to prepare a response to the world conservation strategy last year.
Environmental education is provided already in a wide variety of ways, not least as an aspect of the teaching of many different subjects in the curriculum. However, I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that it would be appropriate to use education support grants in this specific area. There are many different aspects of the school curriculum for which persuasive claims could be made. Difficult choices must be made between them and I think the noble Baroness, Lady David, made out such a strong case for the integration of children with handicaps into normal schools that one could almost be convinced that that should have most of the money in the first few years. Given the need to define only a small number of priorities if the limited resources available are to he used to maximum effect, we are not persuaded that the claims of environmental education are so strong that it would be right to make special provision for it in the Bill. Finally, I turn to science education. The Government have made it plain that we believe that all pupils should receive a broad programme of science education, beginning in the primary schools and continuing throughout the period of compulsory secondary education.
There is a need to restrict the number of areas of the education service which might receive assistance through education support grants, if we are to make the most cost-effective use possible of the limited resources available. Hence my right honourable friend did not include science education among the possible areas for support. But there are already significant efforts under way through other mechanisms. There is currently a major programme of curriculum development—the secondary science curriculum review—in the majority of local education authorities in England and Wales, under the auspices of the new school curriculum development committee and of the association for science education. Science teaching is also to be added from 1984–85 to the scheme by which grants are paid to local education authorities for
90
the in-service training of teachers in certain areas of the curriculum; and later this year the Government will publish a statement of national policy on science education in schools, which will seek to define objectives for all of those involved.
What the noble Baronesses are envisaging is that the five areas should be specified in this primary legislation. But in 10 years' time the priorities for initiatives may well have changed, and it could well be that such a list is entirely inappropriate. Our aim when drafting the Bill was to provide for a wide general power with the activities for support being set out in regulations. This preserves maximum flexibility to respond to changing needs and circumstances against the checks and balances already in the Bill, of a limit on the overall expenditure which can be supported through ESGs and the requirement for consultation.
There have been extensive debates both here and in another place regarding the activities which might be supported by the grants. My right honourable friend hopes to discuss with the associations the activities which might be supported in 1985–86 when, as I hope, the Bill is enacted. The introduction of this Bill has helped to stimulate a general public debate about education priorities, and that is to be welcomed. My right honourable friend will consider carefully the views which have been expressed in this House and elsewhere before making his proposals to Parliament.
This Bill has promoted lively debate on activities which might be supported, and its drafting allows the purposes of the grants to be changed in response to changing circumstances. Priorities within the education service are likely to change. New ones may emerge while other objectives, with the help of the new grants, are achieved.
I was accused earlier of being inflexible. I should like to be Lord Access, the friend of the noble Baronesses opposite. At least on this I have proved to be two-fifths —if my mathematics is right—in support of these objectives, and I hope that with that the noble Baronesses will withdraw their amendment.
Baroness David: I am not at all surprised at the response which we have had to this amendment; but equally I have no apologies at all for putting it forward because I think that it is good that the Secretary of State should know the views of a great many of us who are very interested in caring about education on matters which we feel are extremely important, and particularly as apparently he has changed his mind considerably between the appearance at the first consultation document and Second Reading debate in another place.
I am of course personally disappointed that environmental education has pretty well been turned down outright; but I hope that maybe it will be considered in time. Nursery education did not really get to do very much better. We shall have the Swann report on multi-racial education and the successor to the Rampton report very soon. There may well be reommendations there, I should have thought, which would have called for experimentation in nursery education; but maybe there will be second thoughts. I am very glad to hear what was said about special

91
education, special children with special needs. I think I have no alternative but to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham Lord Stewart of Fulham moved Amendment No. 5:
Insert the following new Clause:
("Restriction on expenditure.
No money provided under this Act shall be used in any school where admission is based on selective examination or sets of tests of ability.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the last decades we have seen a considerable change in the structure of secondary education: a change to comprehensive secondary education from what I think I may describe as the former separatist system of education. Recently, we have seen one or two attempts to put the clock back to try to restore and encourage the separatist system and we put down this amendment as we do not believe it would be right for the Government to give encouragement in any form to a tendency of that kind.
Why do we say this? What is and has been all the time, at issue between the comprehensive and the separatist views of secondary education? The nature of the comprehensive school as its name implies, was that it would provide a wide range of courses suitable for different kinds of children, and that as a child grows up it can be decided by discussion between its parents and its teachers what course of study each child could most profitably pursue. But the mere fact that it entered the school at 11 did not restrict its subsequent choice of courses of study. That is the comprehensive approach.
The separatist approach envisaged from the start different kinds of secondary schools—different in the range of course of studies that they offered. It was sometimes called the tripartite system, envisaging grammar schools, modern schools (as they were called), and technical schools, but in the great majority of authorities the choice was not a tripartite one, but a double one between grammar schools and secondary modern schools.
In effect the kind of education available at the grammar school was the kind that could lead on to the more academic studies, to rather better paid jobs and, in particular, to the opportunities of further and higher education, whereas the education provided in the secondary modern school was not intended to do that. That is to say, the separatist system was based on the assumption that when a child is about 10½ years of age there can be made a decision that will determine thereafter what kind and quality of education it is to receive and what kinds of occupations it may be fitted for in later life. I said 10½ because though the test provided was commonly called the 11-plus, the children usually underwent it when they were a little under, rather than over, 11.
It had a further result as regards the age of the children. While the system existed parents were, very naturally, anxious to get their children into a grammar school if they could. Primary schools which had a reputation for producing successes at the 11-plus examination were much sought after. Therefore primary schools began to turn their efforts to preparing
92
their children for success in the 11-plus examination and to concentrating attention on those of their children who were most likely to be successful. That is to say, what had begun as an 11-plus, or 10½ exam resulted in the primary school in a choice being made when the children were between eight and nine.
The proposition that a decision of this importance about a child's future education and occupation can be made at this early age is certainly not self-evident. The defenders of the separatist system used to say, "Oh, yes, but if we find we have made a mistake, you can always transfer the children from one kind of a school to another later on". That was said, but how very rarely indeed did it happen! Nor was there any clear idea as to the principle on which the separation of the children to the different kinds of school should be made. Some authorities believed in the old-fashioned, and now largely discredited, intelligence test principle. Some believed in a system of reports stretching over a period of years. But there was no clear belief as to how, and on what principle, the important choice should be made.
When one looked over the map of the country, one found also that the proportion of children who went to grammar school varied from 50 per cent. in the case of some authorities to 20 per cent. in others. There was no possible way of defending that. It meant that a child's opportunity depended simply on the county or the local education authority area into which it had been born.
It was also found that the proportion of children who were considered fit for grammar school education used to vary considerably and unaccountably from year to year, so that it was a haphazard business altogether. It was found, too, that the proportion of boys considered fit for grammar school education was markedly greater than the proportion of girls, and though in those days there were people who would try to defend that postition, there are few who would defend it today.
At the time that the controversy began I was a Labour Party spokesman for educational affairs and up and down the country I engaged in an immense number of arguments about comprehensive education. I found that the defenders of the separatist system were not in the least interested in putting right any of the anomalies: the anomalies between one county and another, and between one year and another, and the anomaly of the advantage of being a boy rather than a girl. Those who defended the separatist system did not bother themselves with those problems at all: they were anxious to maintain separatism in itself.
I think that I should add one further point. That arrangement was not only academically and intellectually nonsensical; it also had a bad effect on the general tone of education. It encouraged children at that early age to concentrate on differences of intellect that divided them, rather than on the common humanity that could have united them. One of the advantages of the comprehensive school was that it gave an opportunity for children with different gifts and interests to know more about one another, and that meant that that kind of school provided a better preparation for life in what one hoped would be one, united nation.
What has happened since? There have been a number of arguments about the merits and results of comprehensive secondary education. A number of different surveys have been made and the great majority of them have pointed to the view that the comprehensive system was giving better educational results than was the separatist system. I agree that that was not the universal view, but it was the outcome of most of the surveys that were conducted. Furthermore, not long ago we had an admission that if one looks at the examination records of all children—in both O-levels and, though less markedly, Alevels—one sees that there has been a steady improvement in standards during the years in which comprehensive secondary education has advanced.
Academic success is not the whole be-all and end-all of education. But so far as it is important, the charge that comprehensive secondary education has been damaging academic success cannot be made out; and fairly recently we have had a somewhat grudging, but undoubted, statement from the Secretary of State for Education that over the years we have seen a steady educational advance.
We have also seen among parents an increasing enthusiasm for the comprehensive system of education. It has been particularly gratifying and interesting to notice events in Richmond and in Solihull, where political attempts to go back to the separatist system have been emphatically rejected by the parents. I stress that point because it was sometimes argued that if one did not have grammar schools, one would be interfering with the freedom of parents. But of course parents did not have a choice as to whether or not their children went to grammar school. That choice was made on the basis of whatever theory governed the method of 11-plus selection prevailing in one county or another. The comprehensive system kept the choice as to the child's education open beyond 11 and capable of being adapted to meet the child's needs as they became better known.
A number of opinion polls on this question have been held. Parents have been asked: Would you prefer in your local education authority's area to have grammar schools and secondary modern schools, or would you prefer to have comprehensive schools? It should be apparent that by itself that question will get one nowhere. The real question that one must ask is: would you like a system of grammar schools and secondary modern schools on the assumption that your child will be going to one of the secondary modern schools? If that question is asked, it will be found that enthusiasm for the separatist system of education is by no means as great as some of its supporters have tried to represent, for the secondary modern school has always been of course the school that somebody else's child goes to.
I want to make one final point: since this argument began some two decades ago the size of the recent immigrant population in this country has increased. An immigrant is necessarily at a disadvantage at an early age so far as sheer measurable educational attainment is concerned. The child may come from a country whose language is different from ours. It is very unlikely—whatever the child's real gifts—that it will do as well in an examination in the English language at the age of 11 as somebody whose mother
94
tongue is English. It is not only a question of language but the whole difference of culture.
To go back now towards a separatist system of education is to tilt the balance against the immigrant population. I am sorry to say that in the course of the controversy as I knew it, one met some people who avowedly wanted to preserve the grammar school and not have the comprehensive system because they thought there was a good chance of keeping the grammar schools much freer of immigrants than the secondary modern schools. I hope that those who advocate a return to separatism are not inclined to think in those terms today. But whatever the motives may be, there is the real danger of the result that a return to separatism will mean a heavy bias against the recent immigrant population.
It is for these reasons that I believe it would be profoundly wrong to try to reverse the trend towards comprehensive secondary education. We feel therefore that it is right to put an amendment into this Bill to make sure that none of the education support grants goes to schools which are based on that principle, and that we continue to believe in the principle of comprehensive secondary education which is both intellectually better and more likely to provide each child with the kind of education it needs but is also more appropriate for those who want to see a happy and united nation. I beg to move.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I feel that my noble friend Lord Stewart has covered most of the ground which I was going to cover and there is very little that I can say. The only thing I feel very strongly about is that when we went through the debates on reorganisation of secondary education with various local authorities we tried to persuade private direct grant schools to come in with the local authority schemes which they submitted to the Secretary of State. I feel that it is wrong for the State to provide monies for the schools which have not co-operated with local authorities. Therefore, I support the new clause on these grounds alone.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, may I say I am deeply perturbed by this amendment because it seems to me to be hitting at local democracy. Local authorities surely have a right to decide the kind of schools they provide, and presumably these reflect the wishes of parents in their areas. I cannot see why—if they wish to operate a system where some schools select by ability—they should be ruled out of court for consideration for education support grants because some members of this House do not look with favour on that type of scheme.
If I may, I will just refer briefly to some of the points in the exposition we have just heard on the relative merits as between the comprehensive system and the selective system. Recent research by many different researchers has shown that there is considerable cause for concern in the attainment and performance of the comprehensive system as compared with the selective system.
I think it was a socialist sociologist some years ago who said that comprehensive schooling is a gigantic experiment with the life chances of millions of

95
children. If we care about the life chances of millions of children-now well over 90 per cent. of our young people who are in the state system of secondary education—we must care about what is happening to those children as they go through that comprehensive system. Research has shown that in terms of formal academic attainment the comprehensive system does not compare very favourably with the selective system, and that even the secondary modern schools which have been maligned by so many people in many respects perform extremely well and sometimes do better for their pupils than their counterparts in the comprehensive system.
Research by the National Children's Bureau has also shown that on the other aspects which are very important in evaluating education—parental satisfaction and factors such as behaviour and truancy—the comprehensive system compares unfavourably with the selective system and unfavourably with secondary modern schools as compared with comprehensive schools. So I think the case for the comprehensive system is by no means proven and if, as I say, we really care about the future of our children we cannot afford to have closed minds. In fact, we must be prepared to look at it as an experiment and to re-think if it does not seem to be working as well as it might. That is not to say there are not some good comprehensive schools; but I hope very much that the message which goes from this House is not one which would seem to condemn a whole sector of our educations system as being inappropriate for receipt of educational support grant.
May I say that the words of the Bill as it has been put before us, suggest that the case for education support grants must be made in terms of their own individual merits and the extent to which they serve—in the words of the Bill:
"the interests of education in England and Wales".
I hope that no type of school will be excluded purely on partisan and prima facie grounds.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I had intended to put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, but by some oversight it was not done. I think the important point here is that this is not new money: it is taken out of the common pot which is used for comprehensive education up and down the country and therefore it would be quite wrong to apply it to schemes in which selective examination is used.
If I may say so, the short answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is that there is already via and through the assisted places scheme a great deal of money being spent on a selective system; I think I am right in saying that the amount is 16 million this year, and I believe it is projected to rise to £40 million. So the Government are already spending money—which is new money—on the encouragement of a selective approach to education. It therefore seems to me to be quite wrong—if we are going to be even-handed about this money which, as I say, is taken out of the common pot (out of the RSG)—that it, or part of it, should be added to the very large sum already being devoted to the selective approach. On those grounds, for my part, I and my colleagues would support the noble Lord,
96
Lord Stewart of Fulham, if he wants to press this to a Division.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am not going to be drawn tonight into an argument either pro or against comprehensive or selective education, because I think that is really—with due respect to noble Lords opposite—pretty well irrelevant to this particular amendment. But I should like to remind noble Lords that it is neither immoral nor illegal for an authority to have a selective system of secondary education. It is for local educational authorities, in conjunction with the governors of Voluntary Aided and special agreement schools, to take a view on the form and pattern of secondary education best suited to local circumstances and the preferences of parents. If they wish to propose any of the steps set out in Sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980, they must publish proposals and go through the relevant statutory procedures. Subject to certain exceptions those proposals are decided by my right honourable friend. In other words, the LEA proposes and my right honourable friend decides. His is a purely reactive role.
The Labour Government deprived LEAs of that freedom in their 1976 Act and we restored it. We believe that there should be variety in the provision made for secondary education in accordance with local circumstances and the wishes of parents. Local education authorities are free to consider patterns of school organisation which include grammar schools. If an authority publishes proposals to reintroduce grammar schools, my right honourable friend will decide those proposals on their merits and in the interests of all the children concerned. Incidentally, there are no current proposals for the reintroduction of grammar schools.
The Government's record shows that we look at proposals on their individual merits. Since 1979 we have approved 22 sets of proposals to end selection; one to establish a grammar school and five to amalgamate grammar schools. As for rejections, seven were to end selection; two were for new grammar schools; and one was for an amalgamation.
In consideration of this Bill both here and in the other place, it was made abundantly clear that the use of education support grants to set up new grammar schools was not in the list of possible activities to be supported by ESGs which my right honourable friend wishes to discuss in due course with representatives of the AMA and ACC. I must really stress that none of the money is going to be made available to reintroduce grammar schools. I can give the noble Lord. Lord Stewart of Fulham, that undertaking. But this amendment, if it were carried, concerns something different and, indeed, pernicious—namely, to prevent local education authorities from using education support grants for any purpose whatever in selective schools. I must re-emphasise that.
It is laid down in the amendment that:
"No money provided under this Act shall be used in any school where admission is based on selective examination or sets of tests of ability".
I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, are both fair and reasonable men, but I really must put it to them: is this a fair and reasonable

97
amendment? What happens—and admittedly I take a far-fetched example, but not too far-fetched, I believe—to a physically disabled child who, in order to be integrated into her local secondary school, finds herself in a grammar school? She may not be good at mathematics. She may need some help—just the type of help which under the education support grants she might get. But that wretched child, through no fault of her own but because she happens to be in a grammar school, would, under this amendment, be deprived of that aid. I do not think that that is fair; I do not think that it is reasonable and I suggest that if the noble Lord considers that situation, he may decide not to press the amendment.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Earl has said, and I realise that he wants to be reasonable about this matter. But I want to make it clear that I have not suggested that it is illegal or immoral for a local education authority to try to restore the separatist system. What I have suggested is that it is wrong: it is a profound error; and an error to which we ought not to give support. The Government, therefore, should not in this Bill help local authotrities who are engaged in that type of activity.
I draw the noble Earl's attention also to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock; namely, that this is money taken from schools all over the country, the great majority of which are comprehensive, and it ought not to be used to assist those who are trying to prop up what is left of the separatist system, and the more so in view of what has already been done with regard to special places.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, would the noble Lord also agree that we should not help those children who are in those schools if they are in need of the money?—because that is what the amendment proposes.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, local authorities can of course deal with that situation by not creating schools of this kind. The effect of the amendment would be that local authorities would give up the attempt to restore separatist education and I believe that that would be a desirable result. That is the case that I have made and I repeat it. I feel, therefore, that we should test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
8.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 31.

DIVISION NO 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Beaumont of Whiteley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Birk B.

Graham of Edmonton, L

Bishopston, L.

Hale, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

David, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

98

Jeger, B.

Rhodes, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stedman, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Avon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bellwin, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Cox, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sandford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinton, E.

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 6:
Insert the following new Clause:
("Advisory board.
—(1) There shall be established an advisory board for education support grants.
(2) The advisory board shall include representatives of local authorities, parents, teachers' organisations and industry.
(3) It shall be the duty of the advisory board to advise the Secretary of State on the payment of education support grants.
(4) The advisory board shall produce an annual report of the progress of projects funded by education support grants.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are bringing forward a similar amendment to the amendments which we and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, proposed last time, asking for an advisory board because we were not convinced by the arguments either of the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, at the Committee stage. I do not think that informal meetings between the Secretary of State and the chairmen of the two associations' committees and possibly an officer are enough, which is all that might take place if something is not written into the Bill.
We want to know what exactly the Secretary of State intends to do about the consultation which is promised in Clause 3(5). With what bodies does he think it appropriate to consult? We have tabled this amendment in the hope of receiving some clarification and some further information. We are not suggesting a quango, but a group of perhaps 10 people. The Government have been so keen on parental involvement and industrial involvement that we should have thought the suggestions to include these people would have been welcomed by them. Monitoring surely is acceptable and even the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said that she thought these schemes should be monitored. The facts about what is

99
supported are easily available and it is not asking a lot to ask for that little bit more. I beg to move.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I have given considerable thought to this whole issue since the discussion last time. I regret that I am still not convinced that such an advisory board is necessary, because it seems to me that the two objectives which it is designed to serve —to secure advice from representatives of relevant interest groups and to evaluate the progress of projects—are both better secured by other means.
On the question of seeking advice, I think that the Secretary of State is already committed, and has already shown himself to be committed, to widespread consultation. What worries me about a formal advisory group is that it would not only be superfluous but could also be cumbersome and could lead to indecision and delay. The whole issue with regard to consultation and timing is that these education support grants are meant to be flexible and that this extra tier of advisory board consultation could actually delay the timetable and put the whole scheme out of joint.
However, more important is the question of evaluation and the inappropriateness of such an advisory board to serve that function adequately. I do not see how any one body such as that described in the amendment could satisfactorily serve the purpose of assessing and reporting on the progress of all the projects which are likely to be funded. These projects are likely to be very diverse and will require extremely careful evaluation to ensure that the money is being spent not only for the purposes for which it was allocated but that it is being used wisely and well within each project.
As I think I said before, with a certain amount of experience of research and of evaluation of projects of diverse kinds, that kind of systematic and rigorous evaluation would be better met if the mechanisms for evaluation were specified in the terms of reference agreed for each grant as it is awarded. Therefore, although I wholeheartedly support the commitment to the principles of consultation and accountability, I do not think that the proposed advisory board should be used to serve the purposes of the former or could effectively fulfil the requirements of the latter.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, in our view the noble Baroness's new clause is an improvement on the Bill. In Clause 3(5) the Bill reads:
"Before making any regulations under this Part of this Act the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies representing local education authorities as appear to him to be appropriate."
The noble Baroness's new clause, which I support, adds:
"parents, teachers' organisations and industry",
which seems to me to be a better and a wider forum for consultation. It is already apparent that there will be considerable disagreement. There may be many candidates in this field. On 24th March 1983 the Government issued a consultative document on this and they came up with several proposals of their own, including the curricular changes in mathematics, a more practical slant to the final years of compulsory
100
education and various other favourites of their own. But it was quite clear from the consultative paper that the choice of the five areas which they had tentatively selected was not by any means either final or certain.
It seems to me that some kind of sifting mechanism will certainly be necessary, and the sifting mechanism proposed by the Government in the Bill is inadequate. Therefore, on those grounds we on this Bench, or I on behalf of my SDP colleagues, certainly support this amendment and if the noble Baroness wants to press it, we are with her.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's amendment. During the course of this Bill we have discussed two principles. One has been the discretion of the Secretary of State in the use of the money which is being withdrawn from the local authority in order to provide the educational support grants, and the other has been the consultation which the noble Lord the Minister has told us on a number of occasions that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State wishes to conduct.
I referred earlier to the relationships between local education authorities and the Government which, to say the least, are not in a very happy state at the present time. If we could write into this primary legislation not only, as we do, that there shall be consultation but also the kind of consultation—that there shall be an advisory body—then the local authorities would be more happy about the discretion which the Secretary of State is taking along with the money that he is taking from them. Again, I would suggest that it would be one of the bridge-building activities that the Government could engage in if they were to accept this amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I said when this new clause was debated in Committee, I understand the intention behind the amendment, which I take to be the desire to make education support grants as effective as possible by involving all interested parties in the administration. But I do not believe that an advisory body is necessary or desirable. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me how the Government intend to find out what people want. I can give her an assurance that the Government will listen to all those who have responsibilities within education.
My right honourable friend will consider carefully the views of local authority representatives and others about the implementation of this legislation. In preparing the Bill itself, the Government have responded to concerns expressed by the local authority associations, for example, by putting an upper limit on the amount of expenditure which can be supported through education support grants. The Bill also provides that the Secretary of State shall consult the local authority associations before laying any regulations. My right honourable friend has already held several meetings with the associations and he looks forward to a further meeting when, as I hope, the Bill has been enacted.
The Government welcome views from other bodies as well as the local authority associations about the activities that might be supported by the grants, and these comments are most welcome. During the Committee stage I repeated an undertaking that my

101
right honourable friend would issue a statement prior to the laying of draft regulations, setting out, in more detail, the activities which it was proposed should be supported and the reasons behind the proposals. All this adds up to a considerable commitment to consult and to publicise the Government's proposals regarding the activities which the grant would support. The amendment would go further than this, however. It would establish an advisory body
"To advise … on the payment of education support grants",
and to,
"produce an annual report of the progress of projects".
The procedures for actually administering and paying the grants will be determined in the regulations and an accompanying circular, on which my right honourable friend will seek the views of the local authority associations. So far as the monitoring and evaluating of projects is concerned, I should like to remind noble Lords and Baronesses of the remarks of my noble friend Lady Cox during the Committee stage on 14th Februatry at col. 197 that,
"a better way of approaching evaluation and accountability would be to build in mechanisms for evaluation within the terms of reference of projects as they are established and funded".
I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend is mindful of the need to evaluate grant-aided activities properly; but the appropriate means are likely to vary, and this question is best considered in the context of each activity.
The noble Baronesses have suggested that the advisory board would have a role in choosing between applications for support by different authorities. On this point, I should like to recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who remarked on 14th February at col. 197 that,
"If you are going to have a consultative body including local authorities, teachers, employers and a few other people, the idea that you are leaving any discretion to the Secretary of State seems to me nonsense".
Although there will be full consultation about the activities to be supported, and the circular sent to authorities will set out the criteria which will be used in selecting between bids, the choice between bids must he a matter for my right honourable friend himself.
The final decision about the approval of expenditure will rest with my right honourable friend. He will, I am sure, be receptive to suggestions about the appropriate criteria for selecting applications in different activities, and about the appropriate arrangements for monitoring and evaluation. I imagine that these points will arise naturally during the consultations. But it would be completely unjustifiable for a formal advisory committee to be established to administer what, I should remind noble Lords, remains in local government terms a modest grant.
I think that some noble Baronesses and noble Lords opposite are getting the scale of these grants out of proportion. I should remind noble Lords that we are talking about grants totalling, in 1983–84 terms, no more than about £33 million. This compares with grant on, for example, the urban programme of £150 milllion. In earlier debates we have heard a great deal about the analogy between the urban programme and the new grants. But none of the safeguards which are
102
included in the present Bill were included in the legislation introduced by the then Labour Government in 1969 to set up the urban programme. There is no provision for an upper limit on approved expenditure. There is no requirement for consultation with local authority associations. There is no requirement that the operation of the grants should be conducted in accordance with regulations. This does not mean, of course, that the urban programme does not perform a useful function. On the contrary, much valuable work is supported under the urban programme. I really do not see why an advisory board would be useful in the present instance when the urban programme is administered perfectly satisfactorily without one. I hope that the noble Baroness, having heard that, will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I say that I do not think he has turned his attention to subsection (4) of the proposed new clause. That is,
"The advisory board shall produce an annual report of the progress of projects funded by education support grants."
That is one of the most useful things which this clause does. A report coming out regularly produced by an independent body on the various projects being put forward would be extremely valuable. I am sure that the noble Earl the Minister must have a Government reaction to that. Perhaps he could add to what he has said.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as I said in Committee, evaluation will be an ongoing concern with much depending on the projects. It will be built into the mechanism and that that will take care of itself.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Will it be for publication?
The Earl of Swinton: That will depend on the various projects and in what way the evaluation takes place and whether it will be through research, at a university, or by a local authority. I am speaking again of some £33 million. It is not a vast amount of public money. The accounts will be there for all to see, and I would have thought that it was hardly necessary to produce further details in order to cover the points that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, makes.
Baroness David: My Lords, we have had a great many words from the Minister opposite, and I think some of the same words we had last time, although we did not have the suggestion that this advisory body would soon be spawning large numbers of subgroups and creating unnecessary and undesirable bureaucracy.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness complaining because I did not say that?
Baroness David: My Lords, I think that the Minister has rather missed one of the points of the amendment, which is that it would go a long way to make the local authorities very much happier about this Bill if they felt they were going to be firmly in on the discussions and the evaluation. That is an important matter. We

103
know on what bad terms the local authorities are with the Secretary of State and his department at the moment after publication of the White Paper Training for Jobs. I should have thought it would have been a good idea, in view of the claims for partnership and so on that have been made that there should be this conciliatory gesture. I shall yet again read what the Minister has said, but it is extremely likely that we shall come back with either this amendment or a similar one at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Road Traffic (Driving Instruction) Bill
8.49 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Private Member's Bill which was initiated in another place by my honourable friend Mrs. Peacock and moved at Second Reading by my honourable friend Mr. Bottomley. The Bill had an unimpeded passage through another place. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the law relating to driving instruction contained in Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1972. The present provisions make it necessary for anyone who gives instruction in the driving of motor cars for payment or reward to be registered as an approved driving instructor or licensed as a trainee instructor.
There are currently some 27,000 approved driving instructors and about 2,500 trainee driving instructors. Approved driving instructors must pass a qualifying examination before being approved and registered. The examination comprises a written test of theoretical knowledge of driving matters, a driving test in which the candidate is required to drive to a much higher standard than the L-test and a practical test of ability to give instruction. The object of the examination is to ensure a satisfactory standard of driving instruction.
The system of trainee licensing enables a new instructor to gain practical experience in giving instruction for a limited period of six or 12 months prior to qualification as an approved instructor. The present requirements for licensed trainees is to have held a driving licence for four out of the last six years; not to have been disqualified in the past four years, and to be of good character. A licensed trainee is not tested under current legislation. During the six or 12 months they will be improving skills, but, as newcomers, naturally much tuition will be substandard. This is borne out by pass rates for trainees taking the qualifying examination in 1983, in which only 50 per cent. passed the written test of theoretical knowledge and only 43 per cent. passed the practical test of driving and ability to instruct.
One of the most important points about this new Bill is that it tries to increase the quality of all training. The figures I have read give the basic reason why this is so necessary. However, the scheme is sometimes abused by those seeking casual employment with no serious intention of qualifying and making a career of driving instruction. The weaknesses of the scheme have attracted much adverse comment from the
104
public. I have examples of articles both from papers and from magazines over the past three years which demonstrate this. The scheme is also objected to by the approved drinving instructors, who, quite naturally, see their skills being debased because—I shall turn to this later—nobody can tell at the moment which is which, an approved driving instructor or a trainee instructor. Finally. I think I should add that, quite bluntly, it is dangerous. We have an enormous number of motor cars on the road and an enormously increasing number of people of all ages wishing to pass the test. It is important that they be properly trained to reduce the number of accidents, which is still seriously and alarmingly high.
The change in the trainee instructor scheme proposed in the Bill would require trainees to pass a written and driving test part of the qualifying exam for approval before the grant of a licence, but, at that stage, it would not include the test of ability to instruct. This would ensure that trainee instructors are partly qualified before giving tuition for payment, and it provides a framework on which the newcomer can build and become a satisfactory professional instructor and, indeed, able to pass the test of ability to instruct.
The Department of Transport has had full consultations with the driving instructors' organisations and other interested bodies, and the proposals have been generally welcome. There are some who would prefer that the trainee licensing scheme was abolished entirely. However, the department considers, and I agree, that it would be too drastic a step and would severely limit the means of entry to driving instruction as a career. I accept that, and I think we should seek the undoubted benefits which the proposed tightening up of the scheme has to offer.
The Bill also provides, in Clause 1, for the compulsory display of driving instructors' official identification documents in motor cars used for giving driving instruction for payment. At the moment, in the publicity material that is sent to all new drivers with the first provisional driving licence the department urges them to take professional driving instruction and to ask to see their instructors' official documents. However, it is most doubtful whether many pupils do the latter, and they are probably most reluctant to ask for official proof. The proposal in Clause I will help pupils to avoid unauthorised instructors who have not been tested or approved. They will also know whether they have a qualified driving instructor or a licensed trainee. The enforcement of the law on illegal instruction—that is, tuition given for payment by an unauthorised instructor—is a difficult task, and all the more so because of the present lack of ready identification. The proposal for compulsory identification will help the police and others in dealing with the problem.
I have said that Clause 1 deals with this point. Clause 2 deals with subsidiary matters. Clause 3 is the main one for introducing new qualifications and the new examinations for the licensed trainees; and Clause 4 provides for consequential amendments.
In conclusion, careful and considerate driving is essential to road safety. Driving instruction plays an important part in promoting this. Drivers should be correctly taught from the beginning and given a proper

105
foundation for a lifetime of driving. The proposals in the Bill will make the driving instructor registration scheme more effective, and thus make a significant contribution to road safety. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—[Lord Mottistone.]
8.57 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is to be thanked for bringing forward this Bill and for explaining its provisions. When I sought to find what the other place said about it, to my amazement I found that on 26th January it went through Second Reading and all the other stages without any explanation whatever. Therefore, we are grateful for the explanation given to us this evening.
In the view of myself and my noble friends, it is a Bill to benefit the customer; that is, the person wishing to take driving instruction. The provisions as outlined can only be beneficial for those who wish to take driving instruction: and I was also pleased to hear the noble Lord say that it is an extra aid towards road safety, which is very important. The display of a certificate and/or of a licence, as the case may be, is an extremely valuable provision. There is always the problem of enforcement of any provisions of this kind, and of existing provisions. This should be an aid towards that.
The driving instruction service is a growing and valuable service. Noble Lords will have noted the up-to-date figures which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone,
106
gave of the numbers of approved driving instructors and registered trainee instructors at present. Noble Lords cannot fail to be impressed by the figures which the noble Lord mentioned of those who failed to pass the existing test: in one case just over 50 per cent. and, in the other, just under. The numbers who apply each year run into some thousands—4,500 to 6,000 per year, according to the year. The failure rate in the practical part of the existing examination is important because applicants cannot take that unless they have passed the written part. Therefore, the over 50 per cent. failure rate is of those who have already passed the written part of the present test.
I am pleased that the noble Lord has outlined the changes that there are in the Bill, particularly those for the registration of trainee instructors. This seems to be a clear anomaly in the present provision, and I am certain this is something that will be generally welcomed.
As I see the Bill, it is one that will avoid—I will not use the word "undesirable"—persons who are not properly qualified persons undertaking training. We want this to be a good service industry. There is the danger of undesirable persons coming in. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred to those seeking casual employment. There is nothing wrong in casual employment, provided that they are really well suited to do the job they wish to do. Therefore, from these Benches we give full support to this Bill. We would hope that the Government would not only accept it but that they will assist its passage through your Lordship's House. I have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, we on these Benches are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for introducing this Bill to the House. The ability of driving instructors to produce better drivers on the road is something we would all welcome, and there are clearly problems in the present legislation to which the noble Lord has pointed.
I was most interested in the figures that he gave us on the pass rate. They underline that there is already some control, and this Bill introduces a greater degree of control. As I shall try to show in a few moments, there are one or two questions that I should like to put and perhaps at a later stage we may suggest some modifications which will tighten it up even further.
I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I deal with the Bill section by section and if I take a little more time than the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. As he says, it was not discussed in another place and I think it is incumbent upon this House to subject this legislation to rather more detailed scrutiny. Clause 1 seems to be a very sensible provision, for the exhibition of the licence on the windscreen is a very useful check on mavericks, as the noble Lord said. The timid trainee-driver, frankly, is not going to challenge the instructor whom he has to live with for his future lessons, but outside agencies may well be prepared to check whether the licence is exhibited in the car. Presumably, there is a role for the police in this and I am sure that they will welcome many aspects of the Bill.
Clause 2 is also welcome. I think the spelling out of the three phases of training is an improvement on the Act that exists now. We are in a slightly complex situation here: we have the Bill before us today, with the 1972 Act and the 1977 statutory instrument, all of which interlock. There is the division into three sections of a written examination, a practical test of ability to drive above the level one normally expects from the average driver on the road and also the test of the ability and fitness to instruct, which is a very useful definition.
Clause 2(1)(b) is a reasonable provision to overcome the problems of a broken period of licence holding without diluting the original provision of a minimum period of four years' driving experience. Clause 2(2): it seems wise to define the relevant experience as driving "motor cars" rather than "motor vehicles", and we welcome that provision in the Bill.
However, when we come to Clause 3(1), we have some questions. First, this clause refers to Section 131 of the 1972 Act, the intention of which is to allow the registrar to issue a licence to allow an applicant to gain practical experience before he takes phase three of the examination in order to undergo the practical test of his ability to instruct. It is on the question of the ability to instruct that I wish to put some points on the Bill which is before your Lordships today.
It says that the licence will be issued only if the applicant has passed the first two phases: that is to say, the written examination and the test of practical ability and fitness to drive. This is a step forward but it is only useful in assessing the competence of the person to drive a motor car above perhaps the average
108
standard that one expects from a learner driver who has just passed his first test. What it does not do is to ensure the suitability of the applicant for the licence to instruct other people, and this is where I have some doubts about whether the Bill goes far enough.
Nowhere is there any insistence in the Bill on training courses to train the trainer. We have to bear in mind that the Statutory Instrument No. 1043 of 1947, Part 5(2)(iii) only prescribes that there should be supervision of the licensee for a minimum of 20 per cent. of the time he is actually on the road instructing people. He has to be supervised for one-fifth of his time and for the other 80 per cent. of his time he can go out with new drivers and behave as though he were a fully-qualified instructor. Accepting that he does need the practical experience to do that, it seems to be a loophole in the earlier Act and also a similar one in this Bill.
What we would like to see is that whoever embarks on this course is in fact rather more skilled than the legislation at present requires. It is a vital matter that people who are instructing should be really capable of doing so, because after all, people's future driving ability may well depend on the first few lessons they get. I speak from my own experience of having been taught by an amateur and of knowing that it took me many, many years to unlearn the bad mistakes that I was making. It was not until many years later when I was fortunate enough to go on an advanced training course run by the City of Manchester Police that I realised the had mistakes that I had been making. I covered them up by a certain youthful reaction time, but had I not been on that course I would even today have been making the same sort of mistakes in terms of rather aggressive driving. It was only when I went through that course that I realised that, in certain circumstances, I was a menace on the road. So it is very important that the people who are instructing should know how to instruct, as well as themselves having an innate ability to drive.
I hope that at a later stage of the Bill we can insert some provision, so that people who will be on their own for 80 per cent. of the time instructing people shall have had some training themselves, not in driving, not in the written examination, but in how to teach other people to drive. With that qualification, I should like to support this Bill.
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone for bringing this Bill to the House. I was very impressed to hear that it passed all its stages in the House of Commons on 26th January. That shows that the Government feel that this Bill is long overdue. I am a driver of considerable years, and perhaps I may also say of experience, and I have felt for a very long time that the younger people who are now on our roads need a better quality of tuition than they have had in the past. That is not to say that the instruction by most of the driving schools in this country is below standard. On the other hand, there is so much traffic on the roads and people are driving so fast that, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, quite rightly said, the quality needs to be heightened as much as possible and the whole law needs to be tightened up.

109
We all know about the cowboy instructors. It is perfectly possible for a man to put a notice on the top of his car stating that he has a driving school. He can then go out on the road and I do not think that he can be stopped, although he is supposed to have passed examinations. I am afraid that we shall still have loopholes, and the parents who teach their children or the brothers who teach their younger sisters to drive are the people who need to he got at somehow by this Bill, because in no way is the standard of that kind of instruction good enough for the roads of this country. Therefore, I feel that much more could and should be done to encourage all the learners to go to a good school which is staffed by highly qualified instructors.
But, however much legislation is passed by Governments, nobody can legislate for good manners on the road. As I drive many thousand of miles, and see the numbers of near misses and the bad examples of driving which are entirely due to bad manners, I realise that that, almost more than anything else, is the reason for crashes. But, as I said, it is very difficult to legislate for good manners, so it must be stressed to the driving schools that good manners should be taught almost as much as anything else.
I notice that the Bill confines itself to motor cars and I wonder about HGV licence. Who teaches the people who will apply for HGV licences?—because driving of that sort must be taught by well qualified and highly trained people. I think my noble friend touched on the fact that an instructor had to have held a clean licence for four years. I am not quite certain whether that is long enough. Perhaps it depends on the reason for someone's licence being endorsed. But if an endorsement were for any of the normal offences, such as drinking, speeding or driving without due care, then six years might be more appropriate. May I also suggest that when a licence is exhibited there should also be a photograph of the driving instructor? That could easily be changed if an instructor had a different car.
I certainly welcome this Bill and, as other noble Lords have done, I hope that in the end it will lead to more careful driving and less speedy driving, although I am not one who thinks that speed causes accidents; I believe that slowness causes more accidents. But, with any luck, I feel that thousands of people who go out on our roads will be taught by instructors who are even better qualified than they have been in the past, and I certainly wish this Bill a speedy run through this House.
9.14 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough. However, I welcome the Bill because at least it is a step in the right direction and goes some way towards keeping cowboys off the roads. To my mind, the worst thing about cowboys—a point that has been mentioned already—is that because they are not trained and because they are not experts they pass on to the people they are pretending to teach to drive the bad habits they have picked up and have been using for years. One of the worst habits—one sees it every
110
day—is that of jumping the amber light at traffic lights, whether on the "stop" or on the "go". Why there are not more accidents at traffic lights I honestly do not know.
In particular, I am very pleased to see Clause 3. There is no doubt that there has been a slackening of standards. According to the Driving Instructors' Association, every year in the region of 1,200 instructors get on to the register of approved driving instructors. The majority of these driving instructors are learning their trade at the expense of the general public. When one considers that the general public are paying £8 or more per hour to be instructed, one realises that they are actually paying someone to learn their job. This seems to me to be crazy, and I am very glad that it is to be stopped.
I do not know whether it is generally accepted that one and a half hours of tuition are needed for every year of a person's life. If, therefore, somebody is 18 years old he needs about 27 hours of instruction; if he is 30 years old he needs about 45 hours of instruction. At £8 or more per hour, these people are investing a very great deal of money. I hope your Lordships will be pleased to hear that the statistics show there is no difference between the length of time it takes males and females to learn to drive.
I am sure that noble Lords who have passed their driving test will agree with me that the present test is too easy. Having said that, I have to admit that I have never taken the Department of Transport driving test. By the time they reintroduced the driving test after the war I had already held a licence for sufficiently long. I felt slightly guilty about this, so I took the Institute of Advanced Motorists' test, which I am glad to say I passed first time.
In conclusion, if there is to be a significant reduction in the number of people killed and maimed on the roads, and if there is also to be a significant reduction in the number of accidents in which, although nobody may be injured, a great deal of damage is done to very expensive motor cars, with the result that premiums go up year by year, that reduction will be achieved only when the majority of people are trained by qualified driving instructors. Therefore I welcome the Bill.
9.18 p.m.
The Earl of Enniskillen: My Lords, I had not meant to speak but I should like to make one point which I notice has not been referred to; namely, refresher courses which keep driving instructors up to standard. Perhaps that is a point we ought to consider. If one obtains a driving instructor's licence there ought to be, as with an airman's licence, periodic tests. I believe that this would be advantageous.
I should like to join all those who have spoken in commending the Bill. It has long been required in order to strengthen one of the prime factors with which, when we were driving under perhaps easier conditions than exist today, we were imbued when we began to drive: that anybody can consider himself to be a good driver, but his passenger will soon let him know if he is not.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I shall be even more brief. My noble friend Lord Tordoff asked: how does one teach an instructor to instruct? I should have thought it might be a good idea to provide that every trainee instructor should spend so many hours sitting on the back seat watching a qualified instructor instructing his pupil.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for introducing this Bill and for explaining its purpose to us. I believe he, too, should be most grateful that every noble Lord who has spoken this evening has given support. Perhaps it would be as well if at this point I told my noble friend' and your Lordships that the Government give their support to this Bill.
The department has recently reviewed the driving instructor registration scheme to see whether it might be made more effective. As a result we have decided to make a number of changes to improve the quality of tuition that is given to learner drivers. Higher standards have since been introduced for the entrance examinations which new entrants have to pass before being registered by the department as approved driving instructors. The department also re-tests registered instructors from time to time to ensure that they maintain a satisfactory standard of tuition. My noble friend Lord Enniskillen may be reassured to learn that, while not having a refresher course, the department does examine instructors from time to time—in most cases, at least once every two years. If an instructor is failing in a major way, he may lose his registration. If he is failing in a minor way, he will most certainly be encouraged to take further instruction or practice. These checks have been made considerably more strict in recent times to match the higher standards we now expect from new entrants.
The changes in the system of trainee driving instructors' licensing which is contained in the Bill are a very necessary part of the package which I have just outlined to your Lordships. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, there are certainly some who may wish to abolish trainee licensing altogether. But the scheme does provide a useful means of entry to a career in driving instruction, and the Government do not wish to minimise that opportunity. It provides the newcomer with an opportunity to gain practical experience of giving instruction before taking the qualifying examination for approval and registration.
However, trainees should have a good theoretical knowledge of driving matters and be able to drive more skilfully than the average driver. The Bill therefore provides for trainees to first pass the written part of the entrance examination and the test of their own driving before the grant of a licence enabling them to instruct learner drivers for payment or reward. The effect of this change will be to raise the standard of new entrants, thus generally improving the quality of good tuition which learner drivers receive.
Good instruction is essential for those learning to drive. It makes an important contribution to road safety, an aspect of which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made particular mention in his remarks.
112
The department urges all new drivers to take professional instruction. The provision in the Bill for the compulsory display of a driving instructor's official identification documents will help pupils in this matter. I will return to that point in a moment. It will also help the enforcement of the law on driving instruction. I will return to that point, too, in just a moment.
My noble friend may find it helpful if I give the Government's views' on a number of points which have been raised. The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, spoke about enforcement. Publicity will be given to the introduction of the requirement for display and the new forms of documents. Pupils will be advised to look for them. The incidence of pupils unwittingly engaging unauthorised instructors will therefore be much reduced: but, as one noble Lord said, it can be offputting to make the challenge, and people could quite easily be taught by other than qualified instructors.
Although the format and method of display of the official identification documents has yet to be determined, we intend that they should be readily recognisable by enforcement authorities from the outside of the car as well as from the inside of the car in which instruction is being given. I can assure my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve that her suggestion with regard to a more positive form of identification, such as a photograph, will be considered. Obviously I cannot pre-empt what the decision might be because consultations will have to take place. Those consultations certainly will be with the police and other enforcement officers and those who are engaged in this business of instruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that there was something lacking in the Bill. I think he asked the question, "How do we train the trainers?" He referred to the 1977 regulations. In fact, he referred to Part V, Regulation 11, paragraph 3, which, as he rightly said, provides:
"In the case of any licence other than the second of two licences issued in respect of consecutive periods the holder thereof shall, while giving instruction"—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the question of the second of two licences does not now arise because it is dealt with in the new Bill. There is no question of the second of two licences as we are talking about one licence. Therefore, that part of the instruction will be amended by the Bill.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for pointing that out. Yes, before the Bill becomes operative there may well have to be consequential amendments to take care of anything that the Bill may contain. To continue with the quote:
"while giving instruction in the driving of a motor car, receive direct personal supervision from a person whose name is in the register for at least one-fifth of the total time the holder spends giving such instruction."
The noble Lord made the point rather later in his speech that that means that for 80 per cent. of his time he will not be under any supervision. However, he

113
failed to read the last line of that paragraph. This reads:
"during the first three months for which the licence is in force."
Therefore, although there may not be two periods but only one of six months as the Bill proposes, it is only during the first three months that he has to be supervised and records kept.
It would surely not be unreasonable to suggest that if the registered instructor under whom the trainee is serving (shall I call it?) a three months' traineeship fails to find that trainee suitable, he will not be able to continue. But even if he is able to continue, which I very much doubt, he will have to take this other test, which may or may not disqualify him. The Government believe that the Bill brings forward, or anticipates bringing forward, a higher quality of trainee; or, at the very worst, by virtue of having to take the first two parts of the test it will sift out those who perhaps might not be suitable even after the first three months.
I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, eventually passed his test—
Noble Lords: First time!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I was unkind, my Lords, in saying "eventually". After many years of driving he passed his test first time, which is a nicer way of putting it. I am sure the noble Earl realises that I meant no offence. He spoke about this compulsory training of instructors. We really do not think that compulsory training of instructors by means of a formal training course is at this time justified. We certainly encourage instructors to seek formal training, but there are many who do not respond to intensive training, and it may be far better if they take their training instruction from a registered instructor over a longer period. I suspect that that would mean that the National Joint Council of Approved Driving Instructor Organisations would have to have some say in the approval of the instructor training establishments.
Approval of courses could not be restricted to the council; the department would have to set the course, the standards, and so on. I do not think that this would be practicable, nor of great benefit when one considers the cost involved. I should perhaps say here that the department is increasing the number of examiners to carry out inspections and tests of the existing registered driving instructors. I think that that also probably takes care of the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve spoke about the cowboy instructor—that is, somebody who is not on the register. They can in fact be prosecuted for giving tuition for payment or reward. The boyfriend or girlfriend who is receiving payment—in the regulations it says "in cash or in kind"—can be prosecuted if he or she can be caught. That is the reason for the certificate having to be displayed.
I do not think that I can help my noble friend Lord Mottistone further, although I might perhaps add that research has shown that pass rates were highest for those who took 10 hours or less of formal instruction. That may be because those people have a sharper or
114
more easily teachable mentality. Research also shows that drivers who are male or young, or who have had motorcycle experience, also have a higher than average pass rate. But that is perhaps by the way.
I am pleased to have the opportunity that the Bill provides for making these necessary changes in driving instructor registration schemes in order to make the system more effective and, by improving the quality of instruction, to enable it to make a greater contribution to road safety. It is a small but very important Bill. I fully endorse the proposals that it contains, and I hope that it receives the Second Reading that it so rightly deserves.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, may I intervene before the noble Lord sits down? I accept that we shall come back to the training of the the trainers at a later stage in the Bill but, as the noble Lord rightly says, the statutory instrument refers to the first three months of the licence. That is the point at which the trainee is at his most vulnerable and inexperienced. The fact that at a later stage he may have greater supervision is slightly irrelevant to the point that I was making. It is in the first three months that the apprentice instructor needs the greatest degree of supervision.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is quite right. That is why at least one-fifth of the time that the trainee instructor spends in giving instruction has to be supervised. But it does not mean to say that it is only one-fifth. Very much depends on the ability of the supervising instructor to determine how much time. One-fifth is just the minimum. Certainly from my experience I can say that the majority of instructors taking trainees have found it necessary, and certainly desirable, to supervise for rather more than one-fifth of the time.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to all noble Lords who, with a few qualifications, have supported the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for saying that the Government welcome the Bill, and for answering many of the points raised by other noble Lords. I am also most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his unqualified support from the main Opposition Front Bench. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for supporting most of what is in the Bill from the Liberal Benches.
What is in the Bill? I would not say to him but it seemed to me that he was saying that we really needed to include the quality of instructional technique within the basic qualifications. He is getting very close to making the final test for approved driving instructor the one for the trainee licensee, and that would then of course come to the point of effectively abolishing the trainee licensees which I and the Department of Transport agree is going too fast and too sweeping. I am a great believer in some sort of apprenticeship system in this, and I should like to see it left in, in more or less the way it is there.
The othe point I would make to all the noble Lords who kindly took part in the debate—and I think I must

115
be practical here—is that the fate of this Bill very much depends on its going through this House unamended. If we amend it, it goes back to another place and, in the nature of their business, it is almost bound to die. This was put to me in the last Parliament on another Bill when I was taking the line of wanting to amend it and I had to accept it. I have taken two Private Members' Bills through this House, before in the past 15 years, and I am afraid that this is a fact. But it does not mean to say that we should not have a jolly good Committee stage in order to air points, and I saw a way through this in what my noble friend, Lord Lucas, said: that perhaps the sorts of amendments that the noble Lord. Lord Tordoff, is after could be in an amended version of the statutory instrument to which both noble Lords referred, rather than in this Bill. Perhaps my noble friend would care to study that because if he could give us that understanding when we come to Committee, that would help to preserve the Bill from almost certain death if it goes back to another place.
I should quickly like to take up two points that my noble friend Lady Macleod raised, which I do not think my noble friend Lord Lucas made. One is about heavy goods licences. They are in a totally different legislation and are not affected by this at all; and, indeed, they are very heavily both trained for and examined in at a level which is out of all connection with this.
She also spoke about bad manners, which I think is very important. It sounds almost frivolous to say it but one of my daughters who had to take two tests, I think failed the first time because it was not that her driving instructor had had manners but he had had breath. This is true! She could not concentrate on what was required of her because she was so put off by this, and each time she went to take her course she had the same man and the same terrible smell; it was frightful. But it is important that things like good manners—and personal hygiene, if you like—should somehow be put across to these people by somebody at some stage when they are doing their training or examining. So I take very strongly the point that my noble friend Lady Macleod, made and thoroughly support her: good manners is the basis for good roadmanship.
I was delighted to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, had to say about not actually having taken a test until he did his advanced test: I think that is good stuff. I did something similar, but I will not bore your Lordships with that as time is moving on, and other people want to move to the next debate. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Rate Levels and the Law
9.39 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take if Liverpool City Council, or any other local authority, decides to fix its level of rates substantially below the level needed to finance its projected expenditure, in contravention of the law.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled this Question following the well publicised statements made by Mr. Derek Hatton, the deputy leader of the Labour majority on Liverpool council, and a number of his colleagues, that they are contemplating fixing a rate substantially below their projected level of expenditure. As many of us know, rather over a week ago Mr. Hatton and his colleagues met the Secretary of State for the Environment to ask for £30 million extra of Government grant, which it was suggested would avoid the necessity of their taking such action. As we know, Mr. Jenkin told them that he was not prepared to make such money available to the authority.
If I may, I propose to deal first with what I believe the law to be—and I shall wait with interest to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, agrees with me on that—and then with the character of the situation that has arisen in Liverpool. First, I think it only fair to say that the amount of case law on this issue is fairly limited, because very few local authorities have been prepared even to contemplate taking action of this kind, whatever may have been their feelings about the government of the day.
However, notwithstanding that fact, I do not think that there can be much argument about what is the law. Under the General Rate Act 1967, as amended by the Local Government (Finance) Act 1982, every rating authority is obliged to make such a rate as will be sufficient to provide its total estimated expenditure, including sums payable under a county council precept. Various other statutes empower the relevant Secretaries of State to issue direct directions through commissioners if a local authority fails to carry out its statutory responsibilities. I believe that there is not much doubt that a Secretary of State could apply for judicial review in advance of actual detriment to the services arising, and of course any refusal to obey an order from the court would be a clear case of contempt.
There is also the position of creditors. Creditors could. I believe, apply to the courts if there was a danger of the authority having no money to pay its bills. It also seems fairly clear that members of an authority involving themselves in conduct of this character would be liable to personal surcharges for any losses arising and ultimately to disqualification.
So much for the law. I now turn, if I may, to the character of the situation that we all know has arisen in Liverpool. The Labour Party in Liverpool has an overall majority of three on the city council. Mr. Hatton and a majority of his colleagues are associated with Militant Tendency, an extremist Marxist organisation, which controls a number of the constituency Labour parties in the city. As we all know. Militant Tendency is an organisation which is contemptuous of Parliament, the judiciary and the rule of law. It is of course unlikely to take the slightest notice of an N thing said in this House this evening.
However, notwithstanding that, I believe it is right that we should debate this situation tonight, for the position of Militant Tendency in no way represents the majority of those people who live in Liverpool, or those who work in the public service there. At the last elections, for instance, the majority of those who voted

117
cast their votes against the present Left-wing majority on the city council. As for those who work in the public service in Liverpool, there have I think been two very important developments in the past few weeks. First, the district committee of the National Union of Public Employees has announced that it has no confidence in a policy that brings the council into conflict with the law. Secondly, members of the National Union of Teachers in Liverpool have voted not to support the one-day strike which is being called by the joint shop stewards' committee for 29th March, which is the day of the council's rate-fixing meeting. The National Union of Public Employees, too, has decided not to support that strike.
It is also right to say that concern about the policy of Mr. Hatton and his colleagues has been expressed by a small minority of Labour councillors in Liverpool. It is only fair to say that Mr. Kinnock has, as I understand it, made very clear his anxieties and his opposition to the course which is being proposed; though it is also right to say that a local Labour Member of Parliament on television last Thursday denied that Mr. Kinnock had done any such thing.
It appears, however, that, notwithstanding the very serious concern which has been expressed in Liverpool —and certainly outside it—Mr. Hatton and his colleagues will be in no way deterred from the course of action which they are thinking of following through. Labour councillors who are believed to be hesitant about supporting him are being threatened by their constituency Labour parties with being removed from the council. There is thus a real risk that on 29th March the council will decide to fix an unlawful rate and set in hand a chain of events for which there is no precedent in the history of English local government.
I must say at the outset that I do not propose today to discuss in any detail the policies of the present Government in relation to the inner cities. My noble friends and I have made it clear on a number of occasions that we believe that many of these policies have been profoundly mistaken and the Government have failed to recognise the serious situation which has developed in many of those inner city areas. There are undeniably grievous problems in Liverpool. There is poor housing (a great deal of it post-war public housing); there are serious educational problems; there is the grave situation with inner city dereliction: and there is, as we all know, an appalling unemployment situation, and it is particularly grave so far as younger people are concerned.
I believe that, given the gravity of this situation in Liverpool, we are going to see problems of this kind resolved only if there is a joint and effective partnership between central government and the city council, and I find it deeply depressing that Mr. Hatton and his friends clearly have not the slightest interest in developing such a relationship. In any event, having touched on this central question of the very serious problems that exist in Liverpool, we have to recognise that this is not the central issue which is before us this evening: it is whether a local authority can be permitted to pursue a course of blatant illegality. I am sure that we shall be told by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that the Government will not allow Mr.
118
Hatton and his colleagues to escape the consequences of any unlawful behaviour on their part. That, in my view, will not be enough.
What I believe the House will expect is that those consequences will be spelled out publicly now well before the council's rate fixing meeting. What precisely do the Government intend to do if the council fixes an unlawful rate? What, for instance, do the government consider are the responsibilities of the council's chief officers in these circumstances, and particularly the council's chief finance officer? Could he attempt to levy a rate which he knew to be unlawful? Would the Government in those circumstances think it right themselves to initiate immediate action in the courts to deal with this situation? If not—to take only one illustration—what would be the position of those who have lent substantial sums of money to the city of Liverpool? What do the Government believe would happen to the market in local government loans if a major local authority were to default?—clearly if Liverpool had simply no resources after 1st April of this year it would be in just such a situation. I hope we shall hear some answers to these questions this evening from the noble Lord the Minister. I think that the public interest requires that he should give those answers and I believe, too, that the people of Liverpool deserve that they should be clear answers, as do those who work in the public service there, who are fearful that from the beginning of next month they may be cut off without receiving any pay whatever.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will be able to meet some of those anxieties this evening and also those of that devoted group of men and women who are working so hard to encourage the development of new business in Liverpool, and who are deeply concerned at the growing risks to future job prospects there because of the antics of Mr. Hatton and his friends. They have, I believe, already succeeded in doing great damage to the reputation of their city, although I believe they are clearly indifferent about their responsibilities there and to their own employees. I hope that the Minister will indicate tonight in the clearest terms what will be the direct consequences to them if an act of gross illegality takes place on 29th March. That. I am sure, is what the House will expect from him and what I believe the people of Liverpool deserve.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he refer again to the point made in his speech about the majority of Derek Hatton's colleagues?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the point that the noble Lord is making. I mentioned Mr Hatton and his colleagues, yes.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the word "majority" in relation to Militant Tendency.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, rather than indulge in question and answer now, I should be glad to hear what the noble Lord says on that particular point. But it seems quite clear to me that Mr Hatton does have an overwhelming majority of support in the Labour group in Liverpool.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise to the House, but I did not quite understand what the noble Lord said about how many Militant Tendency members there were in Liverpool City Council. As his speech is already written down no doubt he will be able to refer to it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not wish to persist in this cross-examination. The noble Lord has not troubled to put his name down to speak. The fact is that I have made my position quite clear on what Mr Hatton stands for and the degree of support he has in the Labour group in Liverpool. I do not think that it is appropriate to say any more.
9.53 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has asked a completely hypothetical Question—what I would call in more informal language an "ify" question. I cannot believe that, as he put it, public interest requires an answer to such a hypothetical Question. I do not think that it is the Government's job—and I hope the Minister will agree—to answer questions of this hypothetical nature.
At the present time there are 411 principal authorities in this country which are all in the process of fixing their rates or precepts. The interest in Liverpool and the focus on its council and their day-to-day doings, have, as we know, created a great deal of publicity. But it is beyond me why we should be debating this matter tonight at this time. I had always understood that the Alliance parties were in favour of the local decision-making process. But the noble Lord seems more intent on giving publicity to the very busy Mr Hatton The difficulties inherited last May when the Labour majority came into power were appalling, and this was acknowledged by the Secretary of State who in February said that the problems of Liverpool were of a very special kind. The incoming Government had inherited a Tory-Liberal budget cut of £6 million which was not allocated to any service areas and it was not indicated in March 1983 where the cuts should fall. I find that quite understandable. I am not particularly criticising them for it because they had inherited it, but they had also, unfortunately, under-budgeted the year previously.
The incoming Administration were committed to the maintenance of services and, as the noble Lord has pointed out, to no increase in unemployment, which is running at 20 per cent. in Liverpool, and to improving and increasing housing, which, as is generally acknowledged, is appallingly bad in that area. They could not levy a supplementary rate. They have suffered enormous losses in grant since the Government came to office. For example, if they were to increase the 1984–85 budget by only 5 per cent. over that for 1983–84, allowing for inflation, in cash terms there would be an £11 million increase for 1984–85, which would incur penalties in the order of £21 million. Even to sustain the Tory-Liberal budget would incur enormous penalties. They would have had to cut services drastically in this deprived and in many ways wretched area.
120
As I pointed out, the Secretary of State was fair enough to recognise this. The areas of deprivation and high spending in this country are practically all inner city ones which have the most gigantic problems. I think I am right in saying that originally the noble Lord tabled his Question with just a reference to Liverpool and that he has now included other local authority areas.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may put the noble Baroness right. The form of the Question has in no way changed since I first put it down.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. He is right, because it is not unique, but it is also not on any of the Government's hit lists of high spenders. The council is locally elected and is locally accountable. At the present time a constant debate is taking place in the council. It is going on between members of the council, between the council's employees, between the council and the Government and, as the noble Lord pointed out, NUPE and the NUT have dissociated themselves from any illegal action.
The shadow environment secretary is currently involved in discussions with Liverpool and also with other local authorities which have suffered in the same way in the inner areas. I should have thought that these are the ways in which to try to solve some of these problems. On these Benches and in this party we do not support unlawful action. It does not help the problem but only exacerbates it when the noble Lord raises a Question in this way. I could hardly believe he wants to do this. Does he really want to do it? I should not have thought he would. Is he trying to throw down a further challenge to Liverpool before decisions are made? I must confess that it seems such an extraordinary thing to do. There are times when public speeches of this sort are inflammatory and counterproductive. I believe that much more can be accomplished more quietly behind the scenes. Confrontation does not produce conciliation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Birk: My Lords, no, I shall not; I am just coming to the end of my speech. It is no good the noble Lord laughing about this; he knows as well as I do that this sort of thing and this type of publicity only acts as an incentive to those people who probably take a very much more extreme view than many other people. Confrontation does not produce conciliation, and hypothetical questions are dangerous and irresponsible. I am very sorry that someone who was once a member of my party should table such a hypothetical Question. I am not talking about his political views now, for everyone has the right to change; but I am talking about his sense of timing and, if I may say so, his common sense in doing something like this.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, at this moment the position in the City of Liverpool is extremely serious and unless certain members of the Labour

121
Party have the courage to vote against the Marxist leadership of that party, I am afraid that it can only become more serious. It is apposite for my noble friend to raise the subject this evening. There are one or two points that I should like to clear up. In fact, I fear that my speech may be largely a question of rebutting certain ideas that have been promoted by the Labour Party about the activities of the Liberals in the City of Liverpool. For instance, and first of all, there has never been a Liberal-Conservative coalition in Liverpool. Perhaps there ought to have been one. Perhaps there ought to have been a Liberal-Labour coalition. Perhaps there ought to have been a recognition that people should co-operate in various parties to look after the benefits of the city.
I apologise for bringing this subject up because I know it is a dirty phrase to members of the Labour Party and the Government; but if we had a PR system we would have had to accept a system of co-operation and support. But there is this constant belief that under the first-past-the-post system sooner or later the Liberals would go away, and then they could go back to their old Tory-Labour rows and run the city as badly as it was run in the earlier part of this century and the earlier part of the last decade. I believe therefore that there is a strong case for co-operation; but since no co-operation exists, I must underline the fact that there has never been a Liberal-Conservative coalition. The Conservative party is a small rump, and I take great pleasure in your Lordships' House in pointing this out, because it is not a small rump in this House although possibly a rather unruly party.
Secondly, I feel that the present Labour-controlled council is not in a position—and I suggest that the noble Baroness is not herself in a position—to talk about approaching this matter in an atmosphere of coolness and quietness, when the deputy leader of the city council is talking about rioting in the streets, and threatening, as I understand it, the Secretary of State and indeed the Labour party's own spokesman who fails to agree with him—I must not mention his name here; the Labour party spokesman on the environment in another place—with violence, or something of that nature, because he takes a more moderate view, as the noble Baroness does, about the activities of the council. Therefore, I do not think we are in a position where we can dismiss the concept of the violence being substituted for debate in the City of Liverpool. I am sorry and regretful, as a Merseysider, that I should have to say that.
I could spend some time giving your Lordships a history of the past few years in Liverpool, but I shall try to do it in the form of brief references. The facts are that the Labour party refused, though they were the largest party, to take office in Liverpool in 1980. After a period when nobody would take office, and Liverpool was described as "Toy Town", the Liberals took over though they were a minority party. They found a budget £10 million in deficit left to them by the previous Labour administration, yet by the end of that financial year they had a healthy outturn and a position where there was no problem about a deficit. They did this without massive cuts. They did it without massive sackings. They did it by reducing the administrative burden on the city, but developing the caring services, the social and welfare services.
122
We should recognise that, in spite of some years of Liberal administration, in spite of the alleged Liberal destruction of the services, Liverpool still has more council employees than almost any other authority. It has 10 per cent. more than the socialist republic of Sheffield. It is the need to remove unnecessary jobs—and I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will agree with me here because this is what he did in Leeds—in the bureaucracy which will prevent rocketing rates and will also therefore prevent loss of jobs in the private sector. This is what the various Liberal administrations in the city of Liverpool tried to do, and tried to do it against a background of cutbacks by governments since 1979 with the rate support grant of about £120 million. In spite of this and in spite of having no overall majority, the Liberals kept rate rises in Liverpool to a minimum and pursued progressive policies.
A number of Labour Party apologists—I am not including the noble Baroness—have suggested that Liverpool deprived the less well-off, the poorer, of benefits, but in fact during the period of Liberal administration in Liverpool we increased the money spent on social services; we increased the money spent on home helps—we are one of the few authorities which provide a free home help service—and several small council estates were built . Indeed, 1,200 houses to rent were built in the last year of Liberal administration and £11 million would have been spent this year if the Liberals had been in control.
I apologise for going into some detail on this, but we have been subjected in Liverpool to a policy of harassment, half truths and lies by our political opponents suggesting that we have behaved in an extremely Right-Wing and unsympathetic way. More than anything else we have primarily spent money in Liverpool on improving older houses. Over 50,000 houses have been improved in eight years through Liberal activity. This is the biggest improvement in the private sector of rented houses that has ever been carried out by any local authority.
Since the Labour party took office it has put a brake on this. It is reluctant to tell anyone, be they members of Parliament or councillors, why it has refused over 800 improvement grants in the last few months. This is not open government. It has refused to explain why 800 applications for improvement grants have been refused and why it has stopped the promotion of housing co-operatives and building for sale.
I could, but your Lordships will be delighted to hear that I will not, go on for a long time about the virtues of Liberal administration in the past in Liverpool. But briefly I must say that, quite frankly, the present administration in Liverpool, which I do not believe is in the normal run of traditional Labour policies, is hell bent on destroying the kind of society in which we live. Having destroyed it it is trying to promote a saving of it by saying, "This is the way our Marxist policies would put the whole thing together again". That is classic Marxism. It is an extremely dangerous matter.
With great respect to the noble Baroness, it is untrue that the Liberals underbudgeted. They budgeted for £2½ million more than Government guidelines in their last year in office. They left their Labour successors

123
with £27 million of capital receipts. It seems to me that unless we hear evidence to the contrary—I am glad to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, is to speak in this debate as a late entrant—why the Labour government of the City of Liverpool appears to have involved itself in deliberate incompetence. I cannot believe that the incompetence was not deliberate because it was so extreme. Why have they involved themselves in the classic Marxist policy of destroying the present system and then claiming that they would save the city?
Over the years Liverpool has slimmed down quite a number of jobs, but not nearly as many jobs in the public sector as some other authorities. Your Lordships are entitled to ask what, if there had been a Liberal administration, we would have done in the present difficult circumstances that are provoked by present Government policy. I think we can say that in the City of Liverpool we would have produced a budget that was solely in line with inflation, provided—and this is very important—that the unions agreed to change their restrictive practices, agreed to amend their bonus schemes and in certain cases agreed to the provision of early retirement for some union members. There would then he no need for compulsory redundancies or a cut in services, and the increased cost could be funded by the selling off of the very, very large number of freeholds retained by the city council to get over the short-term problem presented by the Government's policies.
I should like to know whether the noble Lord the Minister can confirm whether approaches have been made to any persons to see whether they would be willing to be a commissioner if the Labour-controlled council persists in its proposal to go £70 million over its budgeted income.
I think that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to confirm that there is some disagreement between barristers and counsel as to what the results would be if the council were not able to meet its commitments. I do not think a local council can go bankrupt but it can fail to pay its bills, which amounts to the same thing in the end and will create unhappiness and disaffection in the city. I believe it can default, but it cannot go bankrupt. Also, I should like to know whether a court decision would quash an illegal budget or whether that budget would still remain in operation. Again, I gather that there are advices which go either way.
I apologise for having spoken at such length so late in the evening but I am proud, and always have been, of being a Merseysider. I have worked all my professional life in Liverpool and I hate the idea of Liverpool being seen to be a city in decline: but I do tell the House with the greatest possible sincerity that, if the present Labour administration are allowed to continue with the massive proposed increases and bankruptcies that have been threatened, they will not increase the number of jobs available for the people of Liverpool but will grossly decrease them, and create a city which is even more seriously in trouble than it is at present. As a Liverpudlian, I should find that a matter of great sadness.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name down on the list of Speakers and thereby causing some people to think that the debate would be shorter than it will in fact be. I have no intention of apologising if I take longer than any of the other speakers. Let me first clear up the point about the majority of Derek Hatton's colleagues. I understood the noble Lord to say that the majority of his colleagues (I assume on the city council) were in fact members of Militant Tendency. Let me refute that right away and say that is completely untrue. However, perhaps when his speech is printed in Hansard and he sees it there he may take steps to correct it—or he may not.
I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, up to the ninth minute before I realised what was the intention of the Question. I thought that in a moment of adulation for the Liberals' ideal of freedom and democracy he was perhaps trying to help out in a terribly difficult situation. It is ironic, because the last time I had a conversation with the noble Lord was when he was a junior Minister in the Labour Government and accepted completely from me at that time that the economic and social situation in Liverpool was so bad that the Home Office should alter their planned budget and bring forward the building of a police station. Does the noble Lord think that the situation in Liverpool is any better now?
When the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said that he would want to draw our attention to the situation in Liverpool and how serious it was, I thought that was what he was about to do; and nobody could be more disappointed or regretful than I am that he did not do any such thing. What he did was to carry on the calculated piece of mischief-making that was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in order to try to demonstrate that the Liberal Party were above reproach in Liverpool and that the only people to blame were the Labour Party. The noble Lord nods his head. That is what he intended to do. I have not been long in this House, but I know that, if it has a tradition, it has a tradition that it is not parochially minded; it does not bring domestic squabbles into a place of this kind and, when it is talking about serious problems, it discusses them in a statesmanlike manner and seeks to get to the root cause of the trouble.
So there are some extremists in Liverpool. It is beyond belief to me that the situation in Liverpool has not thrown up extremism to such an extent that there is a danger to democracy. But there is not. It has not yet arrived. I do not believe it will arrive, and I urge the Minister not to fall for this claptrap that we have heard from the SDP and Liberal Benches, and not to respond now by saying what dire threats and punishments will be meted out to Liverpool if it transgresses the law. But will that help Liverpool, will that help Merseyside, and will that help the north of England? Of course it will not. It will exacerbate the situation, and it will drive people who are normally very moderate into the militant camp.
The voice your Lordships are hearing from Liverpool is not just the voice of Derek Hatton, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans, knows it. If your

125
Lordships will read what was said by the Archbishop of Liverpool you will see the despair that is coming to the ordinary people of Liverpool. What are we to do? Since the last war, we have had a continous period of rundown in Merseyside that has not been matched anywhere else in the country and yet not once did I hear that referred to by the noble Lords.
What is the real problem of Merseyside and Liverpool? It is not just a question of what rate will be levied this year; or what the Liberals did when they robbed the building maintenance fund until there was nothing in it in order to meet their budget aims, to get cheap popularity and to get votes; or what happened when they robbed the book fund until it was completely empty at the time the Labour Party went in. Those are the answers to the statements that we have heard tonight, and there are many more But I shall not burden the House with them, because there is a more important task to be done.
There are not many noble Lords here, and some, including the Minister, have heard me say this dozens of times before. Twenty-five years ago, a generation ago, the leader of the Liverpool City Council and the leader of the Labour Party made representations to central government that it was no use giving us grants for industry; that it was no use giving us industrial assistance only, and we needed something more. We had to transform the economic life of Liverpool. The reason for the existence of the economic life of Merseyside and Liverpool had gone. It was founded upon the national lines of communications between one continent and another, and the need for that had ceased to exist. But nobody listened.
We pleaded with the Government to give us grants for service industries. We pleaded with them to bring in those jobs from the South-East of England that should be in Merseyside. We asked them to reduce the competition in London for the office space, the secretaries and the clerks, which has mounted to such an extent that the rates of pay and the payments to keep offices manned in London have now reached the stage where they will even drive them out of London, perhaps to the continent. We were saying this a generation ago. The people who were being born then have now reached adult life. They have gone through the whole of their lives, and see no hope in front of them. Good, moderate, working-class folk are being driven into a situation in which everybody calls them extremists. Of course, the Archbishop is right; we do not want extremism. But those who mouth their oaths against extremism should ask themselves this question.
During the past four years, 200,000 jobs in the private sector have disappeared. In addition, 5,000 jobs in local government have disappeared. Those who now shout about the extremists, expressing the despair of ordinary people in Merseyside, ought to ask themselves whether we ought now to sack another 5,000 people. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, said that if Liverpool's budget went forward just on the basis of inflation, this is what would happen. The budget for 1983–84 was £218 million. The rate support grant amounted to £117 million. These are simplified figures. Just to stand still, with no increase in services, which is not an unreasonable attitude to adopt, and allowing 5 per cent. for inflation, would
126
require a budget of £228 million and a rate support grant of £122 million. In fact, it will be £27 million. Is it any wonder that those who were elected to the city council on the basis of an electoral promise that the situation in Liverpool would not be allowed to deteriorate any further now voice despair because they have not received encouragement from those who ought to have given it to them to stand up to some people who say some very unwise things in an infantile way? Of course it is not, if anybody appreciates and understands the problems of Liverpool.
Nobody could have been more sorry than I when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, speak in the way that he did tonight. Nobody should speak to me about extremism and about obeying the law. When I was the leader of Liverpool City Council I had to stand up and say that although we had fought the battle against the Government's attitude over rents, the Finance Act had been passed and therefore we should obey the law. I meant that I was almost crucified. It is one of those things which has got to happen. I was involved in the battle of getting justice for Liverpool until the Finance Act became law. I was not harried and harassed by people like the SDP and the Liberals. They kept quiet in those days because they believed that what was happening to Liverpool was unjust. One senses, although they would deny that there is Liberal-Tory coalition in Liverpool, that there is a coalition here now. All they want is somebody to stand up and say, "Liverpool, you will obey the law, or else".
What is needed in Liverpool? What do we need in Merseyside? As I have already said, the fundamental problem of Merseyside is that nobody down here understands what is wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with the people. The people of Liverpool laid down their lives in the war. The dockers of Liverpool laid down their lives in order to keep the flow of goods and material from the United States to fight the war. There is no difference between the people of Liverpool and the people down here. It is just that the inexorable force of economics means that they are gripped in a siutuation in which the reason for the existence of Liverpool's economy has now ceased. The Tory leader of Liverpool council did not ask for money 25 years ago. We did not go to the Government and ask for a larger grant. We organised an exhibition when Heath was the Prime Minister. We pointed out in that London exhibition that all Liverpool was asking for was a redistribution of the resources on an equitable and just basis.
That is all. If the Government—and I am not referring to a Tory Government, because I had this argument with a Labour Government—will realise that something has to he done about the maldistribution of resources in this country and will direct some of the resources to Merseyside and other places, then we shall be on the road to recovery. If only they would say now to the people of Liverpool, "We are not just going to tell you arrogantly that you must abide by the law. We are prepared to enter into a dialogue and are prepared to talk about the problems. We are even prepared to talk once again about restoring to Merseyside 3,500 Civil Service jobs". Those jobs were snatched away by this Government in

127
an instant in the same way that they decided to abolish county councils, because some foolish politician made a pledge to destroy the rating system and had to substitute something else. The Government snatched 3,500 Civil Service jobs away from Merseyside within the first few short months of entering government. What a difference it would have made to Liverpool if those 1500 Civil Service jobs were now sited on the Albert Docks.
In the late 1960s we had a not in Liverpool. Everybody has forgotten that. Remember the Brixton riots? Remember the Toxteth riots? But everyone forgets the riots in 1964. I have not done so because I was the leader of the council. At that time I was saying to central government, "Unless you realise the fundamental problems of Merseyside, this will happen again". It happened again, but this time there is a new approach. I am not disguising the fact that I welcome the Merseyside Development Corporation to Merseyside, and I am boasting about the fact that I was the first person to propose a Merseyside Development Corporation to central government—albeit a Labour Government, and they did not take it up.
I am not disputing the necessity for that liaison between Merseyside and central government. What did we get this time? Fundamentally, we got a rose garden. It is going to be a fine thing and I hope that everyone goes to the exhibition next week or the week after. I hope that the International Garden Festival will be a success but I hope that the Government do not allow it to cover up what is still the fundamental problem of Merseyside; you cannot bury that under a bunch of roses.
When it gets worse, as it will, the problem will arise again. There is talk about people who are incited to riot, but there is no such thing. After all, a young person living within the inner area of Liverpool knows that eight out of 10 young people have no job and practically 10 out of 10 have no prospects of a decent life. The Government cannot forever imagine that these people will go on being content with their lot in life. Of course they will not be content. Of course the problems will arise again and again and again.
Are we asking for much? In the period of real trouble in the last decade, one should have looked at the city of London. There is a Home Office occupied by civil servants. If one walks down Victoria Street, one sees a new building on the left side occupied by the Department of Industry. Of all things, the Department of Employment occupies another massive building in Tothill Street. What are they doing there? There is no necessity for them to be there. In these days of modern communications it would be much easier and cheaper to have them sited in Liverpool. Movement between one office and another office in London is already too expensive.
Let me give an example. When I was Chairman of the North-West Economic Planning Council, central government and the region issued leaflets. We had ours out in two days to all the customers. It took the Government seven days because it takes them that long to get through the welter of offices there are down here. If they had given us the job we could have done it quicker. What would be the consequence of moving
128
that amount of work out of London for the private sector? We have never disguised the fact that we did not want branches in Merseyside because one of the major problems is that the parent companies snatch them back in times of trouble, as they did with British Leyland. We did not want that. If that Government activity were to be moved from London to Merseyside the consequences to the private sector in London would be very great indeed. The problem here is: how do you reconcile the demands of the people of London for better and cheaper housing and a better environment with the almost insatiable demand to build office after office after office?
Mr Heseltine, the Minister of State for the Environment as he then was, was talking about an international festival in Liverpool at the same time as he was granting planning permission for offices in London which would only add to the number of offices already here that the people of London did not want, with all the consequences to the traffic, and so on.
I said I should not apologise if I spoke for some time. I do not often keep this House up. I do not often speak in the place, partly because I almost sense that if you come from north of the Wash it is no use opening your mouth. I thought that tonight I would have another try at convincing people down here that there is a life north of Watford Gap; that it is worth living; that people there do not have horns; that they are not all wicked and not all militants. Just a few of them have been granted the opportunity to take power in a good democratic movement. They have been granted their opportunity not by wicked people but by good men who decided to do something about a fundamental problem that affects not only Merseyside but the whole of the nation.
For God's sake, if not for the people of Liverpool, will somebody down here—particularly, if I may address these Benches—stop the petty squabbling and seeking to gain capital for political parties, which are not important? That is all they ever did in Liverpool and all they ever do down here. Will they concentrate and join with me? Will the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, join me in leading a deputation once again to central government to persuade them that in Liverpool we have some valuable people and that the vast majority of Liverpudlians—quite apart from their football skill—are good people who are worth fighting for? For God's sake, stop this mischief-making and get down to finding a real solution to the problems in Merseyside.
10.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, as another who lives north of the Wash, may I first of all say that I am sorry that this subject has had to be raised at all? Whether this is an appropriate time and in an appropriate form is for your Lordships to decide. For myself, I am saddened that we should even be considering a situation of this kind.
Let me say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, with whom I have discussed, and do from time to time discuss, the situation in Liverpool, that whatever I may say I am not without some knowledge of the problems. I shall not use the word "sympathy"

129
as that would sound much too patronising and I do not intend to be that. I frequently go to Liverpool, probably more than anyone in your Lordships' House who does not live there, and I am aware of the problems possibly much better than most as well.
There is a Question on the Order Paper which has to be answered. I intend to say nothing at all to exacerbate what I know is a sensitive situation. At the same time I think it is only right that I should at least put the record straight on a few facts and statistics. That will do no harm at all to the situation.
Your Lordships may not be familiar with the city council Labour group's line of argument. In fairness, I should like to say exactly what it is. The group claims that the Government have turned their back on the problems of Liverpool and withdrawn grant indiscriminately. It claims a mandate from the May 1983 local elections to reduce rents, create jobs, as it says, and increase expenditure. It claims that the budget for 1983–84 which it inherited from the Liberals was impossible to balance. It concludes that the city must receive £30 million in extra grant from the Government—though it does not mention the tree on which this cash is growing. It says that the alternative is to face either a 200 per cent. rate increase or job losses of 5,000. It says that it will accept neither of these alternatives and is left—and I put it that way deliberately—only with the option of rating illegally in 1984–85. That is not what I say; it is what the Labour group says. I hope that noble Lords will agree that I am presenting the position fairly.
I have to confess that the logic of this escapes me, but I imagine that the Labour councillors believe that if they repeat their story often enough somebody will believe it. Let us look at it closely. I say again that I have no intention at all of exacerbating the situation. I think that it is right that I should take your Lordships through those arguments point by point and let the facts speak for themselves.
In his very impassioned and I thought in many ways very splendid speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, said that we should direct some of the resources to Liverpool. Speaking for the Government, I am entitled to say, first, that they most definitely have not turned their back on Liverpool. The evidence of our very considerable efforts to ease the social and economic problems of the city is there for all to see. The situation involves more than money, and I shall come back to that. But money is not without relevance.
The fact is that over the past three years, from 1981–82 to 1983–84, capital expenditure on Merseyside—I accept that that is a greater area than just Liverpool—under the Department of the Environment's main programme has reached £650 million. This includes about £140 million specifically for Liverpool through the urban programme and the Merseyside Development Corporation. The Department of Trade and Industry have given an average £110 million a year in the last three years to companies within the Merseyside special development area. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has received a total of £134 million in financial assistance and the Manpower Services Commission is expected to spend £90 million in Merseyside this financial year.
130
On top of all this, Merseyside is the only area of the country which has a special departmental task force assigned to it.
Secondly, Liverpool has not been singled out for specially tough treatment under the rate support grant system. Distribution of grant is made on principles which apply to all authorities. For 1984–85, Liverpool's expenditure target implies a relatively small reduction in spending. Other authorities face a much higher reduction.
Thirdly, while the Liverpool Labour group gained an overall majority of three at the 1983 local elections, no council can claim a mandate to spend money which it just does not have. I am sure that the Labour group cannot be seriously suggesting that it has a mandate to undermine the finances and services of the city of Liverpool. Fourthly, the group may or may not have inherited a tight budget which required savings to balance the books. I make no comment as to that. But they were elected to take such decisions, that is the point: you have to take decisions. If you want the responsibility and control, then you have got to make the decisions. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, knows or not, but the fact is that during 1983–84 they have done nothing to help themselves. They have not only failed to find any savings but they admit to having increased expenditure, and over £1 million pounds, £16 per council tenant, went as a decoration allowance, a veiled method of reducing rents. Finally, on this, the group certainly does not need to increase its rates by 200 per cent. or make 5,000 people redundant to balance its books in 1984–85. We invited the deputation that came, to send in the detailed particulars of exactly how they came by this figure. We are two weeks on, and so far it has not arrived. I live in hopes that it will.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, made the point—and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, must acknowledge this—that the one thing which has not been mentioned by them at all, but which to me is the crux of so many of the problems in local government, is that they have a total unwillingness—one might almost say a pathological determination—to seek in any way to provide the services, not at a lower level but at a lower cost. Not one single suggestion did they ever make about, "Maybe we could do this better. Maybe we could provide the service in another way." There is no dialogue of any kind on that. If a local authority, coming and claiming that it needs help and assistance, is not willing, itself, to contemplate ways of doing things better, I know the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, would not justify that at all, nor would anyone else who is seriously talking about this, as a problem that needs to be resolved, to help make people's lives better without having, if you like, to add on the extra costs of what rate increases mean.
I do not want, as I say, to utter things that it is very tempting to say; this is not the time nor the occasion to do it. I read things that are said by Councillor Hatton, about going bankrupt, and all the rest of it. I prefer not to go into that at all. They may or they may not. If they do, then clearly the Government have to look at situations as they then arise but to anticipate is not for us. I feel this is not the way at all. I think this also should go on the record and I take this opportunity tonight, I think it is fair for someone to tell

131
the people in Liverpool to realise just what the consequences will be. The fact is that what should be said, however: is that it is not a question of saving 5,000 jobs or making them redundant. The fact is that in the event that these things take place, dreadful things will happen to Liverpool and those who feel for the city, as has been said earlier on, must feel as I do; that it is almost beyond contemplation, not least for the work force itself, the people who are working within the authority. This is no way. If you need it, you do what the noble Lord. Lord Sefton, says; you sit down and have a dialogue about ways and means. He expressed some interesting thoughts which I have heard from him before, so they are not new to me. I do not know whether they are starters or not; maybe they are not, but certainly one can talk and that is what I would respectfully suggest has to be done.
There is great concern about what is happening to Liverpool itself. I happen to believe that the only answer lies not in just what the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said though that may well be a factor. If you do not find a way to bring into the city on a permanent basis the people who will provide the jobs, the private sector, which is the only way—if you look at the public sector there is a contribution, of course, and maybe the one that the noble Lord says—and if you do not have the confidence of the people who will come in, where will the jobs come from? It is true there has been this whole change in the emphasis of what was and what will be Liverpool; but if you do not recognise that fact, then we are living in a nonsensical pipe dream. Here we have to say—and I am not, if you like, clobbering the people there—although I was at the meeting when my right honourable friend was there, I was the only other Minister present, but I am not going to say anything about that tonight.
What worries me much more is what the council do to the confidence of people they want to attract to the city; or do they want to attract them there? Do they really want to attract them? I ask that because, if one wants to attract private industry, one does not close down the development agency, which is there solely to attract the private sector. One does not talk about being bankrupt. My goodness me, the last thing one says when trying to attract people who will provide support is that one might be bankrupt. One does not do that. One tells them how good one is and what great prospects there can be. That is what one does. But that is not what these people do, and that must be a cause for concern to the noble Lord, to whom I am addressing so many of my remarks, since I felt that his speech was very much on the subject and to the point.
I do not want to speak for much longer, and if the noble Lord. Lord Harris, will bear with me, I shall conclude in the following way. The noble Lord asked me some specific questions. He wanted to know what would be the Government's action in certain circumstances. The Question on the Order Paper refers to "any other local authority". First of all, I know of no other authority that is talking of such action. Secondly, I repeat that it is not for the Government to say how they would react to a hypothetical situation. It is the city council which has to make the decisions. It has to take the responsibility. It is its duty to raise a sufficient amount of revenue to
132
meet its budget. I maintain that it has scope to produce a lawful budget and rate. However, I am not going to rise to the bait and I ask the noble Lord not to feel that this is in any way a shortcoming. I hope, and I believe, that he has tabled the Question because he, too, is concerned about what will happen in the future. He is concerned about the implications. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, and other noble Lords, spoke about Liverpool specifically, while the noble Lord Lord Harris, spoke about the implications of the issue: that was his concern.
I have given the Government' response. We do not want to enter into a discussion on a situation which we hope we shall not reach. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, I have confidence that in Liverpool there are enough people who are not so extreme as to want to see these dreadful things happen, and who are concerned about the future of their city. If we do not have overnight solutions to the problem—if they were there, they would have been used long ago—let us at least talk constructively about how we might develop the various arms that are now spread out there to help. I think that that is the way to go about it and I feel that that must be the only response that the Government can make tonight to this Question.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

  DRUG PRICING
  DRUG PRICING
  READING: READIBUS SERVICE
  READING: READIBUS SERVICE
  ADVANCED FURTHER EDUCATION: FUTURE NUMBERS
  ADVANCED FURTHER EDUCATION: FUTURE NUMBERS
  HIGHER EDUCATION: WOMEN'S FUTURE PARTICIPATION
  HIGHER EDUCATION: WOMEN'S FUTURE PARTICIPATION
  NANT Y BRAIN: AFFORESTATION
  NANT Y BRAIN: AFFORESTATION
  CORMORANTS: GUN LICENCES
  CORMORANTS: GUN LICENCES
  FISHERIES PROTECTION: GUN LICENCES
  FISHERIES PROTECTION: GUN LICENCES
  LISTED ECCLESIASTICAL BUILDINGS
  LISTED ECCLESIASTICAL BUILDINGS