Sitting of 8 March 1984

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

  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered upon Thursday 15 March.

  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)
  DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL By Order
  Orders for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 15 March.

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL By Order
  Order for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Building Societies (Lending Rate)
    Mr. Ottawayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual saving to the Treasury if the building societies lending rate is dropped by 1 per cent. per annum.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): A reduction in the building societies mortgage interest rate would reduce the cost of tax relief for mortgage interest by approximately £180 million, but this would be largely offset by the reduced tax yield from interest paid to investors if deposit rates were also lowered.
    Mr. Ottaway: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that building societies interest rates are too high? Does he further agree that the arbitrary way in which building societies impose their policy, which is dictated by the number of people who walk through the doors of building society offices, affords little protection to borrowers and is dictated by the building societies cartel?
    Mr. Stewart: It is for the building societies to decide how they determine their lending rates, but there are hopeful signs that there may be a reduction. I understand
    972
    that they will meet on 16 March after the Budget to consider a decision. I am sure that if the societies decide to reduce interest rates, that will be widely welcomed by all those with mortgages.
    Mr. Weetch: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the lending rate falls by 1 per cent. there will be an immediate effect on the investment rate? Does he agree also that the Government's arrangement with the building societes whereby they pay a composite rate of tax is inequitable for people on low incomes, who pay no tax? If he were to extend this composite system to the banks, would that not compound the inequity? Does he finally agree that if the only alternative to the payment of gross interest that he leaves open is national savings, this is political sharp practice?
    Mr. Stewart: The building societies composite rate has been in place for many years, and a large number of tax payers and non-tax payers have deposited money with building societies during that period. If there were a reduction in the lending rates of societies, it is expected that there would be a reduction in deposit rates also, but that is the normal pattern of building societies business.
    Mr. McCrindle: As my hon. Friend's reply underlines the importance of tax relief to those who are purchasing their properties through building societies, will he urge upon his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the great importance, in the development of thrift through house purchase, of retaining the present structure of tax relief to borrowers, and hasten very slowly in any movement which might have been implied in the press over the last few days towards its termination?
    Mr. Stewart: I am sure that my right hon. Friend heard the comments of my hon. Friend as well as I did.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister accept that the changes which the Government have recently announced in the tax treatment of the gilt-edged stock of the building societies are likely to have delayed a decrease in the lending rate to mortgage holders? Why did the Government not come to the House before making that statement—and, indeed, the statement on changes in taxes on banks—and inform the House of what was to be done, or, indeed, leave it to the Budget? Does this not show a degree of high-handedness that is rather like the actions of an elective dictatorship?
    Mr. Stewart: No, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It is not a budgetary matter to apply a tax that already exists. The question is only whether a tax should or should not be applied, and the legal advice received, which was unequivocal, was that such a tax should have been applied. It is also proper that once such a decision is made it should be implemented without delay.

    North Sea Oil Revenue
    Mr. Dubsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue derived from North sea oil in 1982–83; and what he expects it to be in the present financial year.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): The total tax take from the North sea was £7·8 billion in 1982–83 and is estimated to be £9 billion in 1983–84.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Chief Secretary agree that one of the most damaging accusations that is being made against his Government's policies is that they are squandering the benefits of North sea oil, to the detriment of Britain's industry and jobs? The question can best be summed up in the phrase, "Where has all our money gone?"
    Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman had reflected a little on the facts, he may not have gone into that cul de sac. Oil revenues have helped to reduce Government borrowing and so have contributed to a reduction in inflation and interest rates, which is essential for substantial growth in output and jobs.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one reason why the forecast level of oil revenues is higher than expected, and likely to last at a higher rate for longer, is the sensitive and pragmatic way in which the Government have dealt with oil taxation as compared with their predecessors and especially the way in which they have encouraged the developmment of marginal fields?
    Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has perceptively observed that the Government have struck the right balance in this rather delicate issue.
    Mr. Gould: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, are not the Government caught in a cleft stick? To sustain the present peak of production they are having to grant tax concessions to the oil industry. Does that not make it inevitable that tax revenues will fall sharply from next year onwards?
    Mr. Rees: It is true that oil tax revenues may fall from next year onwards. That is due not to the structure of the tax but to the geological conditions of the oil reserves that have been or are likely to be discovered.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that tax revenues, whether from oil or anything else, once collected cannot be spent twice? Scotland has gained remarkable benefits from having the North sea so close to its shores.
    Mr. Rees: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is right and proper not to double count revenues, as previous Administrations did. I am happy to note the remarkable increase in industrial and related activities, particularly in and around Aberdeen.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the total oil tax take since 1979 to date amounts to £29 billion? Why have the Government frittered all that money away on unemployment during that period?
    Mr. Rees: I am surprised if the hon. Lady feels that unemployment benefit should have been cut. If she does her sums more accurately she will find that the oil revenues have used to productive purposes, not exclusively for that purpose.

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement Outturn
    Mr. Richard Wainwrightasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by approximately what date he expects to know the public sector borrowing outturn for 1983–84.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I expect to publish an estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement outturn for 1983–84 on 17 April.
    Mr. Wainwright: As the Chancellor treats the PSBR as the centrepiece of his policy, and as in the previous two Budgets there have been mistakes of £2 billion and £1·5 billion in the forecast of the PSBR outturn, why does he not revert to the mid-April Budget date, so that it may be more accurately based?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman has a good point. We seek to make the most accurate estimate that we can of the borrowing requirement for the year coming to an end when framing the Budget for the following year. I agree that a case can be made for having the Budget in mid-April rather than in mid-March, as he suggested.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Skeetasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the current and projected position of the balance of payments
    Mr. Ian Stewart: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Skeet: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a great variety of opinion with a wide margin of error? For example, for 1985 Phillips and Drew have given a projection of £1·1 billion on the minus side, whereas the London Business School has given a figure of £1·5 billion on the plus side. Where can one find reliability, and who has been turning in the best estimates?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the difficulty of making accurate forecasts of the balance of payments for any year, let alone those in the future. We achieved a healthy surplus of £2 billion on the balance of payments last year, and that, in my view, is satisfactory.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that one reason why the Government have been placed in some difficulty once again this year is the appointment of Mr. MacGregor to the mining industry? He took on the miners last autumn and was stupid enough to say that he could stand an overtime ban for 50 years because he was saving the Coal Board money. The fact is that, as a result of an overtime ban of 18 or 19 weeks, not only has the Coal Board not saved money, but it has finished up with a big debt round its neck and is asking for more money from the taxpayer as a result of Mr. MacGregor's foolishness, when—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that that has anything to do with the balance of payments.

    Economic Progress
    Mr. Dormandasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of the economy.
    Mr. Peter Rees: We are currently enjoying a combination of steady growth and low inflation not seen since the 1960s.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister agree that any definition of the progress of the economy must include a consideration of the level of unemployment, the level of taxation and the development of manufacturing industry? As the Government have so signally failed on these three issues during the past five years, and as the Tory party made specific election promises on them, why does the Chancellor not bury his pride and embark seriously on fundamentally new policies?
    Mr. Rees: Because my right hon. Friend and I are satisfied that the long-term policies adopted by the Government offer the best prospects for the country. I remind the hon. Gentleman, and the House, that if he adopts at least one of his criteria as the touchstone of success or failure, he will recall that unemployment doubled under the last Labour Administration.
    Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that an important plank in the Government's policy is to contain the public sector and encourage the private sector? Can he, therefore, explain the recent anomaly of the imposition of the composite rate of income tax on private sector banks and Trustee Savings Bank deposit account interest, while exempting deposit account interest in the public sector National Savings Bank? Will he take steps to rectify the anomaly?
    Mr. Rees: I assure my hon. Friend that we attach the greatest importance to encouraging and enlarging the private sector. I cannot comment on rumours that may or may not touch on my right hon. Friend's Budget on Tuesday.
    Mr. Boyes: In his latest report to Sunderland borough council, the principal careers officer said that there were 1,700 youngsters registered without jobs and 2,500 on special schemes, yet there were just 40 job vacancies, and only 10 vacancies for youngsters in my constituency. How can the Minister say that the economy is recovering, when we are in that sorry state?
    Mr. Rees: Perhaps I can encourage the hon. Gentleman by reminding him that the number of people in work has recently been increased by 85,000.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, in addition to the other indicators that we have seen of late, the fact that only today we note that the building society rate may come down by 0·5 or 0·75 per cent. is yet another indication that the economy is reviving?
    Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fact. The OECD and the European Community have singled out the United Kingdom of all the countries in the Community as the country whose economy is most likely to grow in the current year.
    Mr. Terry Davies: How can the Chief Secretary be satisfied with the progress of the economy when the underlying level of unemployment shows an increase of more than 50,000 in two months?
    Mr. Rees: One is never complacent about the underlying position of the economy. As an earnest of our concern, we are spending between £2 billion and £3 billion on training and job creation measures.

    Inflation
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present rate of inflation.
    Mr. Lawson: In the 12 months to January 1984, the retail price index increased by 5·1 per cent.
    Mr. Stokes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that news, which will delight everybody. Does he agree that, in addition to all the other advantages, reducing inflation will help unemployment more in the long run than almost any other measure that the Government could take?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right, and the 364 economists were wrong in 1981 because they failed to realise that bringing down inflation, as we have succeeded in doing, would itself be a major contributory factor to the recovery that is now taking place.
    Mr. James Lamond: In view of the rosy picture which the Chancellor and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench are trying to paint of the economy and inflation, may I ask him to explain the collapse of the Tory vote at the Chesterfield by-election?
    Mr. Lawson: I am disappointed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that Labour Members should seek every opportunity to decry a state of affairs in which inflation is low and coming down, output is at its highest level ever and still rising, living standards are at their highest level ever and rising and interest rates are low and trending down.
    Dr. McDonald: The right hon. Gentleman will have to do better than that next week.

    Exchange Rate
    Mr. Gouldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what role the exchange rate plays in his monetary policy.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The exchange rate is one of many factors taken into account in interpreting monetary conditions.
    Mr. Gould: If the Chancellor's money supply objectives, interest rate policy and exchange rate targets should prove to be inconsistent, which will take priority? Will he opt for an overvalued exchange rate, still pricing British workers out of jobs, high interest rates at damagingly high levels, or increased deflationary contraction? Which will it be?
    Mr. Stewart: There is a fundamental flaw in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, because there is no target for the exchange rate.
    Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it should be Treasury policy to ensure a declining trend in interest rates?
    Mr. Stewart: It is our policy that there should be a declining trend in interest rates, and I am glad to note that the effectiveness of our fiscal and financial policies in recent years have brought that about. I hope that it will continue.

    Employment
    Mr. Formanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the impact of the recovery upon employment.
    Mr. Peter Rees: Latest estimates show a rise of 85,000, between March and September of last year, in the number of people in work.
    Mr. Forman: I welcome that news as a modest step in the right direction. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the great hopes for the economy in the coming period of recovery is the recovery and expansion of the service sector and of the new manufacturing industries in, for example, electronics?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend refers to two growth areas. I remind the House that there was an increase of about 200,000 in the number of people in service industries in the first three quarters of 1983.
    Mr. James Hamilton: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about recovery, is he aware that in Scotland unemployment has been increasing for a considerable time? Is he further aware that in my constituency one of the larger companies has gone into liquidation, that two other companies, in only four months, have also gone into liquidation, that one firm is on the brink of packing up and that, on that basis, 22·4 per cent. of the insurable population in Lanarkshire are unemployed? Is that recovery?
    Mr. Rees: I am sorry to hear of the individual cases in his constituency to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. [Interruption.] Perhaps he will lift his eyes a little and look at the increased activity in the Grampian region.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confess to the House that, despite the views of some of the pundits in the Treasury, manufacturing industry is still the real wealth creator in this country? Will he further confess to the House that the majority of the service industries, such as insurance, banking, and shipping, are in existence only because they are serving manufacturing industry? Will he make this confession to the House and therefore give emphasis to manufacturing industry in the Budget and in Government policy?
    Mr. Rees: Much as I should like to succumb to the charms of my hon. Friend, I am not certain whether I shall choose him as my father confessor in this matter. The service industries are very important. They may well complement the activities of manufacturers, but they also stand and justify themselves in their own right.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Has not the recovery to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred been fuelled largely by a growth in consumer expenditure and by a lowering of the savings ratio? Will he therefore tell the House when he expects the recovery in the manufacturing sector, to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has just referred, to come and how he expects that to be fuelled?
    Mr. Rees: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the gross domestic product increased by 3 per cent. last year and is expected to increase by 3 per cent. this year.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the taxpayer will get good value from the Nissan development? Will he examine the funds to jobs ratio of that project vis-a-vis urban development grant projects, in which I declare an interest? Will he in due course let the House know whether he thinks the Nissan project stands up to this comparison?
    Mr. Rees: The Nissan project is extremely important, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should answer my hon. Friend's questions, and I shall make sure that his attention is drawn to them.
    Mr. Barron: Reference has been made to individual cases of unemployment. Is the Minister aware that 3·2 million is well below the actual figure of unemployed, because of the way in which the figures are collected? Is he aware that the true figure shows no indication of coming
    978
    down and that the outside world sees no sign of the so-called recovery that is talked about eloquently in the House? Is he further aware that in my constituency there is no uncertainty about the situation and that it is an utter disgrace to talk about a recovery that is doing nothing for the unemployed?
    Mr. Rees: I think that the hon. Gentleman is basing his rather fevered observations on anecdotal evidence rather than on hard facts. I remind him, and this is factual, of the increase in the number of people in work of 85,000 between March and September last year.

    Departmental Annual Performance Review
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report progress being made in developing the system of annual performance reviews in his Department.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): My right hon. Friend's departments are implementing the proposals reported to the House in last year's White Paper, "Financial Management in Government Deprtments." As promised in that White Paper, we will report progress in July.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend content with the drive for efficiency in the rest of the public sector?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am by no means content. If the rest of the public services were doing as well as we have been doing in the Civil Service, the position would be much improved. In local government, although we have seen some fall in numbers, the trend is going up. Certainly the Greater London council is behaving in a most irresponsible fashion over the recruitment of staff. I want to see the implementation of the Griffiths report on the National Health Service.
    Mr. Rooker: When the Minister is considering value for money within his Department, will he examine the results of the Inland Revenue's in-depth investigation into company accounts? Last year it examined 5,300 accounts, as a result of which 4,100 companies had to pay increased tax for that year. Does he agree that an 80 per cent. return in this area of tax avoidance merits more investigation, not less, by the Inland Revenue?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That is precisely what the Government have done. The number of people in the investigation branch of the Inland Revenue has been increased significantly compared with the number available for that work under the Labour Government.

    Common Market
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what net contribution the United Kingdom has made to the Common Market from 1 January 1973 until the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will express this total as a net sum per day.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: Net payments in the period 1 January 1973 to 31 December 1983 amounted to £4,777 million. This is equivalent to approximately £1·2 million a day since accession.
    Mr. Taylor: Does this not represent an indefensible and damaging drain on our national resources, which should come to an end in the current discussions? Will my

    979
    hon. Friend assure us that the £42 million, on which the Common Market defaulted on 31 December, and the £450 million rebate due on 31 March will be paid?
    Mr. Stewart: In the days and weeks ahead we shall be pursuing with determination the recovery of our refunds. The figures that I cited demonstrate the need for reform of the European Community budget and the value of the refund that the Government have been able to obtain for the United Kingdom. In the period 1 January 1973 to 31 December 1983, the Government's record of refunds stands at Conservatives, £2,500 million, Labour, nil.
    Mr. Marlow: As it has cost Britain, which is supposed to be one of the least wealthy countries in the Community, £1·2 million a day, why is it assumed that if Spain and Portugal join the Community they will be net recipients?
    Mr. Stewart: The figure of £1·2 million is significant. It is difficult to make any exact assessment of the impact of Spain and Portugal joining the Community, especially as the transitional arrangements have yet to be worked out.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: As an act of charity, Mr. Dennis Skinner.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Economic Secretary confirm that, during the first 10 years that Britain was in the Common Market, the net contribution, after all refunds, was about £4,000 million and that, since the Government came to power, the net contribution to the Common Market has been £2,500 million? That represents 60 per cent. of the total contribution during fewer years.
    Mr. Stewart: I am delighted to be able to confirm that the Labour Government in the 1970s — [Interruption.] I am delighted to be able to confirm that the Labour Government in the 1970s—[Interruption.] I am delighted to be able to confirm that the Labour Government in the 1970s benefited from the transitional arrangements so prudently worked out by the previous Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Budgenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish his long-term proposals and options for public expenditure.
    Mr. Lawson: A Green Paper on public expenditure and taxation in the 1990s will be published on Budget day.
    Mr. Budgen: Will the Government set out their priorities for cutting public expenditure in the event of their assumptions for containing public expenditure and an optimistic assessment of growth not being achieved?
    Mr. Lawson: A Green Paper is, of course, a discussion document, one of its main purposes being to elicit responses from others outside the Government. One of the responses to which I most look forward is that from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Chancellor now end his relentless and unsuccessful attempts to resolve the ever-deepening crisis within the economy and turn his mind to massive public expenditure to provide the jobs needed and to start the recovery of the economy?
    Mr. Lawson: There is a great social problem of unemployment in many parts of the country, and no
    980
    Conservative Member would wish for a moment to minimise it. I hope that Opposition Members will equally acknowledge that the economy is recovering and is in a sounder and healthier position than for many years.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the strength of the economic recovery, on which I congratulate him and his colleagues, the level of public sector capital formation is still causing worry? Will he include in his paper next week some options showing how public capital investment can be increased?
    Mr. Lawson: I understand my hon. Friend's view, which I know is widely shared. I am not sure that it is especially helpful to consider public expenditure on capital account as a whole. Each individual project must be justified on its merits. I am sure that my hon. Friend will look at table 1.13 in the public expenditure White Paper published last month, which showed that during the past four or five years, in aggregate, public sector capital formation years has been roughly stable in real terms.
    Mr. Wainwright: As the official release of long-term options will give rise to immediate public discussion, and as the long-term survey does not contain market-sensitive information, will the Chancellor be courteous enough to give hon. Members the assistance of advance copies on the morning of Budget day?
    Mr. Lawson: That is not possible, for reasons that will become clear to the hon. Gentleman when he sees the document.
    Mr. Higgins: Is it still the Government's policy that the availability of finance will determine the level of expenditure, and not the other way about, and will the Green Paper include both sides of the economic equation?
    Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that private sector industry depends largely on public expenditure, especially on capital account, and in particular that the construction industry depends for about 50 per cent. of its work load on public capital investment? Would it not be wise, if not urgent, to increase capital investment for the benefit of the construction industry, get the houses and other buildings that we require put up and bring back into employment some of the more than 4,000 unemployed construction workers?
    Mr. Lawson: It is the policy of this Government to allow as many people as possible to own their own homes—in other words, we attach greater importance to the provision of housing in the private sector than to the provision of housing in the public sector. That is why we have given council tenants unparalleled opportunities to buy the homes in which they live, and I am glad to say that large numbers of them are doing that.
    Mr. Dorrell: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that have started to emerge of skilled labour shortages in manufacturing, and of industries trying to recruit but being unable to find people with the right skills? In making his long-term plans for public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend make certain that there is adequate provision to ensure a proper supply of skilled people to the labour market?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is on a good point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment

    981
    and his predecessors have done more for training than any previous Government. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that this was a matter on which we had a worthwhile discussion in the NEDC only yesterday.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the Government's policy is real economic growth and no real growth in the public sector, what happens if the real growth assumptions in the economy are not met? Does that mean that there will be a fall in public expenditure? Is it true that the Prime Minister has issued instructions to each of the Departments that they should not publish the real effects on individual services provided by the state if those public expenditure cuts were to be introduced, to avoid embarrassment to the Government and yet another banana skin?
    Mr. Lawson: There are no such instructions and the hon. Gentleman is piling hypothesis upon hypothesis.

    Inflation
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the most recent figures for the rate of inflation in the United Kingdom compares with the rates of inflation of the United Kingdom's main competitors within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
    Mr. Peter Rees: Over the 12 months to January 1984 the United Kingdom retail price index increased by 5·1 per cent., that is to say above the rates of Japan, West Germany and the United States, but below the rates of Canada, France and Italy.
    Mr. Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the public understand that a 5 per cent. rate of inflation still means a doubling of prices in 14 years? As this is far too high, will he ensure that the Government continue their policies to reduce the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Rees: I cannot answer for the state of mind of the general public, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance on Government policies that he requires.
    Mr. Bottomley: At the meeting of the NEDC and the TUC, was there any discussion of the levels of pay settlements consistent with improved competitiveness?
    Mr. Rees: It has always been the Government's view that wage settlements should be low enough to be consistent with improved job prospects in the industries concerned.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Eggarasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the trend of manufacturing investment.
    Mr. Lawson: Manufacturing investment is on a rising trend. The latest DTI investment intentions survey suggests that it will increase by 9 per cent. in the coming year.
    Mr. Eggar: If that most encouraging trend is to continue, is it not essential that the Treasury ensures that the Department of Trade and Industry has enough funds available to continue its excellent capital grant schemes?
    Mr. Lawson: That is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but as he is an assiduous reader of Hansard I feel sure that he will discover my hon. Friend's remarks very quickly.
    Mr. Wareing: Are our 40 largest manufacturing companies still producing one third of their total output overseas? If this is so, does the Chancellor agree that it is not surprising in view of the Government's abandonment of exchange controls on assuming office? Is not the only way to ensure real investment in manufacturing industry for the Government to take control of the large companies?
    Mr. Lawson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear the reply that I gave some moments ago. The Department of Trade and Industry investment intentions survey suggests that manufacturing investment in this country will increase by 9 per cent. in the coming year. There has also been substantial investment abroad, which is good for British exports. It produces and will continue to produce a flow of invisible earnings to this country, which will be particularly valuable when earnings from oil begin to decline.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Heddleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has indicating that the construction industry is benefiting from the economic recovery.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Figures available so far for 1983 show that construction industry output increased by about 3·5 per cent., with new orders rising by about 13 per cent.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding those encouraging signs, there is concern throughout the construction industry that the European Community might in future levy VAT on non-domestic construction work? Will he confirm that the Government are united in their resolve to resist that at all costs?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend had an interesting Adjournment debate only last week, when I made the Government's position abundantly clear.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that one way to benefit the construction industry is to make hundreds of millions of pounds available to local authorities so that they can repair and renovate the many industrialised housing sites that are literally falling down?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is well aware of that matter, but if local authorities spent less in wasteful current expenditure more money would be available for capital spending.
    Mr. Allan McKay: Does the Minister believe that the Government's rate-capping proposals will help the construction industry, and if so, how?
    Mr. Hayhoe: That matter would be best put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Nellist: In view of the Chancellor's encouraging remarks this afternoon—from his point of view—will he give the House an estimated date when the 400,000 unemployed construction workers will be back at work building and renovating houses and ensuring that the 6 million people living in damp properties have decent homes to live in?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As I have said, if local authorities were more careful and increased the efficiency of their current account spending, more funds would be available for such

    983
    projects. As Government policies are leading to economic recovery in the country as a whole, that will also benefit the construction industry.

    Nationalised Industries
    Mr. Adleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, for fiscal policy purposes, he regards all the nationalised industries as identical.
    Mr. Peter Rees: In general, for fiscal policy purposes, no distinctions are drawn between the nationalised industries.
    Mr. Adley: Does the Treasury recognise the essential difference in the deserving qualification for public funds between manufacturing and extractive industries such as steel and coal, and vehicle manufacture, in which competitive factors apply? Is it aware of the need for public funds to sustain part of the nation's transport infrastructure, where the factors are totally different?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend will recognise that, with regard to the first category of industries, a central theme of Government policy is to return as many of them as possible to the private sector. In relation to the second category referred to by my hon. Friend, a 5 per cent. rate of return is expected on most investments, with the possible exception of British Rail, where the need to continue the safe operation of loss-making lines must be taken into account, because of its public service obligation.

    Beer (Duty)
    Mr. Leighasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning the duty on beer.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Representations have been received from a number of organisations, including the Brewers' Society, Licensed Victuallers Associations, the Association of Licensed House Managers as well as from individual companies and members of the public. All these representations are being carefully considered by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that in a beer-drinking country sudden increases in the duty on beer are as unwise for the political health of the Chancellor as imbibing large quantities of wine are unwise for his physical health?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard that sage advice, but I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Brintonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that there is a great future for the coal industry but that the taxpayer cannot for ever continue to pay for old and uneconomic pits through Government spending, which this year will exceed £1 billion? Does she share my hope that the miners' trade unions will eventually understand that the best hope for jobs for their members lies in new and profitable developments in new coalfields and not in support for the dying or the dead?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great future for a productive, profitable and well-paid mining industry. The "Plan for Coal" and its revision consisted of three parts. The first was good investment for the industry. That has been honoured. Since 1979, through the taxpayer, the Government have provided about £2 million per day investment in coal mining. The second part was increased productivity'. Productivity was due to increase by about 4 per cent. per annum. That was 10 years ago and it has risen by only 4·7 per cent. over the whole period. The third part was the closure programme, which is also behind. If we concentrate on putting investment into the good pits and carry out the rest of the programme, there is a good future for the industry.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that, on the instruction of a former Secretary of State for Energy, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the British Gas Corporation is about to sell off the Wytch farm oilfield at a knockdown price of £180 million when its full economic value is £400 million? Does she agree that that is a scandal when the same Chancellor has instructed the gas and electricity industries to increase their prices by 2 per cent.? Bearing in mind that the Chancellor's instruction is questionable legally, will she put a stop to the sale until the House has had a chance to debate it?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Nor do I accept the hon. Gentleman's figure for the economic value of the field. As for price increases, the electricity price increase to domestic consumers will be 2 per cent. over two years. Under the Labour Government, it was 2 per cent. every six weeks. Gas prices are bound to rise as the cheaper gas from the southern basin of the North sea runs out and has to be replaced by the more expensive gas, at five or six times the price, from the northern part of the North sea.
    Mr. Traceyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tracey: Has my right hon. Friend had the chance to read reports of a draft pamphlet entitled "Parliamentary Reform" written by the new right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which includes, among other extreme ideas, a proposal to remove the royal prerogative? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the real face of the Labour party, or should we invite the Leader of the Opposition—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Prime Minister can answer questions on matters for which she has absolutely no responsibility.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I and countless others warmly support the views expressed by the Prince of Wales this week, both about the insecurity' of the old and about criminal offences by a small

    985
    proportion of the young? Is the right hon. Lady further aware that we are appalled by the 30 per cent. increase in crime that has occurred while she has been Prime Minister? Will the right hon. Lady now confront these problems, not just with sufficient and effective policing, but through the provision of jobs, education and the strengthening of family life?
    The Prime Minister: I warmly endorse the Prince of Wales's view that lack of respect for age is a factor in causing the apparent increase of attacks by young thugs on old people. With regard to his comments on unemployment and crime, I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a study has been carried out under the auspices of the Social Science Research Council, which concluded:
    "There is no significant association between increases in recorded crime and increases in unemployment."
    That is not, perhaps, wholly at odds with what his royal highness said. [interrruption.] Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what other people may disagree with, as well as the freedom to say anodyne things.
    I am afraid that increases in crime have persisted through periods of both low and high prosperity. The rapid increase in the number of police initiated by the Government—there are now 12,000 extra policemen—has, I believe, been a factor that has led in the past year to a slight reduction in the crime figures.
    Mr. Kinnock: There are colliding counsels from various research bodies on the relationship between crime and economic depression, but I tend to go in the same direction as the Prince of Wales—
    Mr. Adley: Come on, Prince Charming.
    Mr. Kinnock: I must say that we are hearing new sentiments of all kinds from the Government Benches today.
    The Prime Minister's view that support for the police is essential is shared strongly by the Opposition. However, does she not realise that if the support is to have full effect she will have to do better than to ask the police to deal with problems that are substantially the product of her own economic and social policies? Even the Devil can find work for idle hands. When will the right hon. Lady start to do so?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman studies the crime figures over the years he will probably come to the same conclusion as the SSRC, which said in the study I have in my hand::
    "There is no significant association between increases in recorded crime and increases in unemployment."
    The study also pointed out that it was unwise to taint the unemployed with blame for increased criminality. I am delighted with the right hon. Gentleman's conversion to our policy of taking on extra police, but he will know, as I do, that the police can carry out their task only if they have the full support of the civilian population.
    Mrs. McCurley: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the impending sale of the Scott Lithgow yard to Trafalgar House and Howard Doris is due in part to the efforts and energies of Ministers and is an endorsement of the view that the lower Clyde is a potential world-beater in offshore oil technology? Does she further agree that the deal enhances the prospects of recovery in the Scottish economy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the deal between Trafalgar House and Howard Doris, which have made a joint bid for Scott Lithgow. I believe that it will augur well for the yard and give it a chance to re-establish its reputation and performance. I hope that it will gain orders for new exploration.
    Dr. Owen: Why has the Prime Minister not referred to the threat to shipping in the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf itself? As, at Question Time, the Prime Minister refused to exclude the use of the British Navy, will she admit that it would be far better to take this issue to the United Nations and mount a United Nations maritime peace-keeping force as, if that had been done in 1967 with regard to the Straits of Teheran the Arab-Israeli war might have been prevented?
    The Prime Minister: It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the United Nations to mount a maritime peacekeeping force. The contingency arrangements of the United States—we might one day have to add our ships although they are not there yet—are the best way in which to try to keep open the Straits of Hormuz. With regard to a statement about the vessel Charming in the port of Bandar-Khomeini, my hon. Friend the Minster of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will be making a statement after Question Time.
    Mr. Evansasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Has the Prime Minister been made aware of the petition that I handed in to No. 11 Downing street last week on behalf of the National Union of Labour and Socialist Clubs, which was signed by many thousands of working people, protesting at the suggested nonsense that the tax on beer should be increased by 7p a pint to bring it into line with the tax on wine? Will the Prime Minister make it clear to Ministers and the Common Market bureaucrats that this harmonisation nonsense will not apply in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the petition that the hon. Gentleman handed in to No. 11 Downing street. I do not live there, but I am sure that the occupant knows about it.
    Mr. Sayeed: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the press report that members of the National Union of Journalists who are in dispute with the Libyan Jamahiriya news agency in London have had their lives threatened by an official of that agency, to wit a Mr. Omar Faraht? Will she confirm that if those allegations are proved to be correct she will ask the Foreign Secretary to lodge the strongest protests with the Libyan Government?
    The Prime Minister: If what my hon. Friend says is correct, perhaps he will take it up vigorously with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. Anyone in Britain who is threatened can expect to get the maximum police protection that is as good as we can possibly make it.
    Mr. Golding: Will the forecast increase in prescription charges apply to terminal cancer patients? If so, how on earth can the right hon. Lady justify that?
    The Prime Minister: The order for prescription and other charges increases will be laid before the House

    987
    today. The exempt groups—children, old people, expectant and nursing mothers, certain of the long-term sick and those on low incomes—are unchanged. Moreover, 72 per cent. of prescriptions are free and another 6 per cent. are purchased by low-cost season tickets. The increases in charges will mean that, as a percentage of the total cost of the National Health Service [Interruption.] Those who would be expected to have the benefit of long-term low-cost season tickets will have them. In other words, the existing arrangements are not changed. Charges are only 3·2 per cent. of the total cost of the National Health Service, compared with 5·4 per cent. 20 years ago.
    Mr. Faulds: St. Francis, St. Francis.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.
    Mr. Ashdownasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Trident missile system will increase from 64 to 900 the number of targets in the Soviet Union that Britain can independently hit? In the light of those figures, how can she justify the continued exclusion of British nuclear weapons from the Geneva disarmament talks?
    The Prime Minister: First, the precise numbers depend on the number of missiles that we decide to put on each submarine, and no decision has been taken about that yet. It will, in any event, increase the present numbers. With regard to the second part of the question, it is an independent nuclear deterrent for use in the last resort. To include it in those talks as part of the United States' strategic missile system would mean that the United States could no longer have parity with the Soviet Union and that their numbers would be determined by the numbers that Britain and France had.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I2 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidation Fund Bill.
TUESDAY 13 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
European Community documents relevant to the Budget debate will be shown in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 14 and THURSDAY 15 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY I6 MARCH—Private Members' Bills. MONDAY 19 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.
Documents cited as relevant to Budget debate and relevant reports of European Legislation Committee:
10156/83 Annual Economic Report 1983–84, with the
final version as adopted by the Council.
See HC 78-ix (1983–84) para. 7
HC 78-xiii (1983–84) para. 4.
Mr. Kinnock: Since the European Community summit will take place on 19 and 20 March, the House will want an early opportunity to discuss its implications. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that a debate will take place as soon as possible after the conclusion of that summit?
The increasing dangers to many craft and people arising from the war between Iran and Iraq necessitate an early foreign affairs debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that that debate will be substantially extended to allow for an examination of many dangers facing the world and posing problems of foreign policy?
Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the Government's 1979 election pledge not to increase presciption charges in the light of the stories clearly and deliberately leaked to the press this morning that the Government are making yet another increase in charges to the sick?
Mr. Biffen: Last week the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance he attached to Parliament attending to the issues which would arise at the European summit meeting. He also asked for a debate on foreign affairs so that attention could be paid to the problems in the middle east, especially in Iran and Iraq. I note what he has said this afternoon and repeat that we would certainly wish to discuss the matter through the usual channels. I emphasise my agreement with him that these are matters proper for parliamentary consideration.
The issue of prescription charges is a sensitive one. Only 23 years ago the late Aneurin Bevan left a Labour Government over this issue. I understand that someone who thinks of Mr. Bevan as his hero—together with Prince Charles—would like to see early consideration of a current and topical issue. The debate on the Budget will provide just that opportunity.
Sir David Price: May I repeat the point of the Leader of the Opposition about the need for an early debate on the near and middle east? Many of us believe that Islamic fundamentalism is probably the greatest threat to peace at present, as the statement that will follow today will bear out.
Mr. Biffen: Without entering into a consideration of Islamic fundamentalism, I say at once that it is important for the House to have an opportunity to debate foreign affairs. However, it must be borne in mind that no time is available in the programme announced for next week.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The Leader of the House will have noticed that I have debate No. 10 in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on Monday, which relates to the Prime Minister's behaviour in Oman in 1981. As it relates specifically to the Prime Minister's conduct, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Prime Minister herself will reply to the debate at breakfast time on Tuesday?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that we would all wish to widen the scope of breakfast time debates, but I remind the House that the terms of the motion relate to the Prime Minister's visit to the middle east in 1981. I cannot give an undertaking such as that sought by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robert E. Jones: As the Inland Revenue seems to have spent so much time, first on postmen's tips and now on milkmen's tips, will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the priorities of the Inland Revenue when investigating the underpayment of tax?
Mr. Biffen: Since the whole of next week will be devoted more or less to the Budget, it will not need too much ingenuity to work in a speech on that subject.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Leader of the House recall that about four weeks ago I asked him to consider providing time for a debate on the impact of American extra-territoriality on high technology exports? During his busy programme last week, did he listen to an extremely interesting broadcast called "File on Four" on this subject and, in the light of recent statements by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, does he believe that that matter should be brought before the House for serious consideration?
Mr. Biffen: As the hon. Gentleman will notice, no provision has been made for such a debate next week, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am seeking to pilot through the House a Bill to control the burning of straw and stubble after harvest. My right hon. Friend can confirm that the Government would not wish to obstruct such a public-spirited measure. However, he will be aware that time for debate on such matters is limited. One such day is 13 April, the day on which the House rises for the recess. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if private business is lost on that day an alternative day will be provided?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot answer that, because I do not know what the answer is. If my hon. Friend will keep in touch with me, I shall break the bad news as best I can.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is widespread concern about the

991
Government's decision to send observers to the forthcoming sham elections in El Salvador? So that the House may have the opportunity to express its views on the desire not to be seen to legitimise those elections, in a country where 4,000 people were assassinated last year and where one of the candidates has been described as a psychopath, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have time for a debate?
Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's concern about this aspect of Latin American affairs. No time is available for a debate next week. I think that he would be best advised to see what he can secure by way of an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I recognise that an encouraging Budget will dominate the business of the House next week, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that a debate takes place in the House in accordance with the wishes of the Secretary of State for Social Services on the Griffiths report on the management of the Health Service before Government decisions are taken about this matter so that the House can express its views?
Mr. Biffen: I am unwilling to make any commitment on the point that my hon. Friend raises, but I will of course refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mr. Andrew F. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to comprehend the urgency of the need for a debate on what is happening throughout the middle east? We have a unique opportunity in Britain to try to restrain our American allies from their ill-considered interventions in that part of the world. Does he not understand that the more the Americans intervene in any area of the middle east, the more they increase the inevitability of radicalisation of that area, not only in religious but in political terms as well?
Mr. Biffen: I would not wish to be drawn into the merits of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I would be anxious that any debate we had was not tinged with delusions of grandeur about what we might or might not be able to achieve in the middle east. However, it is undoubtedly true that there is a widespread desire that the matter should be debated.
Mr. Nigel Forman: My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has already asked about the Griffiths report. Does my right hon. Friend intend to allow the House to debate the Binder Hamlyn report and the implications for GPs and doctors in this country? I believe that it is every bit as significant as the Griffiths report.
Mr. Biffen: I had a feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), in all innocence, was opening a Pandora's box, and now the debate is to be widened from Griffiths to include Binder Hamlyn. I recognise the importance of these topics for the House, but my first step must be to inform my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services of the points that have been raised.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that business questions are an important time for Back Benchers, but we have next a very important debate on Supplementary Estimates, and also a statement, and a large number of
992
hon. Members wish to take part. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising, but I ask them to put their questions succinctly.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in the light of my question to him two weeks ago that he put it to the Prime Minister that she was required to declare an interest in communications and transactions with civil servants on the briefing in relation to the contract to build a university in Oman and of the fact that she has not been willing to reply to that question, I have this morning submitted a new complaint to the Select Committee on Members' Interests requiring that it investigates whether she was required to declare such an interest in discussions with civil servants?
Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Are the Government ready to meet the situation which may arise quite shortly when the funds of the Common Market run out and numerous people in this country will be expecting to be paid funds from that source?
Mr. Biffen: I am bound to say yes.
Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Leader of the House accept that we have received strong representations from all parts of the House that the Animal Health and Welfare Bill [Lords] should not be submitted to a Second Reading Committee but should be debated on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of the comment and will certainly be in touch with the hon. Gentleman about it.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Leader of the House aware that there are apparently well-founded rumours in the press to the effect that the Secretary of State for Scotland may be about to compel the Scottish Electricity Board to increase electricity charges by 5 per cent — a figure higher than that which has resulted from Government interference in England? If this is so, can he give an undertaking that this will he the subject of a statement in the House by the Secretary of State for Scotland and not be learned from a press release circulated in the House?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to comment on newspaper reports or rumours. I will refer the point he makes to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. David Winnick: Why is it that the stories about increased Health Service and prescription charges have been leaked to the press instead of there being an explanation in a statement by the Minister? Does this not happen far too often? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who have to pay the increased charges will not be very happy with the flippant reply which he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot make any helpful comment about why — [Interruption] — in his excitement, the hon. Gentleman is not even allowing me to get to the end of my sentence—leaks may have arisen, but I am sure that he and I would be at one in deploring that situation. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to discuss the merits of the issue in the Budget debate. I should have thought that that was a fair comment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Although there is to be a short debate on the coal industry later today, will the Leader of the House give a guarantee, in view of the growing crisis in the industry, that there will be a statement next week, bearing in mind the fact that there may well be a strike, and that about 18 weeks ago the chairman of the National Coal Board said that he was not bothered about the overtime ban lasting for decades because it would save the National Coal Board and the taxpayer money? As it has already cost the board and the taxpayer £240 million, should not the Leader of the House make sure that the chairman of the NCB—[Interruption]—not the Liberals, who are heckling again; they are fast becoming the hooligans of this House—is put in his proper place for not making the proper fiscal arrangements?
Mr. Biffen: I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's difficulties with the Liberals, but he has got himself into this scrape ever since he was so unwise as to go through a Social Democratic Lobby.
Mr. Skinner: What about the right hon. Gentleman being in the Labour Lobby in the Common Market debates?
Mr. Biffen: I think I was keeping better company then than the hon. Gentleman is keeping now. By way of consolation, may I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to see whether a statement should be made to the House, depending on the progress of the present difficulties in the coal industry.

The Charming (Iraqi Attack)
3.47 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the recent attack on a British vessel near Bandar Khomeini.
We learnt on 7 March that a British-registered ship, The Charming, which formed part of a convoy under Iranian protection, was hit in an Iraqi attack in the northern Gulf on 1 March. The attack took place within Iranian territorial waters in the approaches to Bandar Khomeini.
The ship, which was carrying a cargo of alumina ore, is reported to be substantially damaged and aground outside Bandar Khomeini. I am glad to say that none of the crew was seriously hurt and I understand that most of them have now left Iran. It has been reported that Turkish and Indian ships forming part of the same convoy were also hit.
The Charming, like other ships in the convoy, had been and was required to maintain radio silence. Her owners did not subsequently inform Her Majesty's Government about the attack on their ship, and have requested no assistance.
Her Majesty's Government deplore this incident and, indeed, all attacks on shipping in the Gulf area. We have summoned the Iraqi ambassador to protest at his Government's action and to demand an explanation of it.
Her Majesty's Government remain deeply concerned to see an early end to the wasteful and destructive conflict which is continuing between Iraq and Iran. We are working vigorously with the international community to that end.
Mr. George Robertson: First, on behalf of the Opposition, may I express our relief that, apparently, no British lives were lost in this unwarranted attack on a British ship, but also our regret that, apparently, sailors on other ships in the incident were killed. This incident highlights the dangers that exist in that region, where one spark could well set the whole middle east, and beyond, alight.
We must therefore be deeply concerned that the news of this attack comes to the British Government an incredible seven days after it happened. Notwithstanding the obvious need for some radio silence in the Gulf, why did it take so long for any news of such an important attack to get to the British Foreign Office? Does this not reflect the grave information gap which must somehow be closed, and what steps are being taken by the Government to make sure that it is closed? Furthermore, what confidence can the House have that at this very moment British ships, or even other ships, are not being attacked in the Gulf, and that we will not hear about it until this time next week? Is there not some significance in the fact that Lloyds of London doubled the insurance cover for journeys to Kharg island last week? Did Lloyds of London perhaps know of this attack before the British Government did? What significance is there in this? Can the Minister elaborate on the fact that the owners of this ship felt that they did not need to inform the British Government, or to request any further assistance for their substantially damaged ship?
This incident underlines the wider dangers of the Gulf war for all of us, so can the Government assure us all that, while they consider their reaction to this attack, they will make sure that the United States of America and the Soviet

995
Union are involved in any discussions about preventing a repetition? Both the super powers have a considerable interest in this region, and their joint interests should surely override any sectional interest that they may have.
First, what evidence have the Government of the use by Iraq of the Exocet missiles that we know they possess in their armoury? Secondly, what British warships are in the area, how close are they to where this incident occurred, and what operating instructions have they for any future incidents that may occur? Finally, what is being done at the United Nations to protest at this disgraceful attack, and to push for some urgent initiative to stop this murderous war before its effects spread to the rest of us?
Mr. Luce: Of course I join the hon. Gentleman in sharing relief that there were no major British casualties. I have already explained the position with regard to the delay in the British Government knowing about this attack. I have explained that there was radio silence as far as the Iranians were concerned, that this convoy of shipping was under Iranian protection, and that the firm chose not to tell us.
I should like to add one other point. It has been known since 1982, on the advice given by the General Council of British Shipping, that there is what is declared as an Iraqi maritime exclusion zone which covers this whole area and in which the Iraqis are repeatedly giving warning that they would be liable to attack shipping. The General Council of British Shipping has repeatedly given warnings to British ships that there would be just that danger in entering that area. I am sure that this should be noted again, in the light of the recent experience.
On the use of weapons, all I can say is that we believe very strongly that our policy of not selling lethal weapons to either side is a policy that every other country should follow.
There are, and have been for some time, two British warships in the area south of the Gulf, and they are available if required.
On the question of the United Nations, where all our diplomatic efforts should be made with the international community to try to help the parties reach a settlement, informal discussions are currently taking place in the Security Council to see whether there is any possibility of the Secretary-General undertaking mediation.
Sir Peter Blaker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as far as action by the United Nations in concerned, there is already a resolution of the United Nations calling for a ceasefire, and for freedom to navigate international waters? Can my hon. Friend see how the United Nations can be any more effective than it has been so far?
Mr. Luce: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Resolution 540, which of course we supported very strongly, asks for a ceasefire in the Gulf area, as he says, and calls for the freedom of navigation in the Gulf area. We fully support that. The plain fact is that there have been repeated attempts over not only months but years to mediate between Iran and Iraq. A wide range of countries in the middle east, and outside the middle east, have attempted to mediate. The United Nations has attempted to play a role and resolution 540 calls upon those countries to do just that. However, as yet there is no agreement
996
between the two parties that they should receive a representative of the Secretary-General, and until that happens it will not be possible for him to go.
Dr. David Owen: Surely the Minister of State is not asking the House to believe that the British Government did not know about this incident until 7 March. There are other ways of finding out what is happening in the Gulf without having to rely on information from British shipping. Can the Minister assure the House that in fact we did know about this incident before 7 March and give some explanation as to why he has not been more forthcoming on that point?
Whether the hon. Gentleman listened to the Prime Minister I am not sure, but in view of her remark about the United Nations it is hard to believe that the Government are using the Security Council. Would it not be an act of grave folly for Britain to involve itself in a so-called peacekeeping operation with the United States in the Straits of Hormuz without at the very least having first gone through every possible avenue in the United Nations, including the Security Council? Have we not learnt one lesson from the Lebanon—that the first course is to try to use the United Nations machinery?
Mr. Luce: No, we did not know until yesterday and I have explained why. I must repeat that there have been warnings over many months and since 1982 from the General Council of British Shipping that there would be grave risks if British ships went into that area, and I am sure that those warnings will be noted.
I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the United Nations. All our efforts and priorities are and must remain on the diplomatic side in seeking support for international effort and from the United Nations to get mediation between the two parties. That is our priority, and that is where all our efforts are going.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Can my hon. Friend confirm that if British ships are sent by their owners into those waters the responsibility for any consequences to their ships or crews rests with the owners and not with the British Government?
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. It is important to draw a distinction between this particular area in the northern Gulf, where shipping has been under repeated attacks over the past several months from the various parties, and the rest of the Gulf south of what the Iraqis describe as their maritime exclusion zone, where there seems to be a normal flow of shipping.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister aware that it was reassuring, apart from his last sentence, to note that the tone of his statement was inconsistent with any possibility of the Government being tempted to take part in yet another American fiasco in the middle east, this time in the Gulf? Will he recommend to his right hon. arid learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that he studies again the experience of a certain Admiral Duckworth in the Dardanelles?
Mr. Luce: Excluding the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I am glad that on the general thrust of what he said about where the British Government's priorities should be in this matter we are in agreement. All our efforts should be devoted with the international community and those who have more influence than we may have in this particular set of circumstances to seeking a diplomatic

997
solution. We have a United Nations resolution and we are trying to pursue that as vigorously as we can with the Community.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: Will my hon. Friend, whose family name enjoys respect on both sides of the Gulf, remind both Iraq and Iran that the Chinese leadership has frequently made it clear that it regards the prime strategic aims of the Soviet Union as being the closing of the Straits of both Hormuz and Malacca, and that if the Straits of Hormuz become closed for any reason the only long-term beneficiary will be Communist Russia, and that that would be deeply repellent to the whole Islamic world?
Mr. Luce: Indeed. That is why it is all the more important that we put all our efforts into supporting any international effort for a diplomatic solution to the problem and for mediation between Iraq and Iran. It is essential that the Gulf area remains stable, and that the part of the Gulf that is now stable should remain so and should not be subject to exploitation by outside powers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that there is an important debate to follow. I propose to allow questions to go on for not longer than 10 minutes and hope to be able to accommodate all hon. Members during that time.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Have the Government any information as to whether ships penetrating the so-called maritime exclusion zone of the Iraqis are covered by insurance?
Mr. Luce: It is not for me to answer that. It is for them to decide whether they should be covered by insurance. It is up to each party. As regards the specific ship, I believe that it was.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Would it not be unwise for the United Kingdom to react too strongly to this particular incident? Will my hon. Friend reject the inflammatory talk of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)? These are not territorial waters but a war zone well known to everyone where both parties are concerned with their own interests in pursuing that war. The incident was within the territorial waters of one of them and in international law we have no right whatsoever to intervene.
Mr. Luce: I repeat that we think that this incident is serious and to be deplored. That being said, and looking at the wider picture, we must see it in perspective. There have been a number of attacks over many months by Iraqis on shipping in general in this area of the northern Gulf. There is nothing new in that sense. As far as we know, the rest of the Gulf remains stable with a normal shipping flow. There is no change in the situation.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that a large part of the problem is the insistence of the Iranians that vessels must go into Bandar Khomeini where the danger is greatest rather than into Bandar Abbas where things are much safer? Will he consider getting together with the other OECD nations in order to forbid flag carriers from going to the more dangerous port so that the Iranians, who depend very much on imports, will take a more sensible view?
Mr. Luce: I will give serious consideration to what my hon. Friend has said. I should have thought that, as a result of particular incidents and others in the area, many shipping companies would make careful note of this if they wanted to continue trading with Iran.
Mr. Michael Latham: Since this dreadful war is now in its fourth year, with hundreds of thousands of casualties and now suggestions of the use of chemical weapons, is it not time that the Western powers tried immediately, in conjunction with Eastern countries, to set up an arms embargo?
Mr. Luce: We are now well into the fourth year of the war, the numbers of casualties on both sides have been devastating and we hope very much that they will come to their senses and bring an end to the war. I repeat that our policy is one of neutrality and a refusal to sell lethal arms to either side. We believe that it would be both constructive and helpful if all nations followed that policy.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend qualify his use of the words "lethal arms"? What are lethal arms and what are not? Will he confirm that we are not supplying arms of any sort to either side? Will he also confirm that we have no supplied mustard gas to the Iraqis, which the Iranians have accused us of doing?
Will he also say what further positive initiative the United Kingdom is making at the United Nations and what discussions it is having with its European partner, France, about the latter's supply of arms to Iraq?
Mr. Luce: Our policy is not to sell any arms that can be used for lethal purposes to either side. As to chemicals, we have already made our position absolutely clear. The allegation that Britain is selling chemical weapons to Iraq is completely untrue. Indeed, in 1959, no less than 25 years ago, Britain eradicated all its stocks, and we are taking a leading part in Geneva in an attempt to achieve an agreement on the control of chemicals as weapons. We will pursue that. We take these allegations very seriously indeed.
As regards the United Nations and our contact with France, all I can say is that we urge all other nations not to sell lethal arms to either country.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is it not clear that this is just the latest incident in a long, tragic and brutal war between two countries? Is it not also clear that Her Majesty's Government are right to redouble their diplomatic efforts to achieve a solution? Would it be possible to consider an Islamic mediator in this dispute? Is that something that the Government are proposing? Is there any chance of the Government playing a part with their European partners in bringing about a solution?
Mr. Luce: Of course, my hon. Friend is right about the main emphasis being on the diplomatic side. I must remind him that over the three and a half years since the war began there have been numerous attempts by several Islamic countries, both singly and in groups, to mediate between the two sides. Each attempt has failed. Further discussions are currently taking place between Islamic nations on the possibility of further mediation and talks are taking place at the United Nations. I hope that both these efforts will result in some progress.
Mr. John Townend: Have the Government any intention of approaching the Iraqi Government with a view to obtaining compensation for the damage caused to the British ship?
Mr. Luce: That is a matter for the parties concerned, although obviously, after we have investigated and have received an explanation that we demanded from the Iraqi Government this morning, we have to reserve the right to compensation in due course.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Contrary to the quite extraordinary comments of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) a few minutes ago, is it not true that, quite rightly, the Government are not in a position to take positive action other than to make diplomatic representations and that this is precisely what they are doing?
Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. That leads back to the point that ships go to that part of the Gulf at their own risk. We cannot nanny everybody. People must make their own decisions. However, the Government are in touch with the General Council of British Shipping, and the latter has given repeated warnings of the risks to ships which go to that part of the Gulf.
Mr. George Robertson: May I underline my message to the Minister, which is that, if the Government are considering a reaction to this deplorable incident, it should be in the form of a diplomatic initiative, ideally through the Security Council of the United Nations and involving both the super powers which have considerable interests in the area? May I press him on the question of the delay between this incident taking place and the British Government saying that they knew of it? Despite the need for radio silence, an extremely long time elapsed before the Government learnt of something that could have turned out to be a very serious incident involving a large number
1000
of fatalities. If it is true that it took seven days for us to know about it, what steps are now being taken to ensure that in the future we know a lot sooner than that?
Mr. Luce: We knew that there had been an attack on shipping in general on 1 March, involving a number of ships in a convoy moving near the port itself. What we did not know until yesterday was that there had been an attack on a British registered vessel.
I agree with the first part of the hon. Member's question, that the incident itself, one of many that have occurred in the northern Gulf, will be repeated until there is a successful resolution of the war between Iran and Iraq. The only way to bring to an end incidents of this sort is to achieve success on the diplomatic side, and that is where all our priorities are directed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement. Will you confirm that there has been no change in the procedure for applications for private notice questions or in the custom that these matters should not be discussed until they are before the House? I was led to believe that the principle is that if an hon. Member applies to ask a private notice question it is a matter between the Member and the Chair because there is always the possibility that the application will be refused. It seems that on this occasion—perhaps not through insolence but mere naivety on the part o f the leader of the alliance—that rule has been broken. I wondered whether the principle still applied.
Mr. Speaker: The general principle enunciated by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is absolutely right. I know of no breach of confidentiality between my office and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), or, I may say, any other hon. Member who might have put in a private notice question on this subject.

BILLS PRESENTED
  REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES (ENGLAND) (No. 2)
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown, supported by Mr. David Alton, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Stephen Ross and Mr. Richard Wainwright presented a Bill to establish regional assemblies in England; to provide for the transfer of functions to those Assemblies; to make consequential changes in the government of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 120.]
BILLS PRESENTED
  SPECIFIED PREMISES (IMPROVEMENT)
  Sir Ian Gilmour, supported by Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier, Sir Hector Morro, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Jim Lester and Mr. Richard Needham presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 in relation to the conduct and advertisement of licensed betting offices and to make provision for the alteration of the fees payable under paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to that Act: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 122.]
ESTIMATES DAY
[1st ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
ESTIMATES DAY
  Supplementary Estimates 1983–84

    Class XI, Vote 1
    Mr. Speaker: As this is only the second occasion on which the new procedure on Estimates days has been used, it might be helpful if I make a short statement on the course to be followed.
    The two Estimates down for debate today have been selected by the Liaison Committee, the report of which was agreed to by the House on 29 February. That agreement gives the Committee's recommendations the force of an order of the House, in accordance with Standing Order No. 101.
    Debate on the first Supplementary Estimate may not range over the whole of Vote 1 of Class XI, health and personal social services, England. The Liaison Committee has recommended only subhead F5 — compensation payments to National Health Service staff—for debate, and the committee's recommendation has been approved by the House. Debate on this subhead must end by seven o'clock, but the second debate can begin before seven o'clock if the first debate ends early. In either case, the Question will not be put at the end of the debate but will be deferred until ten o'clock, under Standing Order No. 19(2)(c).
    At ten o'clock the Question will be put on the two Supplementary Estimates in the order in which they were debated. The House will then move on to the outstanding Votes Nos. 2 to 6 on the Order Paper and the presentation of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1984 for expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Security on the provision of services under the national health service in England, on other health and personal social services including certain services in relation to the United Kingdom, and on research, exports, services for the disabled and certain other services; including grants in aid and international subscriptions.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
    4.12 pm
    Mr. Peter Hordern: I wish at the outset to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on whose initiative this debate takes place. This is the second debate, and I hope that we shall have many more arising from the Supplementary Estimates because it allows the House to engage in debate on specific subjects, whereas previously we had to content ourselves with a debate on a variety of subjects which came under the Supplementary Estimates.
    I should not really be opening this debate. I do so only because the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is unavoidably absent. He should, and would normally, be opening the debate, as the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. I open it, therefore, in the knowledge that I shall not be able to put the case as he would have done. Nevertheless, this is a unique occasion for us in the Committee of Public Accounts. Normally when we have our debates in the Public
    1004
    Accounts Committee we debate 30 or 40 different reports at a time. On this occasion we are able to debate just one, and I am glad of that.
    The debate centres on the question of voluntary redundancies in the National Health Service, a subject which we in the PAC examined as recently as 30 January. We saw witnesses and produced our report in the last few days. Therefore the House has not had the opportunity to consider fully the report or all that flows from it.
    In our report on voluntary redundancies in the NHS we pointed out that the last major reorganisation, in 1974, was subsequently recognised as having had a number of weaknesses. Those of us who were present at the time felt that that might be the case, and we said so. Subsequently, when the Royal Commission reported that problems had arisen, mainly from too many levels of administration, we were concerned that the changes in administration that were then to take place would not show a great improvement, either.
    In the last reorganisation, as the House will remember, 98 area health authorities were abolished and were replaced by 201 district health authorities. I did not think that the abolition of one form of health authority, to be replaced by almost twice as many, would in itself ease the administrative pressure on the Health Service. Indeed, that has proved to be so. The very weaknesses that were apparent in the original administration of the Health Service before 1974 have remained with us in the latest reorganisation, perhaps in an even more marked form.
    In July 1981 the DHSS estimated that by 1984–85 the reorganisation would have resulted in the number of management posts in the NHS in England being reduced by about 4,000. It expected in 1981 that 2,800 of those would go by means of natural wastage, 765 through compulsory redundancy and 435—and only 435—through voluntary and early retirement.
    It is worth while recalling exactly what terms were offered to those who wished to seek early retirement. For those over 50 with at least five years' service, applicants whose premature retirements were approved would have their pensionable service enhanced by up to 10 years, subject to a limit of 40 years.
    That applied with a minimum of only five years' service. Hon. Members will recognise, therefore, that that was a generous offer made by the NHS at the time. It was added to by a possible redundancy payment equivalent to 30 weeks' pay. That emphasises that the arrangements made for voluntary redundancy were extremely generous by any standards.
    The cost of the voluntary early retirements was expected to be £8·6 million by the end of March of this year. When the Comptroller and Auditor General made his investigations, he found that the estimated total number of premature retirements in England alone had risen by 550 per cent., from 435 to 2,830, and that the cost was not to be £8·6 million but an estimated £54 million.
    There appeared to have been, on the other hand, no compulsory redundancies of any kind, although the original forecast was that there would be 765. Furthermore, as is the general practice throughout the Health Service, there were wide variations within the regions of the service in the take-up of early retirement. For example, the northern region had approved early retirement only where there would be surpluses, and it was careful to see that no replacements for those surpluses would take place.

    1005
    On the other hand, the south-east Thames regional health authority allowed 417 cases to go, when the total estimate of voluntary redundancies was 435, so that the anticipated number was filled almost entirely by only one region. In Wessex, every application for voluntary early retirement was approved, and subsequently it was discovered that over 100—I believe that the number was nearer 130—of those who had voluntarily retired early were subsequently re-employed.
    The DHSS replied by saying that it had received only rough guidance from the regional health authorities, whose capacity for manpower planning, it said, had been "variable". That is a lovely word to describe what had happened. The Department itself had not the least idea what was happening in the regions and the regions had not the smallest notion of any direction from the Department, because there had been none.
    In February 1982—after some time—the Department had become aware of greater regional variations and of a higher number of premature retirements than had been anticipated. In October it instituted a monthly check. The House might well wonder why it took six months before the Department established that things were not going according to plan and before it wanted to know more about it, let alone do anything about it.
    The House might justifiably ask about the expected reduction, which was supposed to take place, of 4,000 management posts by 1984–85. The Department was again doubtful whether it would ever be able to give the number of posts actually saved by the 1982 reorganisation. If one could count the number of managerial posts and include them in the number of administrators and clerical staff—it is by no means certain that one could because I do not think the Department knows how many managers there are—one might find that far from going down, let alone by 4,000, the number of administrators and clerical staff has actually risen by over 1,000.
    The Department doubted whether it would have been right to try to reduce the take-up of the scheme to the level of the northern region. Therefore, the Department was saying that it neither knew what was happening in the regions nor did it really care, and that the regions might do what they wished about the voluntary redundancy scheme. The finding in our report was that it was clear that the Department had no basis on which to form an idea about how many retirements there would be and that there were never any proper monitoring arrangements of any kind. In the view of the PAC, the Department was not at liberty to treat its responsibility to its taxpayers as inadequately as it did in this case.
    Why, we should ask, was there such a difference between the treatment in the regional health authorities as between, for example, the northern region and the Wessex region, which later allowed every application to be accepted? As I have said, so far as one can judge, the number of administrative and clerical staff, according to the latest figures, which go only to September 1983—and that is a story in itself—shows an increase of over 1,000. Perhaps when the Minister is replying he will be kind enough to tell us the latest figures and what progress has been made in the rundown of managerial staff.
    As a whole, the Health Service has not suffered from lack of employment, and this is a matter on which I have wearied the House on many occasions. In 1961 there were
    1006
    575,000 employees and in June 1981 there were 1,250,000. Questions have been asked before about numbers. The numbers that I refer to are those employed in the Health Service and not the figures given by the Department, because the Department's figures are rounded up to what are known as whole-time equivalents. It is strange that any Department of State should use such a statistical method to arrive at the total number of individuals working in the Health Service.
    One would think that the Department would be interested enough to know and to display its knowledge of how many people are actually employed in the Health Service. The total is well over 1,250,000. It is the largest service, not only in this country, but in the whole of Western Europe. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to recognise that this statistical method of arriving at total employment figures for the Health Service is not as good, in the view of many, as saying how many people are working in it, full time and part time.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), whom I am glad to see in his place, has taken the Committee of Public Accounts to task. He says that we have not done our job properly. I am the first to admit that there are inadequacies in any group of men, but I do not think it can be said that we have not examined the Health Service on a number of occasions in the past. We have tried to level criticism at the standard of administration. I welcome very much the interest shown by my hon. Friend in our endeavours and I hope that what I have to say will encourage him to intervene, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    My hon. Friend has made a serious charge against the Comptroller and Auditor General, based, I think on a total misapprehension of his work and duties. He is not a civil servant and he is unable to answer for himself directly in the House; unlike a normal civil servant, he is not protected by a Minister. Therefore, someone has to say something in his defence, and I think it falls to members of the PAC to do so.
    If my hon. Friend criticises the Comptroller and Auditor General, I hope he will be good enough to quote the letter of the Comptroller and Auditor General of 2 December last and his replies to specific queries. As my hon. Friend knows, the Committee of Public Accounts is not an executive body. Serious though our criticisms are, and much as we would like to do something, there is nothing we can do other than to report, to have debates on the subject and to continue to embarrass successive Administrations who fall down on their job of running the National Health Service properly.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having informed me that he would criticise my actions in writing to the PAC as I did. He has referred to what has happened in the Health Service over the last 36 years and to how unmanaged it always has been and still is. Over-staffing, now by 700,000, which my hon. Friend has already mentioned, has gone on despite some 33 reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General, followed by another 33 reports by the Committee of Public Accounts. All this time, as things have been getting more and more out of control, the PAC has reported to the House, but it has not been effective. We must in some way try to get public expenditure properly under control and cut out waste, which is good for nobody. When he suggested—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I know that he will be trying to catch my eye.
    Mr. Hordern: The truth is that, much to our regret, we have no executive power. We wish we could get our hands on the Health Service. We all feel we could do a better job than those who have handled it so far, and we could scarcely do worse. However, I should draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the report that we made in the 1980–81 Session on the financial control and accountability of the National Health Service. We have considered these matters fully in the past and, if I may say so, we make a much more devastating analysis than any that my hon. Friend has so far made. If he is determined to shoot our fox, it is much better not to shoot at the hounds as well, and better still not to shoot at the master, the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    I have read the report that my hon. Friend sent to the Prime Minister. He makes the valid point that National Health Service staff have increased from 565,000 to 1·2 million in the last 20 years. That is a matter to which I have alluded on many occasions in the past. He has contrasted the number of daily beds occupied, saying that in the same period they have decreased from 478,000 to 370,000. I believe that is the only example he has given.
    The question is not so much how many beds were occupied but how many cases were dealt with in the National Health Service. The truth compels us to recognise that in 1961 there were just over 5 million discharges and deaths, and the number rose to just over 7 million in 1981—an increase of almost 50 per cent. The number of cases dealt with is a more significant and important statistic than the number of beds occupied, because patients can now stay in hospital for a much shorter time, and on the whole that is a good thing. The average length of stay in 1971 was 14·7 days and in 1981, 10·2 days. The Health Service is not suffering from a shortage of beds. Our reports show that more than 2,000 beds in five different hospitals cannot be used because the revenue costs are too expensive.
    It is true that the waiting lists in the NHS have increased. In 1971, there were 596,000 on the waiting list and in 1981 there were 745,000. However, the number of doctors and nurses to deal with the increase in the waiting list has risen as well. The number of doctors—this is an important point—decreased from 2·25 per 1,000 people in 1961 to 2·1 per 1,000 in 1982. Similarly, in the same period the number of prescriptions has increased from 233,000 to 383,000. Everyone must recognise that, in the past 20 years, life expectancy has increased and there is a much lower infant mortality. Most people would say that we should have more doctors and nurses to deal with the increased waiting lists. I must say, in justice to my right hon. and learned Friend, that that is exactly what successive Governments have succeeded in doing. It is not right to say that the waiting lists have increased without pointing to the fact that the number of doctors, nurses and treatments has increased markedly during that period.
    I wish to give a slightly larger perspective than my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North has so far done. It is true that productivity has declined in the sense that there are more doctors and nurses to deal with cases, and many would say that is a good thing. Between 1965 and 1979, the ratio of administrators to doctors increased from 1·07 to 1·95—almost doubling. In that context, management
    1008
    costs, which we are told are to be lower as a proportion of total costs, are unconvincing. In the past 20 years, there has been an extraordinary increase in the number of administrators. More management appears to be necessary by virtue of the larger share of public expenditure and greater resources devoted to the Health Service, but that claim is unconvincing in the context of what happened after the last reorganisation, especially with regard to the number of administrators.
    What was the proudest boast that the Minister for Health could make in 1976?
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Hordern: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but first I shall finish this good point. The Minister's proudest boast was that in three years he had witnessed the largest increase in the number of administrators, from 87,000 to 112,000. Despite all of the Minister's responsibilities, his greatest contribution was more administrators.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: My hon. Friend has made a rather strong attack on my publication, and I should be allowed to correct it. My report states:
    "Kenneth Clarke, the Minister for Health, claims that the increase in staff is explained by the fact that considerably more patients are treated now than in 1960—that output has increased both in bed patients and out-patients. This is true and must be taken into account. Also treatment is, in many cases, more complex and advanced than would have been the case in 1960 and there are considerably more intensive care units."
    In view of that passage, my hon. Friend has made a rather hard attack on what I said.
    Mr. Hordern: I know that my hon. Friend will expand on his remarks. I accept that his remahks were balanced. but he made a mortifying attack on the Committee of Public Accounts, from which the Committee must recover as best it can. In 1981, the Committee was told that the Department was developing a computerised system. However, when the Committee took evidence on 30 January, no figures beyond last June were available. What had happened to that wonderful computerised system, whirling and churning out information all the time in those seven months? Absolutely nothing. In 1981, the Committee of Public Accounts report stated:
    "We consider this situation is quite unsatisfactory."
    The circumstances remain that way.
    What about the recent Department of Health circular? I understand that, last September, the Department told England's 92 district health authorities to invite tenders from private contractors and the existing Health Service work force and to accept the cheapest tender offered. The district health authorities were supposed to send their plans for tendering by the end of February to 14 regional health authorities. We are right up to date, and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend can tell us what happened to that instruction. The Economist says that at least five districts, including Brent, Islington and Haringey, have voted to ignore this instruction. What happens when the Department issues an instruction which is disregarded?
    We have found that there is no staff inspection of the Health Service, unlike the position in the rest of the Civil Service where regular staff inspection occurs. That lack of inspection accounts for the wide regional variations in the number of places and the different methods of dealing with treatment within the Health Service. I cannot understand why the NHS and successive administrators have thought it right to ignore the business of staff inspection to

    1009
    ascertain what people are doing in the regions and districts. What is their objection to it? Do they believe that the whole of the Health Service functions so well that it does not sometimes require simple checks to establish what people are doing?
    I do not know whether we shall later debate the Griffiths report, which recommended more direct line management and a clear chain of commend. Right hon. and hon. Members interested in the Health Service will recognise that many years ago that process was followed with a much better result than rule by committee, which presently occurs at every stage throughout the Health Service, even to the extent of deciding how many beds there should be in a hospital ward.
    It would be helpful if more people with business experience were required in the regional health authorities and the district health authorities. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is seized of this point, but the Health Service should not be allowed to continue to be run by health authorities, with a large number of superannuated local politicians with no business experience.
    In the Beveridge report, it was recommended that much more should be spent on prevention than was spent in those days. This still remains the truth today. If only we could have more prevention and earlier diagnosis, the health of the country would be better than it is. Is it not strange that there should be an MOT test for cars but no compulsory test, or any form of early diagnosis, for human beings? This is a reform that I hope the Government will initiate one day. There should be regular inspections and checks of all employees. If that could be done by firms, they should be eligible for relief against the national insurance surcharge for doing so.
    All our reports over many years show that the reform of the NHS has a long way to go. It must start with the Department accepting more responsibility. It is not good enough that it should continue to act just as a funnel for cash, handing it out to the regions and then seeing what a disaster most regions make with the money. The Health Service is charged with the care of the nation's health and it cannot be right that it should be so careless in seeing how this is done.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the House has approved a recommendation that we concentrate on the compensation payments to NHS staff. I have allowed the opening speech to range fairly widely, but we should stick to what we have been told to do.
    4.41 pm
    Mr. Michael Meacher: I pay a warm tribute to the Public Accounts Committee, to its chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), and to the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), who opened the debate. This is an extremely revealing and penetrating report, and the hon. Gentleman's speech was balanced and representative, setting out findings that are disquieting to both sides of the House.
    On any standards, this report on premature retirement in the National Health Service is a damning indictment of administrative laxity and bungling within Whitehall. As
    1010
    the hon. Member for Horsham said, such retirements in England were originally estimated at 435, but the Comptroller and Auditor General estimates that the total has soared to 2,830. That is a six and a half times increase. Corresponding to this gigantic underestimate of the numbers of staff involved, the DHSS had similarly estimated the cost at £8·5 million, but it turned out, in the end, to be £54 million. Those facts are agreed.
    Although this is mainly the result of administrative incompetence, to which I shall address the main part of my speech, there are a number of political issues involved. The only reason for these premature retirement payments, in the first place, was to assist in remedying some of the grosser bureaucratic excesses of the 1974 Tory reorganisation, associated with the name of the then Secretary of State for Social Services, now the Secretary of State for Education and Science. If that reorganisation had not, regrettably, sired upon the NHS a gratuitously multi-tiered structure, there would be no need to pay out millions of pounds in compensation for the abolition of one of those tiers.
    Secondly, this expenditure excess of £46 million has been allowed to overshoot uncontrollably by a Government who have seen fit on more than one occasion recently to go to great lengths of harshness towards the poor and deprived sectors of the population simply to save minuscule sums of money—far less than the £46 million to which the Public Accounts Committee has drawn attention as being squandered.
    Let me give one or two examples. The Government were prepared to introduce, through their notorious overseas visitor regulations, a new layer of bureaucracy with racist overtones in the NHS to save, theoretically, the miserly sum of £6 million. Of that, only a farcical fraction was saved—£370,000. The Government were prepared to bring in emergency regulations, which were debated only a couple of months ago, to put an instant stop to single payments to those on supplementary benefit—despite the fact that the Social Security Advisory Committee believed that the beneficiaries should have them—to save a few niggardly tens of thousands of pounds.
    The Government were prepared to stop disabled persons in long-term care from accruing more than £1,000 in savings, despite their entitlement, like everyone else, and all to save petty hundreds of thousands of pounds. Now the Government, according to the report today are prepared to raise prescription charges, yet again, when they have already been raised by no less than 700 per cent. over the past five years, even though they are a straight tax on the sick, simply to save a few million pounds. I could go on, but bearing in mind your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not. However, it is important to put in context the sums of money about which we are talking.
    It would be a great deal easier to stomach this £46 million overspending blunder if the Government had not been quite so ruthlessly demanding in paring away the meagre livelihood of so many defenceless and helpless groups in the population. It would have been easier to excuse this debacle if the Government had not been insisting, year after year, on so-called efficiency savings from others, such as district health authorities, requiring them to produce the same services next year with less money than this year. A little more rigour by the Government in managing their own operations would not come amiss before they start lecturing others on their failings.

    1011
    There is another political point that needs to be made clear. I refer to the stark contrast in the treatment—revealed by the Public Accounts Committee—by the Government when they make redundant high-paid managers compared with low-paid ancillaries. Managers losing their jobs are offered extremely generous premature retirement and a superannuation gratuity of about £20,000. One has to compare that with the treatment being meted out to NHS ancillary workers made redundant by privatisation. They are being forced to accept lower wages than the disgracefully low level, under both this Government and the previous Government, of about £1.20 or £1.10 an hour, that they are now receiving. Such people are being forced to even lower sub-poverty wage levels. This lucrative premature retirement scheme reveals that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, even in the loss of jobs.
    The administrative implications of this episode were well displayed by the hon. Member for Horsham.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his general conclusion and as he is now emerging in a new guise as an enemy of bureaucracy, will he be chastened by the Public Accounts Committee report into changing his stance on these matters? Will he support the Government's proposals to get better management in the Health Service, as outlined in the Griffiths report? Will he also support our efforts to reduce management costs and the number of administrative and clerical staff in the Service? The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's activities as Opposition spokesman has so far been to obstruct the Government's efforts in those directions at the behest of his allies, the trade unions.
    Mr. Meacher: I am in favour of reducing management costs, but perhaps the Government could do it a little more effectively than the PAC report reveals.
    As to the Griffiths report, I am in favaour of improved management of the National Health Service, greater efficiency and more effective management, as I have always been. However, the reduction in the role of regional and deputy health authority members, the upgrading of the line management position of authority chairmen and the review of consultation procedures point more to facilitating further cuts and the acceleration of closures, to which I am opposed, than to greater efficiency. In principle, however, I am in favour of improved management.
    Coming to the administrative implications of the episode, the Department has much to answer for, as was made very clear by the hon. Member for Horsham. We shall listen with great interest to what the Minister says.
    The central question is why the DHSS made no precise estimate of the numbers intended to qualify for premature retirement. Why was there no adequate basis for monitoring the use or cost of the scheme? Apparently the DHSS became aware in February 1982 that the scheme was being used far more than had been expected, but why did it then take eight months, until October 1982, to institute regular monitoring?
    Such extraordinary administrative practice means, as the hon. Member for Horsham rightly said, that we are never likely to know whether the overall reduction by 4,000 management posts including almost 3,000 premature retirements, has been achieved. We expect to hear straight, informed answers to those questions. As they are integral to the report, must be asked.
    1012
    The central issue at stake in this deplorable episode is not in dispute. The DHSS has difficulty in reconciling accountability to Parliament with delegation of day-to-day management decisions to health authorities. In Wessex, for example, apparently all the applications from officers in the qualifying age group were approved, although the region accepted that not all such retirements would help to avoid redundancy. In other words, it paid attention only to one of the two criteria laid down by the department and the number of applicants was much greater there than in other regions, such as the northern region, which the Minister used as a comparison.
    It is an astonishing administrative oversight that Ministers and their advisers did not reckon—it should be obvious—that excessive cost to the taxpayer would be avoided if the health authorities bore the full cost of authorised premature retirements from their own budgets. Such blatant managerial negligence and incompetence, with such costly consequences, would cause heads to roll in the private sector. We are entitled to ask by what standards of propriety the Secretary of State, the Minister for Health and senior civil servants can lose £46 million and blandly wave it aside as not a resigning matter.
    The Secretary of State's only defence, so far as I know, is plaintively to say that the 1982 reorganisation has reduced management costs by £64 million. He made that point in the press notice issued on publication of the report, and I believe that he has repeated it since. That is no defence. There are bound to be substantial savings in management costs in any case if a tier of management is removed. That saving cannot be used to justify a huge cost overrun in offsetting payments.
    The Secretary of State claims that the savings of £64 million are more than twice the original prediction, but the earlier £30 million management savings figure, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, derives from the consultative paper "Patients First". At today's money value, those savings must be approximately £45 million, so present savings on management costs are about 50 per cent. higher than forecast, but there is an enormous overrun on premature retirement payments, which are 550 per cent. higher than forecast. Management incompetence on that scale, coming from a Government who like to pride themselves on their interest in efficiency, is wholly indefensible.
    Mr. Eric Deakins: Is it not anomalous that the Government are able to estimate savings in management costs but the Department cannot give figures for savings in management posts? There must be some relationship between costs and numbers. If it is not possible to estimate either figure separately, it should at least be possible to get some estimate of both.
    Mr. Meacher: That is a very important point, to which I am sure my hon. Friend will refer more fully if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    It is extraordinary that the Department is able to give a figure only for the reduction in management costs. It is puzzling and bewildering that the reduction in management posts cannot be calculated from costs or found by other means. If the figure of 4,000 management posts is incorrect, what is the true figure? Will the Minister give us his best estimate?
    It adds insult to injury to hear that the Comptroller and Auditor General found that more than 100 officers, who

    1013
    had prematurely retired after the 1982 reorganisation, were subsequently re-employed in the National Health Service. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) drew attention to that by tabling a question to the Minister for Health, which was answered in Hansard on 29 February. The PAC, in a report that is excellent in every other way, merely says that it has "misgivings" about it. The Committee is entitled to use its own language, but that must surely be the understatement of the year. To put it somewhat differently, there is an ominous whiff of, not corruption, but very dubious practice when someone who has received £20,000 in total benefits for prematurely retiring is re-employed in the same organisation within a few months. That calls for some kind of explanation, and we want to hear it from the Minister tonight.
    The Minister for Health, in a written answer on 29 February, justified that practice only where it was necessary
    "to fill a temporary need that could not be foreseen at the time of premature retirement and that could not otherwise be filled except by recruiting an officer for whom the authority would have no continuing need."—[Official Report, 29 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 258.]
    It is difficult to believe that those suitably narrow qualifications would cover anything like 100 cases. The House needs to know how often managers have been reemployed in circumstances falling outside those criteria. I suspect that there has been considerable abuse on those grounds. I hope that the Minister will answer that question, too.
    This is a lamentable story of ministerial negligence and Civil Service laxity. The CPA report roundly declares that
    "the DHSS appeared to us to act as little more than a rubber stamp in issuing certificates covering individual cases."
    The House needs to know how a ministerial regime of such crass incompetence was ever allowed to prevail in the DHSS and, without being fobbed off with such soothing euphemisms as annual accountability reviews, that that massive hijacking of taxpayers' money by already well-heeled administrators will not happen again.
    4.59 pm
    Sir Michael Shaw: Perhaps I may deal a little later with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
    First, I should say how sorry all members of the Committee of Public Accounts are at the absence of our right hon. Friend and Chairman—he is certainly that to all members of the Committee—the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), however, was far too modest. No one could have led us better on this occasion than he did, and we expected no less, given the great interest that he has taken in this important subject over a number of years. I admired the skill with which he deployed the case. He made it clear that there were enough matters to discuss for at least a whole day and he covered the points raised in our necessarily critical report extremely fully. I wish to consider the report and its conclusions bearing in mind that I entirely support the detailed criticism that my hon. Friend has so rightly brought out.
    It is unusual to debate the report so soon after the Committee's investigation. That is especially welcome as
    1014
    so many of our reports have still to be debated — I believe that there are 37 outstanding from earlier Sessions and already 12 from this Session. The force of such reports is bound to be lessened if there is undue delay. Therefore, the early debate on this subject must give added force to the report and the message to be drawn from it.
    In examining this problem, I have felt from the beginning that as a result of our experience we must have in mind a general fear of what always happens when changes are made in a major national service—the fact that additional costs always seem to creep in sooner or later. We may set out with the best of intentions, but all too often additional costs become apparent to an alarming extent, sometimes too late for anything to be done about them.
    Mr. Frank Dobson: As most of the predictions about cost savings and reductions in administrative manpower in this case came from the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) when he was Secretary of State for Social Services, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be some doubt about the right hon. Gentleman's predictions as Secretary of State for the Environment as to the savings that will accrue if he gets rid of the GLC and the metropolitan counties?
    Sir Michael Shaw: In the Committee of Public Accounts we have almost entirely got rid of party political points. We study the problems as they are and try to reach a unanimous conclusion. I believe that, if I followed the hon. Gentleman's intervention, the spirit in which the Committee of Public Accounts conducts its business would be lost, but—the hon. Gentleman can make what he likes of this—our experience was borne out in the local government reorganisation and the National Health Service reorganisation in 1974. To some extent, we found the same shortcomings. The present report brings out the case in relation to premature retirement. The estimated number of premature retirements was 435. The actual number was 2,830. The estimated cost was £8·6 million. The actual cost has proved to be about £54 million.
    The lessons to be drawn from the report are set out in paragraphs 19 and 29. Broadly speaking, the DHSS has told us that it had no real idea how many premature retirements would result from the reorganisation. It felt, however—this is the interesting point—that it had a duty to make some kind of guess or forecast, but that as such a guess was bound to be extremely uncertain it would have been wrong to confine the reorganisation to the limits contained in the original estimate. I have to say, however, that if that was so there was certainly no reference to the vagueness of the estimate at the time it was made. I therefore draw the general conclusion that, once again, it appears that no adequate financial disciplines were built into the original scheme. I should also say in passing that we have been waiting far too long for the appointment of a successor to Sir Kenneth Sharp. Greater accountancy discipline at a high level is still a great need in the Civil Service and Government Departments so that when actions are planned proper forecasts can be made, proper objectives defined and a pattern established against which the actual outturn can be set so that we can see where we are going all the time.
    Let us consider what happened in this case. The regions were given power to grant premature retirements, but the

    1015
    discipline of having to provide the cash was largely absent, as the report makes clear. The Department was left to pick up the bill. The result was hardly surprising, given that the regions did not have to pick up the bill. Secondly, the 1981 estimate was based on various hypotheses and not on ascertainable facts. The Department had received only rough guidance from the regional health authorities, whose capacity for manpower planning at that time was extremely varied. The need for accountancy disciplines to be brought into the Department's various plans, decisions and conclusions is clear. The Department recognised the regions' inability to plan manpower, but was apparently willing to accept their decisions as to who should be granted premature retirement.
    Finally, there has been the problem of people who have accepted premature retirement then being re-employed. I see the argument—it is simple, straightforward and basically right — that anyone who has received a substantial sum in respect of premature retirement should not be re-engaged, although I accept that re-employment may sometimes be necessary. I believe, however, that on such occasions the Department itself should sanction the re-employment. I understand that the Department had to authorise premature retirements in the past even though it did not seem to consider the facts very carefully. If that was right for premature retirement, it is also right that the Department should take final responsibility for reemployment. Those points must be taken on board.
    As I said at the beginning of my speech, we have had a chance to debate the report far more quickly than is usual. I hope that this will be a good precedent for the future, because I believe that the existing worries in the Department will be more than a little reinforced by the views of the House on the inquiries made by the Committee and the report that we have submitted to the House. I hope that that is the spirit in which we shall conduct this debate.
    5.11 pm
    Mr. Eric Deakins: The House is at a disadvantage in this debate, although we have the report of the Committee of Public Accounts, because it is inappropriate on these occasions that the House should debate a topic on the basis of a Committee report—however however good—without the benefit of a written reply from the Government. No one is to blame. We completed the report only a few days ago. Normally, there would be a Treasury minute—a Government reply—and I have no doubt that the Minister who replies to the debate will be in a difficult position because, in a sense, he will have to anticipate what may be said in the appropriate Treasury minute. That is not the fault of the Committee of Public Accounts.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) on what he said about the report, and wish to supplement some of his remarks. The whole point of debating Select Committee reports—particularly those that are critical of Government Departments and, indirectly, of Ministers—is that some notice should be taken of them. Lessons should be learnt for the future. We should emphasise to the House and to the public that in discussing the effects of the voluntary premature retirement scheme in the National Health Service we are not discussing a scheme that is dead and buried. It is not
    1016
    the case that the scheme will come to an end on 31 March and that that will be the end of the matter. In paragraph 8 of the Committee's report, we said that the scheme
    "was introduced … to provide a permanent facility within the management of the NHS."
    We are not discussing a scheme for voluntary premature retirment designed to operate only within the reorganisation in which the area health authorities disappeared. We are discussing a permanent feature of the NHS — a management tool. The scheme was not a one-off arrangement that is over and done with. We cannot therefore simply say that it was a pity that the scheme overran on costs but that there is nothing that we can do about it. The scheme is continuing, and we must be careful about the way in which our criticisms are answered by the Department and the Minister.
    The original estimates by the Department were so far out that they almost qualify for some other description. If one asks someone what something is going to cost, he says £9 million and the cost turns out to be £54 million, one is entitled to say that that is not a real estimate but an uninformed, even ill-informed, guess. If the difference had been between £45 million and £54 million, one would have understood, but in this case the margin of error is so substantial as to disqualify the original attempt from being described as an estimate.
    The estimate was not merely meaningless; it was misleading. The original estimate of £8·6 million was reported to the House of Commons. Hon. Members probably thought that as something had to be done to smooth over the reorganisation of the NHS, and there would have to be some redundancy payments and some money for voluntary premature retirement, £9 million did not seem too bad a sum. They may have thought, "That sounds about right. Let them get on with it." Had we been told at the start that the cost would be £54 million, could we assume that the House would have adopted precisely the same attitude to the scheme? I doubt it. There is a considerable difference between £9 million and £54 million, and furthermore, for psychological reasons, those right hon. and hon. Members who take an interest in the NHS would have asked more searching questions at the time about the pattern of the scheme.
    Parliament is right to express concern about an overrun in take-up of 550 per cent. and in costs of 527 per cent. Hon. Members are used to cost overruns, particularly in defence contracts, but we are not accustomed to cost overruns of that order. We are entitled to be concerned.
    The scheme was designed and endorsed by Parliament, as a national scheme applying to England, with a spillover into Wales. There has not yet been a scheme in Scotland. However, the DHSS devolved the implementation of the scheme to the regional health authorities. In terms of the way in which the DHSS has acted in the past decade, that may have been a good thing. We all claim to believe in decentralisation of responsibility and management. The NHS is a vast and complex operation, and perhaps most things should be devolved to management. I do not argue against the DHSS's action in principle. However, the result was that a very different pattern emerged in different parts of the country.
    In Wessex, 325 staff took advantage of the provisions of the scheme which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has pointed out, were very generous. In the north of England only 40 people did so. Questions put to the two regional health authority

    1017
    chairmen concerned failed to show that one region was very different from another. The chairman of Wessex regional health authority told us that there had been three multi-district areas there before the reorganisation, and that that made a difference. However, we learnt that the northern region had also had three multi-district areas. The Wessex chairman, Dr. Thwaites, also said that Wessex was a gainer under the resource allocation working party formula. That was true, but the north of England was a gainer, too. There was no major difference between the two regions. The differences that emerged had nothing to do with the constitution or structure of the regions. They were entirely due to decisions made by the regional management in each case. Under the DHSS decentralisation, those managements made wildly different decisions. That was serious, because the intentions of Parliament were laid down and were mentioned in paragraph 11 of the report, which stated:
    "DHSS also stated that they had made the authorities aware of what it would be proper for them to do in order to administer the scheme in accordance with the intentions of Parliament."
    Parliament may have intended that all the regions should behave in the same way as northern region. I suspect that that was Parliament's intention. We did not intend that any region should behave like Wessex and one or two others, which did not follow all the criteria that had been laid down but adopted the scheme in a high, wide and handsome manner and gave voluntary premature retirement on very generous terms and conditions to almost any member of the management staff who opted for it. That was a serious blow to parliamentary control of the executive, and parliamentary financial control. The Minister should weigh up that point carefully, and it should be answered either this evening or in the written Treasury document.
    Mr. David Crouch: I do not seek to defend the Department against the charge of laxity of control over the regions in this matter. I am a member of a regional health authority. However, the hon. Gentleman should remember, as he skips his way about the report, quoting paragraphs here and there, that in paragraph 9 there is evidence that the DHSS believed that, had there not been so much voluntary retirement claimed and given, there would probably have been considerably more use of redundancy.
    Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that those of us who have worked in the Health Service appreciate what it is for people to be faced with a great change, especially in the structure of management? The going of 98 health authorities personally affected many people. They wondered where their future lay and, presented with an open-door policy by the DHSS, thought that perhaps it would be better to take voluntary retirement while it was being offered. The hon. Gentleman should remember—I hope that the Committee bore this human factor in mind—how individuals at the receiving end approached the problem and applied for voluntary retirement.
    Mr. Deakins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that he and the House will also appreciate that that was not the intention of Parliament when it sanctioned the scheme. The Committee of Public Accounts is, rightly, not allowed to debate policy matters—that is for the Government and the departmental Select Committees. The
    1018
    Committee is merely saying that Parliament said certain things some time ago and laid down the scheme and that it was not carried out as Parliament intended. Perhaps Parliament was wrong. I am not arguing that point. However, once the House has made a decision, Ministers, senior civil servants and members of regional health authorities should stick to the principles that Parliament lays down when sanctioning the expenditure of public money. That is what the debate is about.
    It is obvious that there was inadequate central control of expenditure under the scheme. Even the DHSS admitted that when questioned by the CPA. Such inadequate control led to a serious risk that turned out to be the fact of overspending. No one can deny that. One of the reasons for the overspending, apart from the inadequate guidelines laid down at the centre, was, as the hon. Member for Horsham said, the fact that there was inadequate monitoring of the progress of the scheme until quite late in the day, when it was almost too late to make much impact on the total. That process was aided by health authorities being exempted from the bulk of the costs that the operation of the scheme incurred in their regions and areas because most of the costs fell on DHSS central funds. That was a crucial error on the part of the DHSS. That was not laid down by Parliament but was a managerial or perhaps, directly or indirectly, a ministerial decision. I suspect that something of this magnitude must have warranted ministerial intervention and therefore a ministerial decision. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about that later.
    It must have been decided that, although the scheme would operate differently in different parts of the country, because it was a national scheme most of the costs would be borne nationally by the DHSS central fund. By giving that concession to regional health authorities, the DHSS immediately lost financial control. Once the regions were exempted more or less from the financial consequences of the decisions that they took, they could do virtually what they liked within the parameters of the scheme as they would not have to bear more than a small proportion of the cost.
    The objectives of the scheme should be linked with the objectives of National Health Service reorganisation. In addition to getting rid of area health authorities and making the service more efficient, one of the main purposes of the reorganisation was to reduce management and bureaucracy. I invite the House to consider the following sequence of events. Paragraph 2 of the PAC's report says:
    "In July 1981"—
    less that three years ago—
    "DHSS estimated that by 1984–85 the reorganisation would have resulted in a reduction in the number of management posts in the NHS in England by about 4,000."
    Therefore, in July 1981 there was a firm estimate—I use that word deliberately as it was an estimate that was given to Parliament. I now invite the House to consider paragraph 17 of the report of Comptroller and Auditor General on which the CPA's report is based. He says of the DHSS that, during his investigations in 1982–83:
    "It was too soon for the Departments and the NHS to determine whether the pre-reorganisation estimate that some 4,000 posts would be lost by 1984–85 would prove to be accurate."
    When that report was submitted, right hon. and hon. Members were still entitled to assume that eventually a number would be advanced to the House on a proper

    1019
    statistical basis, comparing the number of management jobs that would be saved with the original estimate of 4,000. However, if we turn to paragraph 20 of the PAC's report we find the following:
    "DHSS estimated that the 1982 reorganisation would produce a reduction of 4,000 management posts by 1984–85"—
    here are the important words—
    "but admitted … that it was unlikely that they would ever know what had actually been achieved."
    Therefore, in 1981 we started off with a firm estimate but when the Comptroller and Auditor General did his investigations in 1983 it was too soon to decide whether the number target had been reached; and now the PAC and the House have been told that it will never be possible to know how many management posts have been saved as a result of reorganisation.
    Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is worse than that. If he looks at Hansard for 7 March 1984, at columns 625 to 626, he will see that there were 112,100 NHS administrative and clerical staff at 30 September 198 I and 112,450 at 31 December 1983 so, far from it being a cut, there has been an increase in numbers.
    Mr. Deakins: I am grateful for that information. I shall leave that point for the House to consider and for the Minister to reply to in due course. We might not have come to the end of reorganisations of the Health Service. I hope, for the sake of the staff in it, that we have come to the end of major reorganisations for the next decade or so. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will insist that the DHSS and Ministers of whatever political complexion will learn the lessons of this reorganisation, just as the lessons of the local government reorganisation of 1972–73 should have been learnt.
    It might be that, as a result of all the changes that have cost us £54 million, the NHS will be a lot more efficient. I do not deny that possibility, but it is surprising that, because of the way in which the scheme was operated, some voluntary premature retirements were accepted and paid for in specialties such as community medicine, in which there is a nationwide shortage. One would have thought that, in such a reorganisation, every effort would have been made to ensure that someone in a speciality who might be made redundant or given voluntary retirement would be given a job, with the appropriate terms, in another part of the country. No such luck.
    It was said in evidence to the PAC that the scheme was also being used to get rid of what I would call dead wood. That is my expression. However, I should like to use the wonderful circumlocution that is to be found in paragraph 18 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. It says:
    "many authorities had preferred not to rely on the uncertain results of natural wastage but to hasten the departure of existing officers who felt, or were thought by the health authority to be, unable to contribute as effectively and efficiently as required in the changed management situation."
    Dickens, and the circumlocution office, would have been wonderfully pleased to be the author of those words. However, it stems from what the Comptroller and Auditor General was told by health authorities and the DHSS.
    In any other profession or job—as is happening in many British industries—people would be sacked. That circumlocution would not be applied to them. Many prematurely retired people have been re-employed which, as the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw)
    1020
    pointed out, is disturbing. Why is it that people can get substantial redundancy payments, which include enormous increases in the pension that they will eventually receive, when they retire from the NHS at 60, and then be re-employed in lesser jobs? It suggests that something is wrong with the way in which management operates. One would have thought that there were plenty of people remaining in the National Health Service who could be promoted. If one is getting rid of dead wood there is no point in re-employing it, even in a lesser job, within the NHS.
    As the permanent secretary to the DHSS told the Committee, we must have rigorous criteria for reemployment. As a member of the PAC, I doubt whether we have them yet. We need to spend much time on this because the NHS is about to be reorganised in Scotland, where there will undoubtedly be voluntary premature retirement scheme. It is essential that the lessons of England and, to a lesser extent, Wales are learnt by hon. Members, the Department and, above all, by Ministers before that reorganisation in Scotland. It is essential that we get it right for the future because it is a permanent facility within the management of the NHS. Indeed, it is a permanent facility for the management of the NHS because it is such a generous scheme. The DHSS must give priority to satisfying the requirements of Parliament instead of to decentralisation. If Parliament lays down a scheme with financial implications for, for example, premature retirement, the DHSS and especially Ministers have a duty to operate the scheme so that the intentions of Parliament are carried out. They have not been carried out on this occasion.
    Finally, there are lessons for any forthcoming reorganisation of local government. I shall play my part as a member of the PAC and of the Labour party to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes — if local government is reorganised—as have been made on this occasion and as were made in the local government reorganisation of the early 1970s.
    5.32 pm
    Mr. Ralph Howell: I preface my remarks by commenting on the criticism levelled at me by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern). I am sad that he felt it necessary, because I have the highest regard for him and the great work that he has been doing in drawing to Parliament's attention the inefficiencies in our control of public expenditure, especially in the National Health Service. We have been working on parallel lines.
    On reflection, the letter which I sent to the Public Accounts Committee could have been worded rather better and, perhaps a little less bluntly. I underestimated the sensitivity of the PAC. My hon. Friend suggested that I was shooting the hounds as well as the fox. I am merely trying to whip in the hounds. They have been allowed a long leash for years. I therefore stand by my general criticism completely, although it could have been worded better.
    Astounding figures have been quoted during the debate, but the figures are even worse than has been suggested. It is obvious that the Department of Health and Social Security had no thought-out plan for the premature retirement scheme. The figure of £8·6 million was pulled out of the air, and there was no substance behind it. No hon. Member could say otherwise. The original intention

    1021
    was to prematurely retire 435 people. When the Comptroller and Auditor General made his report on 4 November 1983, he stated that 2,580 people were early retired and that the total cost would be £45·2 million. The PAC's twelfth report gives the figure as £54 million. That means that since the PAC reported that the total cost would be £45·2 million, the cost rose by a further £8·8 million, which is even greater than the original sum.
    It does not stop there. Yesterday, the Department told me that the expected outturn would be about £67 million and that it does not quite know when it will stop.
    The average pension payment has been £3,469, with a lump sum of £14,598. The highest individual pension payment was £15,125 with a lump sum of £45,375, plus a redundancy payment of £9,200. Those figures are startling. By 31 October, 115 people had been re-employed. We must question whether such re-employment is fraudulent and whether any measures have been taken to recover the money from those who have been immediately re-employed.
    The Comptroller and Auditor General's report of 4 November 1983, in paragraph 18, makes a startling statement:
    "The Departments stated that they endorsed the authorities' approval of the premature retirement of senior regional and specialist officers, including those in disciplines where there were staff shortages."
    What on earth is going on? The Department has shown appalling negligence.
    I first became aware that something strange was happening as long ago as 19 August 1982, when I was informed that
    "the Wessex region has told all the Districts, that there are to be no redundancies, but where people wished to take early retirement, they could, even though their posts were to be refilled immediately at the same, or enhanced, salaries."
    In other words, in August 1982 the Wessex region was planning to thwart the Department's aims. In 1982 I informed the Department, Sir Kenneth Stowe, Mr. Roy Griffiths and also Dr. Bryan Thwaites, the chairman of the Wessex regional health authority, of what I had been told. However, the PAC did not see him until January 1984. There has been some slackness in the Department and in the PAC.
    As to criticism of my attacks on the Comptroller and Auditor General, I have been in touch with him for the past two years and I have made accusations to his face and in letters. It is not correct that he should make a statement such as, "The total cost will be £45 million," when we know that it will be much more. I also believe that there are serious errors in the entire accounts of the National Health Service. The losses cannot be as small as they are reputed to be. In 1980–81 losses through theft and fraud were certified to be 0·01 per cent.; in 1981–82 they were 0·008 per cent.; and in 1982–83 they were 0·007 per cent. They are still going down. They are smaller than any firm in the country could accomplish. The Secretary of State has set in motion an inquiry into the appalling losses reported by the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales, yet the Comptroller and Auditor General continues to certify as correct such absurdly low losses. This matter must be drawn to the attention of the House.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the Comptroller and Auditor General merely audits the
    1022
    accounts of the individual areas and regions, which are already audited by Government officials or by private auditors from the commercial and professional world? When they come in, the Comptroller and Auditor General groups the accounts together. Therefore, he is not the responsible auditor for the detailed regional accounts.
    Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I fully realise that that is the position, but the Comptroller and Auditor General is the senior auditor of the entire nation, and he puts his signature on accounts stating that they are correct. I am convinced that they are not correct, and I believe that the House should take this matter very seriously.
    It is strange that the Comptroller and Auditor General has no auditing or accountancy qualifications. That is unreasonable, because if anyone masqueraded as a doctor, a solicitor, or any other professional—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I reminded the House of the narrowness of the debate. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little now.
    Mr. Howell: This is a serious matter, because we are talking about the accounts put forward by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The whole force of the law would come down on the head of anyone who pretended to have professional qualifications.
    Mr. Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Comptroller and Auditor General is responsible to the House through the Committee of Public Accounts. He is being unmercifully attacked without any reference to the subject of the debate. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) is introducing extraneous matter and putting the remaining members of the CPA, who may wish to catch your eye, in an invidious position, because they may be tempted to defend the Comptroller and Auditor General rather than to concentrate on the subject of the debate.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have reminded the House and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) that we are discussing compensation payments to NHS staff. He must confine himself to that topic.
    Mr. Howell: To return to the PAC report, I must ask why the Committee reported in such a soft, gentle manner. The report is not nearly strong enough in view of what happened. We shall be overspending by about 700 per cent., and some serious questions must be asked. Cases must be examined to discover whether they are fraudulent. It cannot be right for people to accept early retirement payments and then immediately to be re-employed by the same authority. The PAC should have suggested that the Director of Public Prosecutions should examine the matter. I realise that that is a serious thing to say, but we must get proper control of our accounts.
    I conclude by quoting the paragraph in my letter that offended the PAC so much:
    "In my opinion, successive Secretaries of State, C & A G's and Public Accounts Committees, including the present incumbents, have failed lamentably to safeguard public funds allocated to the NHS and have failed to ensure that the Nation has received value for money."
    We always hear a great deal about patient care. Money that should have gone into patient care has been misappropriated in this instance. We are talking about a

    1023
    relatively small sum in the context of total NHS spending, but, if we take the entire NHS, very much larger sums are being used improperly and inefficiently.
    It is unfair to say what I said in my letter to the PAC, because I should have included Parliament as well. We are all guilty of allowing such things to happen and funds to be misused in this way. Therefore, I take fully on board the criticism by my hon. Friend the Minister for Horsham.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate, and I am sure that the House wishes to hear the Minister's statement. I must ask for particular brevity, since the Front Bench spokesmen hope to catch my eye at 6.15 pm.
    5.48 pm
    Mrs. Renée Short: I add my thanks to those of hon. Members who have spoken to the Public Accounts Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate the matter today, and for speeding its report so that we could debate it earlier than we might have done.
    The PAC is concerned with what has already happened. Today the House is discussing a Supplementary Estimate—what will happen—and I am surprised that no one has yet referred to the fact that the Department is asking for another £8 million over and above what has gone before.
    The Select Committee looked at the whole of this matter. We actually antedated the examination by the PAC as far back as March 1982. Nobody has yet mentioned that either. It seems to me that the House is not always as well informed as it might be about what goes on under its own roof.
    The Estimates laid before the House in March 1982 anticipated expenditure for 1982–83 of £5·8 million in superannuation scheme benefits to those receiving compensation as a result of early retirement following National Health Service reorganisation. The Select Committee sought an indication from the Department of the estimate number of those retiring early. We were told by the Department:
    "about 300 staff will receive lump sums of around £14,000 each and over 350 staff will receive recurring pension payments averaging nearly £5,000."
    Although the PAC report, at paragraph 19, reveals that the department became aware in February 1982 that the scheme was being used more than expected, the first public sign that something was going wrong was when the Department sought a massive Supplementary Estimate in 1982. The £5·8 million originally asked for became £17·8 million—a phenomenal rise of £12 million. The Select Committee naturally sought information from the Department as to what was going on. We were told in November 1982 that its latest figures showed that to date 1,062 staff had left the Service on premature retirement. That compared with the 300 or 350 estimated for 1982–83 and the 435 total. Half of those retiring were in administrative and clerical grades and a quarter in nursing and midwifery grades. Nobody has mentioned that fact either—that scarce nurses and midwives were taking early retirement.
    We were not satisfied with that reply, so we sought further information — in particular, on the issue of redundancy as against premature retirement. We discovered that the issue was really very simple. If a health
    1024
    authority makes an officer redundant, it has to find its statutory share—59 per cent—of the expense. Under the premature retirement scheme, central Government pay the whole whack. That is where the dog lies buried. Therefore, it is not really surprising that the regional health authorities should have been so willing gaily to endorse hundreds of early retirement certificates. They were not footing the bill; the Department was.
    Sir Kenneth Stowe told the PAC that there was no question of
    "a kind of piggy-bank at the Department in which they"—
    the regions—
    "could go dipping their paws".
    But they were doing that, were they not?
    To return to the sorry tale, by January 1983 the Department was estimating 1,600 early retirement cases coming into payment in 1982–83, compared with 300 or 350 10 months earlier. In February 1983 a further Supplementary Estimate was laid. The £17·8 million had risen to £23·5 million. So in a single year the costs had risen from £5·8 million to £23·5 million and the numbers from 350 to 1,600. Clearly there was something very wrong with both those sets of figures.
    The Estimate for 1983–84, the current financial year, was presented in March 1983, and £19·5 million was sought for NHS reorganisation early retirement expenses, assuming fewer than 1,000 new cases.
    In April 1983 the Select Committee examined the Department's principal finance officer on the subject. He told us that the Department had made the best estimate it could in a "very uncertain area" and that the Department would be
    "charging the cost out to the regions"
    in 1983–84.
    At least it now seemed that the Department had the matter under control—the film grip of strong leadership—or that it had an idea of the scale of its origami misjudgment. There would surely be no more Supplementary Estimates.
    In the autumn the Comptroller and Auditor General produced a pretty damning indictment of the Department in his report on volume 8 of the 1982–83 Appropriation accounts, but of course by then it was all so much water under the bridge.
    Now, however, the House is being presented with another Supplementary Estimate. Apparently £19·5 million is not enough. Adding together the sums under F5(1)(a) and F5(2)(a), it is now £27·5 million. It is that Supplementary Estimate that we are debating to give voice to the dissatisfaction with the Government's handling of the issue from start to finish which the PAC's report expresses and which surely all hon. Members must echo.
    The Department was to have spent £8·6 million over three years. The House is now confronted with a bill for £54 million. There will have been almost 3,000 premature retirements, not 435.
    PAC's report is properly and expertly critical of the management of the scheme by the Department and by individual regions. An enormous sum of money has been spent already. Was it wasted? The idea of the 1982 reorganisation was to lose around 4,000 management posts. If they had not taken early retirement, there would have been wider use of redundancy, costing the same in the long run, but there can be little regret that the costs of this were borne by central Government, because it left health authorities more resources for providing patient

    1025
    care and enabled the Department to squeeze the additional £40 million out of its existing cash limit. It is worth pointing out that the central funding arrangement meant, as the PAC report puts it in paragraph 16, that
    "health authorities had apparently had a very easy option of encouraging premature retirement and leaving the Department to pick up the bill."
    It is incredible that the Department should have allowed that to happen. What was intended was that there would be 2,800 posts lost through what we call natural wastage. That turned out to have been wildly optimistic. With the prospect of generous early retirement provisions, why should someone wait a few more years to retire if he was to be encouraged to go now on the same terms, with his pension made up and a substantial lump sum into the bargain? It was money for old rope.
    Some even took early retirement and, as we have heard, promptly found other National Health Service employment. The PAC report points out that 135 former employees prematurely retired have been subsequently reemployed. In December 1982 the Social Services Select Committee was told:
    "NHS management has been told that when an officer is receiving compensation, in effect, for being surplus to requirements of the NHS he should not be re-employed save in ad hoc or exceptional circumstances."
    Is the Minister going to tell us what these ad hoc and exceptional circumstances were?
    It is disturbing that there have been 135
    "ad hoc or exceptional circumstances".
    The PAC, at paragraph 29 of its report, expresses "misgivings". The House may wish to express rather more than that at the idea of an officer's taking early retirement and returning to NHS employment, with his average lump sum of £15,000 intact and his pension being paid in addition to his salary.
    There must be a number of lessons that could and should be drawn from this debacle. Is the Minister going to draw them? One is that the national target of a 10 per cent. reduction in the proportion of NHS expenditure on management set out in HC(80)8 to be achieved by the end of 1984–85 is now virtually meaningless. The original target—that 4.61 per cent. of total expenditure should be on management — has already been achieved. However, that does not take into consideration the expense of the early retirement scheme. The difference between devoting 4·61 per cent. and 5·12 per cent. of expenditure to management is probably less than £40 million—less than the £54 million that the 3,000 premature retirements cost.
    In March 1983 the Department told the Social Services Select Committee:
    "as these costs fall almost entirely in the years preceding the 1984–85 management costs deadline, they will not, in any case, affect the outcome of the exercise".
    That is gobbledegook.
    Of course, the present savings in management costs will eventually produce savings which outweigh the costs of premature retirement benefits, but the salutary lesson must be that the savings on management costs to date have been more than eaten up by the costs of early retirement. So where is the benefit? That lesson should be remembered by any Government who contemplate abolition or reduction of public authorities' staff—and that applies
    1026
    not only to central but to local government. This has been a most expensive lesson to learn, so let us make sure that we have learnt it.
    This debacle also suggests an inbuilt lack of competence in central Government in managing early retirement schemes. In the 1981–82 Session, the Social Services Select Committee devoted a lot of time to a report on the retirement age. In the course of that, we discovered somewhat surprising facts about the Government's use of the job release scheme for civil servants. Departments were rather vague about how many staff had taken advantage of the scheme. Extraordinarily, even the Department of Employment, which runs the scheme, could not tell us how many of its own staff had used it. It was as bad as the DHSS. We had a feeling that a number of staff, who legitimately could have been asked to retire at 60, were given permission to remain for a few months, and then went on job release with the £50 a week allowance.
    The Government's reply to our report took a year. It was only a few hundred words long, and of course it did not deal with this point. Perhaps the Minister will take it away and look at it. It is also slightly alarming that the scheme is not over. It is a permanent scheme that may be used in any eventuality. If it is to be used further, it must be tightened up — for example, in connection with privatisation.
    Another lesson to be drawn is that the House does not control public expenditure as it should. That is very clear. The Department and the Treasury fail to do so, and we seem unable to do so. The House has had opportunities: two statutory instruments have been before the House, undebated; and three main and three Supplementary Estimates have been approved, albeit formally, by the House.
    My Committee has gathered information, expressed its anxiety to the Department, and even raised the matter publicly in oral evidence, but to no avail. Does the Department not read what is going on in the Select Committee when it debates matters that affect it? As the vast extra sums were found within existing cash limits, in essence, there was no trouble. If one keeps within cash limits, there is no trouble from the Treasury, and one is doing all right. However, the PAC has now completed its inquest. Why did the patient die? That is the crucial question. In castigating the Department, quite properly, for its management failure, we must also draw lessons for Parliamentary scrutiny in future.
    Today, interestingly, we have an alliance of two Committees—the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Social Services—and that is a pointer. It is significant that the first debate on a PAC report since the independence of the National Audit Office should take place on a Supplementary Estimate, with hon. Members outside the PAC taking part. That partnership, and the use of the work of the National Audit Office, may be one of the best things to emerge from this whole sorry business, which shows the Department in a very poor light.
    Reference has been made to past reorganisations of the NHS. If we are to have another—I hope we shall not—let us make sure that, before it takes place, we debate the report presented by the Select Committee so that we do not get into the morass of mistakes and damage to the NHS that has happened on this occasion.
    6.4 pm
    Mr. Eric Cockeram: I am glad to have this opportunity—albeit a brief one, as time is running out—to express my concern at the developments and handling of the voluntary redundancy scheme in the National Health Service. Having been a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and having listened to and participated in the inquiry, I must say that as the evidence unfolded my fears were not allayed. Rather, they have increased.
    Of the original intention to retire 4,000 staff, it was envisaged that 765 staff would take compulsory retirement. The only good aspect of the scheme is that the number of people who were asked to take compulsory redundancy was nil. There the good news ends. The rest is the bad news. The bad news was that 435 people would be asked to take voluntary retirement and, as we know, the figure was exceeded substantially, by about 520 per cent., but as other hon. Members have pointed out, that was only the running total at the time when we took evidence. There were others in Wales, Scotland—the scheme runs a year later there, into the financial year 1984–85—and in England. So the original cost estimated at £8·6 million was, we are told, about £54 million at the time when we conducted the inquiry, but it will be £60 million at least.
    When we have increased the number of administrators in the NHS—as the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) told us in opening the debate, the ratio has increased from 1·07 administrators per medical person employed to 1·93, almost double—one wonders why we are authorising the employment of these further administrators if they cannot control the administration of the machine that they are employed to administer.
    From the start, the DHSS made no real attempt to control the scheme. It said to the regions, "You take control of this, and we will meet the bill." Not surprisingly, the regions and their staff took advantage of that. There was little incentive in the regions to run the scheme efficiently. The DHSS centrally did not even know whether the target of 4,000 would be met. We know, of course, that it was substantially exceeded. Worst of all, more than 100 of those who took that redundancy payment and early retirement had been re-employed. The DHSS did not even know that that had happened until it was pointed out. It said in its evidence at a later stage that if it were to start again on the scheme it would run it differently.
    The National Health Service has been going for 38 years. It has increased its total payroll from about 500,000 to 1,250,000 in 1983. We have increased the ratio of bureaucrats to medical staff from 1·07 to 1·93. The machine is out of control. It is as if one put an engine on the rail, loaded it with coal, lit the fire, got up steam, took the brake off and said, "Now, just go." There was no attempt whatever to control the engine. It is a sorry story.
    My constituents cannot understand—I am worried on their behalf, when I read a report of this nature and take part in an inquiry of this nature—why the community hospital in Shifnel in my constituency is threatened with closure of its general medical treatment department, turning it into an old people's home. Similar action is proposed at a community hospital in Broseley, at a community hospital in Much Wenlock, and at a community hospital in Bridgnorth. My constituents ask me to explain the paltry savings made by the closure of such community hospitals while substantial sums of more than £50 million are being wasted in administration of the
    1028
    National Health Service. I am not able to answer that question. I look to the Minister to give an answer that ensures that in future he and his staff, led by Sir Kenneth Stowe at his Department, do not leave the control of the National Health Service to be administered at regions when they centrally—
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend links these proposals for hospitals in his constituency with the Public Accounts Committee report. I know that he is very concerned about those hospitals, but he would not wish to mislead the House or his constituents. There was a proposal to build a new hospital at Telford, and to provide facilities for the treatment of his constituents. Shropshire has decided that it wishes to build that hospital in Telford, it is being put under pressure to make sure that it provides it within a fair share of the resources available to Shropshire, and it has to look at the future pattern of its services. My hon. Friend must not lead his constituents into believing that they can override the difficult decision about which old services are to be replaced with new services by attributing it to the possibility of administrative savings.
    Mr. Cockeram: I do not wish to enter into a debate on that point now, and I do not think you would wish me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point I wish to make that the Minister has not answered is that the totality of the National Health Service expenditure is, and has to be, controlled by Parliament. The country has a total sum to disburse. If within the totality £54 million or £60 million is being spent on a scheme that was originally budgeted to cost £8·6 million, my constituents cannot understand why they must make economies at the grass roots I hope that the Minister will address himself, although not in detail, to that point of principle in his reply.
    6.11 pmin
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: While I am mindful of the time available in the debate hope that the Minister, in replying will remember that discussion of an overshoot of £46 million must surely sit rather uneasily on the conscience of the Minister for Health on the very same day that an announcement is made that prescription charges for some of the financially weaker members of society are being jacked up yet again.
    One of the most worrying aspects of the mess that has been created is the fact the House is considering a permanent feature. Given that I represent a Scottish constituency, I bear in mind what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) said, that the effect of this measure will shortly be felt north of the border. I only hope that, when that happens, the travesty that has occurred in England will not be repeated, and that, for once, the Scots may decide to learn by the English experience—something that has not happened very often in our respective histories—and that, as a result, we shall not have this waste. If we were to have such waste, I would experience the problem that was described by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram). In my constituency, small hospitals, or wards of cottage community hospitals, are facing closure to provide for a new unit that has been built elsewhere. However, the new unit is a control of infections unit, and not a geriatric or maternity unit such as those units being phased out. That

    1029
    is a difficult concept for a Member of Parliament to explain or to justify to constituents—not that I am trying to justify the Government's health policies. I fully take the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow.
    In the debate, the House has heard much about the senior officials in the health authorities who have received considerable pay-outs and have possibly been re-employed. There is another category that has suffered, in a different but distinctive way as a result of the scheme. About eight years ago, the opportunity was given to health officers to purchase added years to make their service up to the maximum possible at normal retirement age. One effect of this has been that, since the scheme under debate was introduced, which the CPA has examined, those people, particularly in middle management rather than senior management, have suffered severe anomalies. One of my hon. Friends who represents an English constituency passed on to me one example—I am sure there must be many more—in which the purchase of extra years was described in the following way by the health authority:
    "Although the appropriate agreement entitles individuals to enhancement of superannuable service up to that which they could have earned by age 60, where added years have been purchased, then these must be offset against the premature retirement enhancement."
    This means that the decision to purchase added years some eight years ago has in effect paid for the enhancements that would have been made to the pension, given that administrators have taken this early option. In other words, as well as those who have benefited rather grossly from the scheme, there are those who have suffered considerably in local health administration, so there are two sides to the equation which should be remembered in the debate.
    I do not wish to prolong the debate, because I am anxious to hear what will be said from the Treasury Bench. However, to ensure that these proposals, when their effect is felt north of the border, will be administered properly and successfully, I hope that the Scottish home and health department—and, to be fair, the Minister indicated this last week—will take considerable notice of the report of the Committee of Public Accounts, which has highlighted an appalling problem at a time when the finances of the Health Service—indeed, this applies to other policies of the Government—are being cut and cut again.
    6.17 pm
    Mr. Roy Galley: In the short time available to me, I should like to emphasise that the report of the Public Accounts Committee is the clearest sign that the House has yet had of the need for a more incisive and better quality management of the National Health Service.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) referred to "administrative laxity". I prefer to use the term "management laxity", and I welcome the apparent eleventh-hour conversion of Opposition Members to the principles of good management. It behoves hon. Members to be constructive and fair to the Government by saying that, in terms of managing the enormous lumbering elephant that the National Health Service represents, they have made greater attempts than have been made before to manage it in terms of accountability reviews, manpower planning and so on.
    The whole episode of premature retirement shows a
    1030
    major lack of management acumen in terms of not having clear objectives, not controlling and monitoring events, and not appraising effectively the available options. However, as the report shows, the central failure has been at regional level. Significant differences have occurred in the performances of different regions. What better indictment is there of the current consensus management in the regions and districts of the Health Service? The sooner the concept of good management and general
    Many of the arguments surrounding the Griffiths report and the concept of general management have centred on the illusory conflict between general management and clinical judgment. Doctors have nothing to fear from the concept of general management because it is to matters such as have been highlighted in the report that general managers will turn their attention. There is plenty of scope in the NHS for rooting out waste. The saving of £46 million, and, as was shown in another report this week, some £15 million in transport costs, is significant. That money would be better spent on patient care. It is for those reasons that good management is required in the NHS.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will move quickly to bring in general managers on a full-time basis at regional and district authority level with a clear mandate to attack such waste and to manage resources properly. I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the temptation because of practical problems to go for a nominalist approach by appointing a current official on a part-time basis to be a general manager.
    The PAC's report demonstrates the central dilemma of the NHS. Such an organisation cannot be fully managed from the centre but delegation has considerable pitfalls. One region followed the guidelines and dealt soundly on good management principles with premature retirement; others did not. Management needs to be not only good but accountable. I hope that the central management at the DHSS will increasingly ensure that that is the case at other levels.
    Finally—I have very little time because of the lengthy contributions from other hon. Members—it has been mentioned more than once that the handling of the retirement arrangements was devolved largely to the regions but funded centrally. Surely here is a crucial principle of management which my right hon. Friend must follow when he is considering changes in NHS management. Budgets and responsibility go together and must go together. Regions and districts must be given firm budgets and, within the overall guidelines of central policy, they must be able to get on with the job. It is the job of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health to set the central policy. He must then give the budget, let them get on with the job and make the authorities accountable.
    This report is the best argument that has ever been produced for implementing general management within the NHS. I pay tribute to the fact that over the past few months my right hon. and learned Friend has increasingly endeavoured to manage the NHS, with its enormous size, more effectively. Acting constructively on the report, he must now take that process further.
    6.23 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson: The most distinguished statesman to be born in my constituency was Benjamin Disraeli, who, besides

    1031
    describing the Tory party as an organised hypocrisy, also counselled new politicians, "Never explain. Never apologise." It might have been as well if he had also counselled some distinguished Tory politicians never to predict.
    We are considering today a lot of predictions which were made by Tory politicians about savings that would result from a further reorganisation of the NHS which they had already reorganised once, putting the costs up. We are now looking at the product of the NHS reorganisation undertaken by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), in his role as Secretary of State for Social Services, when he abolished a tier of the NHS which was introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). That was intended to save money, to reduce staff and to put more skilled staff "back at the coal face" treating patients.
    If we look at those propositions, we find that it did not turn out exactly as the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford predicted. He seems to have a peculiar role at the moment. He was given the task of doing down and setting aside one Tory NHS reorganisation and, as Secretary of State for the Environment, he has now been given the task of doing away with a tier of local government which his Tory predecessors introduced. Indeed, when he goes to the Cabinet he ought to ask which of its members will plead guilty and perhaps they would even ask for certain other offences to be taken into consideration. But he does not do that.
    We are faced today with the product of what was done, in a sense, to ease the pain of NHS reorganisation for people who worked in it. The DHSS made an estimate — it was called an estimate at the time and was degraded only when it went wrong — that 435 people would seek early retirement under the scheme at a cost of £8·6 million. Now, an increase of 550 per cent. later, 2,830 people have made use of the scheme at a cost of £54 million. That is not as great as the percentage increase in prescription charges which followed the Government into office, and which is now about 700 per cent., but it is nevertheless a substantial increase.
    It is a poor performance by the DHSS, and I am not willing to stand here and let the DHSS headquarters slough off all responsibility for that on to the regional health authorities which made some of the decisions, if only because it was the DHSS which made the original estimate and got it wrong and because every early retirement had to be approved by the head of the DHSS. Every early retirement has passed across the desk of someone at DHSS headquarters. Therefore, it is no good anyone just blaming the regional health authorities. Exactly what was happening ought to have been clearer much sooner than it was.
    An impression is created—even, to some extent, in the PAC's report—that only administrators have taken early retirement under the scheme. When the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford was in his predicting mood in January 1980, in a press release he said:
    "We are determined to retain the services of those who are best qualified to see the NHS through the difficult years ahead."
    Those are his words, not mine. He went on:
    "It would be most unfortunate if precisely those people who we are anxious to see using their experience and talents nearer to the point of patient care, felt that their own interests were best furthered by leaving the Service altogether."
    He went on to say:
    1032
    "One of our objectives is to switch resources from management administration into direct patient care. One certain consequence of the changes is that clinically trained staff, be they doctors, dentists, nurses or other clinical professions, who have over the years moved into management, will be given every help and encouragement, where appropriate, to return to clinical practice."
    He summarised that by saying:
    "I want to see more of our doctors practising medicine, more of our dentists doing dentistry and more of our nurses engaged directly in the care of patients."
    Therefore, one needs to ask: who has been retired early under the scheme? In an answer that I received only yesterday, I discovered that no fewer than 103 medical staff, 18 dental staff and 763 nursing staff have retired early under the scheme. Those are from a total of 2,500 officers of health authorities, not the 2,800 that we have been talking about. Therefore, of that reduced total, one third of those who have prematurely retired from the Service—given up, gone away—and whose services are no longer available to the Health Service were exactly those clinically qualified staff that the Secretary of State said that he wanted to retain in the Service.
    It goes further than that because, among the people who were qualified medically, if we look at the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, we discover that the DHSS was later
    "concerned at the loss under the scheme of 80 specialists in the understaffed area of community medicine".
    So 80 specialists, either doctors or nurses, retired early from community medicine under this scheme, when it is one of the self-same Department's priorities to transfer people into rather than out of that discipline. It shows how absurd this scheme has been for people in the National Health Service and the damage that it has done to the Service.
    If we have got rid of many skilled, trained and experienced doctors, dentists and nurses, the odds are that the National Health Service has suffered rather than benefited from the change and that people have taken this option, presumably because they do not like working in a National Health Service run by the present regime.
    The Government have got rid of a tier of the Health Service now and they say that they have "cut administrative costs", but, as the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) pointed out, there has actually been an increase in the number of administrators in the National Health Service, despite this early retirement scheme which was trumpeted as a method of reducing the number of administrators. The Government claim that, despite the increase in the number of administrative staff, as the Minister for Health said on 14 November:
    "We appear"—
    he is very cautious—
    "therefore, to have saved nationally £64 million" — [Official Report, 14 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 329.]
    on administration.
    I should like the Public Accounts Committee and the distinguished members of it who are here today to think about that. The number of administrators in the National Health Service has actually increased. At least 70 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service is pay. How is it that £64 million has allegedly been saved in administration? It seems very odd. I suspect that what may be happening is that regions and districts are shuffling a little of what was previously regarded as administration into other budgets so that they will continue to impress the Minister. I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will

    1033
    look seriously into this matter, because it is rather difficult to reconcile an increase in the number of administrative staff with a substantial reduction in the expenditure on administration.
    What we have had from this reorganisation is an increase in costs, an increase in the number of administrative staff and a sad reduction in the number of trained medical, nursing and dental staff among those who were the most experienced in the Health Service. It seems to me, therefore, that, despite all the predictions of the Secretary of State, things have not improved quite as he intended when he asked for the removal of the tier. I hope that hon. Members on the Government Benches will bear that in mind when considering his proposition for the removal of a tier of local government.
    I challenge all hon. Members on the Government Benches to tell me when and about what the Secretary of State said this. Was he talking about the National Health Service or about local government when he said:
    "Abolishing a whole tier is bound to yield scope for substantial savings. It is not possible at this stage to make precise estimates of savings, or to say in exactly what areas they will be made; much depends on decisions to be taken by the successor authorities."
    I hope that the Minister will rise to my challenge, that other hon. Members on the Government side will wait patiently and that, when they come to vote on matters relating to local government, they will bear in mind his record on the National Health Service.
    6.36 pm
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): This is a debate following a novel procedure. Perhaps the first thing that I ought to make clear, responding to a point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins), is that we are, in the main, discussing a report of the Public Accounts Committee on premature retirement in the National Health Service which was published only last Thursday. Usually the House would have a written response to the report in the form of a Treasury minute, and I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that that will follow in this case, but what we are doing at the moment is responding as quickly as we can to the report. I am happy to do so because it is obvious that we must take on board these serious criticisms and act as quickly as we can in the light of them.
    Whilst I do not accept every criticism in the report, I accept the general drift of the criticisms that it makes and the lessons that it seeks to draw. Here we are, with the benefit of the wisdom of hindsight, looking back on a reorganisation launched in 1981. However, its course has not followed either the course that was predicted or one of which the PAC approves. I will, however, try to put one or two of the criticisms into a perspective somewhat fairer to all those involved.
    I accept that one of the main things is to see what can be done to remedy the defects and what lessons we can learn for the future—a question that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) asked. I draw the same conclusions for the future as did my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). He underlined the continuing need to improve the performance of the National Health Service. We need better and clearer management, better monitoring of management and better control over it. We need improved
    1034
    manpower planning and control. I only hope, given that this afternoon hon. Members on both sides of the House have criticised the shortcomings revealed by the report and sought improvements in performance that when we continue in our efforts to get better value for money out of the Health Service, improve management, eliminate waste and tighten control over manpower, we will continue to have such all-party support for our endeavours as we might expect from this debate.
    I should like to put one or two of the criticisms into perspective. There is no room for argument about the difference between the estimates and the final cost. It is quite obvious that the estimates first given were no more than guesstimates based on inadequate information from regional health authorities, which were not at the time in a position to give adequate information and estimates, and that they have proved to be quite wrong.
    Mr. Michael Morris rose—
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has not been here throughout the debate.
    Mr. Morris: I have.
    Mr. Clarke: I apologise to my hon. Friend. Those who have been here have taken the bulk of the time, and as no one has supported the Government or the Health Service from beginning to end, I should like to make the last 20 minutes to offer some explanation. I am sorry that I did not notice the presence of my hon. Friend earlier.
    First, the Committee has not—
    Mr. Morris: Will my right hon. and learned Friend—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.
    Mr. Clarke: It is not my hon. Friend's fault that I have even less time left in which to answer than I expected, but it would be foolish to have two and a half hours' criticism followed by no reply.
    The criticisms must be put in perspective. The Committee has not expressed any concern about the terms of the premature retirement scheme. It has not said that any individual has taken more than that to which he was entitled under the scheme. It has not said that the scheme was too generous in the terms that it offered to individuals. What it has criticised is the number that were allowed to go and the difference between the estimated and actual numbers, and I have just conceded that that is a well-founded criticism.
    I remind the House that the whole point was to forward the reorganisation of the Health Service to which the Government were committed at the time. That reorganisation has achieved benefits for the service by removing a wholly unnecessary tier of administration. I believe that the effects of that abolition of unnecessary area health authorities is, on the whole—although there have been some critics of it—widely supported by those interested in the NHS.
    Some have asked whether we can demonstrate how much we have saved by abolishing area health authorities and how far we can show that we have achieved reductions in administrative costs, in particular by simplifying the structure of the service. It is difficult to make an estimate because one is trying to compare what is now being spent

    1035
    on management and administration not with what was being spent then but with what would have been spent had matters continued unchanged.
    For that reason, my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment set a target—the House knew all about it; it was explained to hon. Members—to achieve a 10 per cent. reduction in the proportion of total health authority revenue devoted to management costs. That has happened. There has been a reduction during our period in office, from 1979 to 1980 and from 1980 to 1983, from a 5·12 per cent. to a 4·4 per cent. proportion of costs absorbed by management.
    Mr. Dobson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot prove that.
    Mr. Clarke: I accept that I cannot prove it. That is why I wrote into the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman in November, from which he quoted, "it seems likely" or words to that effect. Nevertheless, it is the best estimate that can be given. We have seen a clear change in the trend of management costs following our beginning the process of tightening up the management of the Health Service by abolishing the area tier.
    Taking that estimate, we arrive at the figure of £64 million. Had the health authorities carried on completely along the previous course which they were following, and had they had the funds devoted to them which this Government have devoted to the NHS, that is what it seems likely they would have spent.
    I accept that it is not possible to calculate an exact figure for the reduction of management costs compared with what would otherwise have happened. For all the reasons that I have given, I shall not attempt to give such a figure; I would not want to stand on it. Nevertheless, it continues to be our intention to reduce management costs in the NHS to their inescapable minimum; to improve the value for money that we get for those managements costs by introducing a proper structure of management; and to achieve real reductions in administrative and staff numbers, and I shall return to that because that is now beginning to happen.
    Problems arose when the reorganisation of 1981 was carried through in 1982–83 and 1983–84 because, as the report says, of the difficulties of delegating authority to the health authorities. The report says:
    "This case well illustrates the problems for the DHSS in reconciling accountability to Parliament with the delegation to health authorities of day-to-day management decisions, to which our predecessors referred in their 17th report for the Session 1980–81."
    That is right. It was decided by the Government in the new arrangements to delegate responsibility for this matter to regional health authorities. To be fair to all concerned, it was made clear to the House that they were doing that, and that was broadly welcomed. Indeed, I warn our present critics that the next time they accuse the Government of interfering with health authorities, either at regional or district level, when we step in with manpower targets and proposed new forms of management, I shall remind them of the criticisms aimed at delegation when it goes wrong.
    I accept that we must delegate day-to-day responsibility to those nearest to the patient, those best able to judge such matters. But we must not abdicate responsibility by leaving it entirely to health authorities. It is our duty to hold them to account and to monitor their performance, and we have made great strides in that direction.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister acknowledge that every early retirement covered by the scheme had to be approved by the permanent secretary at the DHSS? That was not delegation.
    Mr. Clarke: The PAC describes whoever was responsible as acting like a rubber stamp. That is the PAC's description and judgment—I do not necessarily agree with it—of the way in which the policy was followed through of devolving responsibility for making decisions to regions. It also enabled regions to come to such divergent opinions. It is obvious, for example, that the policy followed by Wessex does not commend itself to any hon. Member, whereas the policy followed by the northern region is perfectly acceptable. I do not think that any hon. Member has said that there should not have been any voluntary redundancies — [Interruption.] We changed the Wessex regional chairman, though not with the approval of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, because at that time he was a Labour chairman.
    I was speaking about monitoring and holding to account the authorities for what they do. That has been taken a great deal further forward since 1982 by the introduction of regional reviews. I do not have time, and this is not the occasion, to describe fully the process of regional review. It is the system which we have devised, and which is working well, to hold the regional authorities to account, with Ministers presiding personally over a review of their objectives for the coming year, and then their performance in achieving those objectives at the end of the year.
    We developed that all the way down the line—with regions holding districts to account and districts holding units to account—once we had developed the system. My right hon. Friend and I are determined to strengthen that system of accountability because we all improve our performance if we are held to account and made to justify our use of public funds, as well as having our achievement of policy objectives monitored in an organised way.
    I must however, remind members of the PAC and hon. Members generally that we should not overstate what can be achieved by accountability, nor should we start going back to the central control of all details of management, which would merely lead to our having to recruit more staff at the centre—whereas we are running down the numbers—and result in too many layers of authority.
    It never would have been possible in a change of this kind, involving management structures in 192 health districts and 14 regions, with a reorganisation that affected 40,000 posts, for the Department from the centre to have approved each and every detail of that reorganisation. Therefore, it is for the centre to exercise only a general holding to account of the regions in respect of their performance.
    I accept what has been said about our retaining the provision for premature retirement for the future. Now that we have the review system fully in operation, it will be important for us to ensure that any future premature retirements are justified and that regions are being held to account for the policy that they follow towards voluntary retirement so as to ensure that what happened in the past does not recur.
    Still putting matters in perspective, I should make an elementary point about the cost of the scheme, for almost all hon. Members have spoken as though the cost of the voluntary retirement scheme was £54 million. That is the

    1037
    total amount of money to be paid out to 2,800 individuals by way of lump sum gratuities and pension by the end of March 1984.
    The committee's report does not bring out the fact that the greater part of that expenditure represents payments arising directly from the superannuation records of the individuals concerned; in other words, money that was due to them on retirement, irrespective of the premature retirement scheme. Of the £54 million, £40 million represents lump sum payments. About £33 million of that is based on what the individuals had already earned. Only £7 million was compensation for their early retirement. In other words, £33 million would have to be paid out, in any event, in the course of the next few years if the individuals reached normal retirement age.
    Pension payments represent £14 million. Of that, almost half the sums paid out to date are earned superannuation rather than compensation. [Interruption.] Hon. Members cheerfully say that we should save local hospitals threatened by closure at a cost of millions of pounds. The fact remains that the compensation element, both in lump sums and pension, amounts to about £14 million, which gives an average cost per employee prematurely retired of £5,000, or little more than one quarter of the figure given in the report. No doubt Opposition Members would have supported an alternative approach with the retention of these staff for whom there were no jobs and the overmanning of administration to avoid the cost of redundancies or premature retirement. Had that happened, they would soon have got through more than £5,000 per head.
    Redundancy would not necessarily have reduced costs significantly. In fact, the cost would probably have been the same since all the employees over the age of 50 who were made redundant would have got the same benefits as for premature retirement. Most, if not all, authorities have redundancy agreements which provide that those over 50 must go first. For the over-50s premature retirement is in a sense a polite phrase for redundancy.
    The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East hit one bull's eye when she pointed out that one reason for opting for premature retirement was not just because it was an euphemism for redundancy but because the Department centrally paid the full cost as opposed to it coming out of the region's budget in the first year. We have now corrected that.
    It is also an irony that what the Department did to pay those costs was to take the money out of the shortfall in expenditure by health authorities. We are talking about 1982 when the strike led to underspending by authorities. Therefore, public funds suffered no loss and there was no over-expenditure on the National Health Service.
    The other worrying point is the re-employment of staff who were offered early retirement. We are not remotely defensive about this. As we have informed the House in answer to questions, 135 staff who took premature retirement were recorded on 31 October last as being re-employed, 99 of them part time, 16 whole time and 20 on an occasional consultancy basis. There is nothing illegal about it, but it is the view of Ministers that it should never have happened unless there were exceptional circumstances in each case.
    My right hon. Friend has written to the chairmen of regional health authorities asking that in each and every
    1038
    case where the person is still employed they should discover the exceptional reasons for the employment and review the position. They are reporting back to us and when we receive the results of the review we shall consider whether further guidance is needed.
    Meanwhile, we have directed the authorities that no further re-employment of people who have accepted premature retirement should take place without the matter being referred for ministerial approval. I can assure the House that that approval will be given only in exceptional circumstances.
    Mr. Deakins: Will the Minister make sure that regional health authority chairmen are aware of the strong feelings expressed not only by the Committee of Public Accounts but by the House?
    Mr. Clarke: I certainly shall. My right hon. Friend has written on two occasions to chairmen to underline the point. They will have to come to Ministers now in every case where they propose to re-employ someone who had retired prematurely. We shall bear in mind the strong views of the House.
    I have described the regional reviews that we are undertaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), who opened the debate with admirable clarity and very constructively, asked what we were doing about management costs, manpower numbers and general administrative control. Of course, again a great deal has happened since this scheme was launched. Apart from the regional reviews and the accountability process that I have described, we have also begun to introduce proper manpower planning and control to achieve our objectives.
    Everyone will recall the manpower targets exercise which was launched in the summer of 1982. I accept that it was a coincidence that it happened at a time when these problems were emerging. By March 1983 we had got up-to-date reporting of manpower numbers, we had reintroduced quarterly returns of how many people were employed, and we had established a baseline on which to base targets. In the summer of last year we set manpower targets for March 1984 and we have agreed them with the regions. I do not remember that that was greeted certainly by the new enemy of bureaucracy, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), with universal support. He was not then so keen on eliminating waste and inefficiency in the Health Service and getting better value for money. In fact, he allied himself with the ridiculous attacks on the manpower arrangements we were introducing.
    I should have thought that the report of the committee showed that, if anything, the changes were overdue and necessary. I hope that future developments on manpower planning, control and targets for next year will have the full support of the hon. Member for Oldham, West and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), but I suspect that the National Union of Public Employees will make sure that they do not adopt that stance when the time comes.
    If I may go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, the exercise is beginning to show effects. We are all in favour of better value for money in the Health Service and we all want to maximise the resources that go to patient care and the sharp end of medicine and nursing. The latest figures, for which my hon. Friend expressly asked, can be found in appendix 3 of the report of the Committee that was produced only a

    1039
    few days ago. Provisional figures are given for administrative and clerical staff employed in each region. He quoted the figures at 30 September 1983 as 104,480, using the whole-time equivalent which he dislikes and which I like to use warily but on which I do not go all the way. The figure at 31 December 1983 was 103,880. There has been a reduction of about 600 in the total number of administrative and clerical staff. That is a small reduction and I should think it is the first time within living memory that there has been a reduction in the Health Service. That is what has happened in one quarter, and it is too soon to take trends. It is the first direct result of the manpower targets we set.
    We introduced firm targets. When we received their bids, the regions were proposing to increase administrative and clerical staff, although they wanted to cut nursing and other staff. I assure the House that we shall press the need for better management. That will include proper control of management numbers and administrative and clerical costs.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister nevertheless confirm that even the figure that he says is going down is still higher than the number of administrative staff before the reorganisation that we are talking about?
    Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that.
    Therefore, we have been examining the matter continuously and we will have the full support of the hon. Member, I am sure, as we press on to reduce the number of members of the National Association of Local Government Officers employed in the administrative and clerical grades, and to reduce the management tail of the service to the size it ought to be. However, we know that if we produce manpower targets next year, the hon. Member will launch another hysterical assault, saying that this is an attack on the National Health Service and is cutting back on all that was most dear to Nye Bevan and his descendants.
    Not only are we getting numbers under control, but we also want to improve the quality of management. [Interruption.] Yes, we are. First, the manpower targets are being achieved; secondly, the regions are, if anything, aiming below the manpower targets for the totality of staff
    1040
    compared with what was set, but we shall not penalise them for that. We shall use the March 1984 figures as the basis for next year.
    Regions are finding it more and more possible to make better use of manpower and increase the money for patient care. The achievement of the targets is not reducing the quality of patient care or the quantity of service. Waiting lists are beginning to decrease again. In answer to a question this afternoon, my right hon. Friend gave the latest downward turn in waiting lists and the shorter time that patients have to wait for treatment as a result of the improved efficiency and despite the reduced manning that I have just been describing to the House. Waiting lists increase when we have strikes and industrial action. They go down when we have good management and eliminate waste and inefficiency, and they will continue to go down.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said, we have not only tighter control of management by holding it to account properly and monitoring performance, but we also need better quality of management. That is the point of the Griffiths exercise to which he referred and which we believe will eventually lead to proposals to establish a general management function. We want to have people in charge who are responsible and answerable for the overall duty of the National Health Service to achieve better value for money in its services.
    Despite all the criticisms, we are happy to answer to the Committee of Public Accounts and to the House for the strictures that have been made because they are urging us in a direction that we are already following. We are redoubling our efforts to go ahead with policies to which we are committed. We are particularly happy to answer to patients and to the general public because we are aiming at better value for money so that the standards of patient care can go on improving. I am astonished at the extent to which all-party support has been won for these efforts. I look forward to getting that all-party support as we proceed during the next few years to do something about this matter. I trust that the Committee of Public Accounts has not only held us to account but produced converted men on the Opposition Benches whose approach to the Health Service will be transformed from now on.
    The Question was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).

    CLASS IV, Vote 3
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £289,952,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1984 for expenditure by the Department of Energy on assistance to the coal industry including grants to the National Coal Board and payments to redundant workers.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): More than 25 right hon. and hon. Members have told me that they will be seeking to catch my eye. The moral is obvious — the briefer the speeches, the more right hon. and hon. Members can participate in the debate.
    7.1 pm
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Select Committee on Energy is grateful to the House for this opportunity to debate its report. It is some years since we last debated a report from my Committee, which then dealt with nuclear power. In the interim, we have produced several reports. We should like our reports debated more frequently.
    I thank the members of my Committee from both sides of the House who performed a marvellous piece of work in producing this report in just one week. I thank them for the assiduous way in which they handled the paperwork, cross-examinations, and so on. I thank also the Committee staff who performed a miracle in producing such a comprehensive report in the short time between Tuesday 28 February and Monday 5 March.
    I shall start with the highly particular and end with some rather more general observations. The former will summarise the essential conclusions of my Committee's report. I must emphasise that the Committee members were, as we invariably have been, unanimous. I hope to carry the House, if not the Government Front Bench, with me at least that far. I hasten to add that I have some sympathy with my hon. Friends who, doubtless, will echo the "expectancy and apprehension" expressed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury over the Treasury Select Committee's report on Tuesday.
    Those elements cannot be avoided. First, a Select Committee that does its work properly is bound to offer more criticism than praise, and it will do so whichever Government are in power. Secondly, the Select Committee on Energy especially, which has the somewhat daunting responsibility of monitoring the national interest throughout the major energy industries—amongst the largest in the country—is bound to find weak points in a very large system that may generally work well and achieve, on average, acceptable standards of performance. Sometimes, we must examine those standards as a whole and ask whether they are sufficiently demanding, making international comparisons where necessary. On other occasions, we must look at the attainment of the standards that the Department and the industries it monitors have set themselves.
    The Select Committee performs the role of the national shareholder who asks awkward questions at the company's annual general meeting. We have more powers of inquiry than the average shareholder, and, regrettably for Governments but fortunately for the nation, we are part of the self-discipline of democracy which others find so difficult to understand. We will not go away.
    1042
    The debate is, in some senses, a continuation of Tuesday's public expenditure debate. We have now moved on from the global to the particular. On that occasion, the Chief Secretary said:
    "we expect better cost control and greater efficiency".
    He asked
    "whether the mechanisms for control are adequate."—[Official Report, 6 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 746–50.]
    Those premises precisely underline our present inquiry, which follows from the adherence in the spring Supplementary Estimates to a figure of £290 million for the whole industry—a large sum of money launched on three sentences in the Supplementary Estimates.
    The facts are easily summarised. The sum is a quarter of that called for in the Estimates as a whole. It represents a 50 per cent. increase in the support of the National Coal Board in 1983–84. It is explained by three factors—an increase in social grants of £10 million, an increase in the redundant mineworkers repayment scheme of £88 million, and an increase in deficit grants of £192 million. Those facts raise important issues.
    The deficit grant concealed two significant developments—the overtime ban and subsidence. The former has now cost a certain £135 million and the latter a certain £162 million.
    Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Subsidence.
    Mr. Lloyd: As my hon. Friend says, "Subsidence." Both amounts are likely to increase substantially. The amount for the overtime ban is almost unquantifiable, and a forecast of a further £128 million for subsidence has been revealed.
    The House will agree that those are formidable sums. Collectively, they outweigh either the net result of the increase in electricity prices or the savings made by each of the four major Departments of State, which have just managed, with all the pain and agony of which the House is well aware, to trim their cash programmes for next year by a similar amount. It is worth noting, that, if there were no subsidy to the industry, electricity prices would increase by 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. Our inquiry disclosed also that that is merely the vortex of a large and destructive financial black hole in the economy. It is clear from the evidence — the Committee has so reported — that the Supplementary Estimate of £290 million will not be sufficient to deal with the problem.
    There are two issues. The first and most serious is the financial cost of transforming an industry so as to make it profitable when its management must operate within a series of powerful and, in the view of some hon. Members, damaging and largely unnecessary constraints. Secondly, subsidence claims appear to be virtually out of control, although we believe and hope that the National Coal Board is making resolute attempts to regain policy and financial control.
    I hope that so far I have carried the whole of my Committee with me. The major issue is of redundancies in the coalmining industry. Sometimes, I wonder whether, despite all the publicity, the country as a whole has any idea of how much it is being asked to pay to achieve the modernisation and transformation of the industry's economic prospects, which is an objective common to both sides of the House. Within the past 24 hours the announcement of the introduction of a further massive redundancy payments scheme has burst on the nation,

    1043
    which is almost immune to the shocks of public expenditure. I hope the House will allow me to examine that scheme in detail, because it reinforces my Committee's argument and shows yet again that the vast efforts to trim expenditure in one direction can easily be squandered by the stroke, if not of a pen, at least of a statutory instrument.
    This morning a draft statutory instrument dealing with redundant mineworkers was made available in the Vote Office. It deals with redundancy payment schemes and extends them to those aged 50. It exempts those affected from the exhaustion of unemployment benefit, and I understand that that is unique in this industry. It improves the lump-sum provisions available to those aged 21 to 50. The measure grants a second lump sum to those aged 50 to 60. It reimburses the National Coal Board for the cost of concessionary coal to redundant employees over 50, giving the full amount for mineworkers up to the age of 60, and thereafter half for life.
    There are other interesting provisions. The weekly sum is index-linked. The Government will pay an additional sum to compensate for a higher rent that may be charged by the NCB for a house, up to £1·50 a week. It ignores part-time or self-employed work for anyone who might be qualified up to 16 hours a week, and, a particularly generous and most interesting contribution, it completely ignores by definition—it is clearly defined—any period in which any applicant has ever been on strike. Of all, the most interesting provision is the one that is not there. There is no sign, from beginning to end of the document, of what the cost is likely to be to the Exchequer or the nation.
    To whom does it apply? There would be general agreement in the House that wherever possible the establishment should be as generous as possible to the miners on the coal face and to those associated with dangerous and difficult work. That is the mood of the nation as a whole. Does the document apply solely to those in that category? No, it includes those employed in area offices and establishments, laboratories — electricity distribution stations, estate and house maintenance depots, those who work in the granaries kept for the pit ponies and those who look after the ponies, those who work in medical centres, railway sidings, road transport depots, waterworks, workshops and training centres, and to commissionaires, typists and accountants. Here is where these major types of failure of control are to be seen.
    Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. Gentleman is giving a report to the House of the work of the Select Committee that discussed the Supplementary Estimates. The document to which he was referring was not before his Committee, and I feel that he does not have the right to speak as Chairman of the Committee on this issue.
    Mr. Lloyd: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I would not have done so had this document not precisely and unequivocally fallen in that part of our concern over the National Coal Board and public expenditure on it. It is an illustration of that, and an enlargement of our concern, and as such I felt not only entitled but obliged to call the attention of the House to it.
    I shall move away from this subject now, because I do not want to take too much of the time of the House. However, the cost of the Supplementary Estimate and all
    1044
    that is implied by it, in addition to what we have learnt overnight, is formidable. Control will be virtually open-ended. That is what lies at the heart of the public expenditure control problem. A privileged group has been created that is exempt from the restrictions applying to many other categories in our society. A large number of employees will be eligible who cannot claim the special consideration that applies to coal miners.
    I had four questions for the Minister about this, but in deference to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), I shall reserve them for another occasion. However, in a remarkable and interesting speech the other day, we heard the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, (Mr. Benn) talk about Chesterfield having mined coal for several centuries, and in this context he talked about the views and philosophy of someone whom he described as abacus man. In this interesting context, he suggested that abacus man had no heart, compassion or feeling. The right hon. Gentleman said that government by abacus man was appalling government. However, he did not say what the alternative would be.
    The alternative is government by ayatollahs, by the flight-lieutenants who govern Ghana and some of those other countries where we have seen the collapse of the value of the currency, of trade and of the whole economic system. I make this point to say that the Select Committees and those who serve on them, the process of analysis and examination, which we support, is that which is sustained by and requires the existence of, if not abacus man, his modern equivalent, computer man. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield is a former Minister of Technology and to suggest that modern man, man who calculates, measures and thinks, is not required is deplorable. We admit that even when he does calculate and measure he sometimes gets it wrong, but the alternative, the ayatollahs of this world, make the most appalling mess of our society.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. J. D. Concannon: The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd) thanked the members of the Energy Committee, who I know work very hard. When I was put on the Select Committee, I did not think that I would have to work as hard as I have done. The amount of time and effort that we have put into the reports have benefited from the hon. Gentleman's chairmanship of the Committee. I am sorry that he has spoilt that today by some of his other remarks, which were not necessary in a debate such as this. The hon. Gentleman should have stuck to the Select Committee report.
    When I first served on this Committee, I went with open eyes, feeling glad that I was on such an important Select Committee. After this latest report, I do not know whether I am lucky or plain unlucky. A great slice of it centres on my constituency. Hon. Members will have to give me a little licence if I say something about the effects of this Supplementary Estimate on my constituency. I shall try to explain it fairly as I go through the report.
    This is a Supplementary Estimate of £290 million. It is the largest spring Supplementary Estimate of any Department this year. The amazing thing is that we had hardly got through the door of the Committee when we found that the Supplementary Estimate about which we were talking bore no relation to the financing of the

    1045
    industry. The Secretary of State for Energy came along and casually said that this Estimate would shortly be followed by another—also for about £200 million.
    We are talking about £290 million, a deficit grant of £192 million, £10 million on social grant and £88 million on the redundant mineworkers' scheme. The social grant for pit closures, resettlement and transfers gets an extra £10 million. Part of the £88 million is due to the fact that the Coal Board had estimated for 10,000 redundancies in the year, but, lo and behold, it has found that there are 20,000 redundancies. That will fuel certain arguments that have raged in the industry over the past year. In effect, £90 million is to pay for the extra redundancy payments to 10,000 people whom the Coal Board had not put in for originally. We have to be careful because the industry is in a perilous position. Those who represent the area will have an interesting weekend. I had an interesting weekend last weekend as well, but I shall leave that for now.
    From what was said in the Committee about extra redundancies, pit closures, resettlements, transfers and the effects of the overtime ban, it became obvious that changes of policy that had taken place had been helped and encouraged by the Government. One has only to turn to page 97 of the report to see that. The chairman of the National Coal Board was asked:
    "Is it true to say, or is it a fair comment for me to make, that it appears that the Government has underwritten the management to continue to manage in the way that it thinks best, even if that means continuing the overtime ban indefinitely?"
    Mr. MacGregor replied, "Yes, that is correct."
    The present overtime ban and other activities in the coalfields are being underwritten by the Government in that way as part and parcel of the Supplementary Estimates. The lads in the industry are getting a bit trigger-happy and are about ready to take decisions on further action, as much out of frustration as anything. The miners have been engaged in an overtime ban for many weeks in response to threatened pit closures. They find that more pit closures have taken place and that the effect of the ban has not been felt at all outside the mining areas. They have come through the winter and nothing seems to be happening except a reduction in the Coal Board's finances, which are being underwritten by the Government. That will have a devastating effect on its finances years hence.
    A pay claim has been outstanding since November, and the board will no longer consider negotiating. This weekend 180,000 miners will be deciding what to do next. Should they escalate their present action, when no one seems to be taking any notice of it, or surrender to the butchery of their jobs? Those of us who represent mining areas will have an interesting weekend, as we shall be called upon to attend NUM meetings.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that fear plays a predominant part in the issue, especially the fear of losing jobs. Should miners fight for their jobs now, or wait and perhaps find in a few weeks that they have no jobs to fight for? It is easy for me to stand here and speak for an east midlands constituency, as we have not been so badly affected as Scotland or Wales, where many thousands of jobs have been lost, and perhaps thousands more will be lost. The miners in those areas are in a more perilous position than their colleagues in the area that I represent.
    Mr. Richard Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman properly deals with the situation in the mining industry. A sensible way might be to organise a ballot among miners to find out what they really want in such a difficult situation.
    Mr. Concannon: That is not my business. It must be decided by the National Union of Mineworkers. It is still a federation of unions and each area has its own rule book. The national rule book comes into play only when a dispute becomes a national issue. If a national strike is called, there will have to be a ballot. Each area, however, conducts its business in its own way. It is obvious that Ray Chadbum has his finger on the pulse in Nottinghanshire. He says that he will not call out the Nottinghamshire miners without a ballot, but other areas will work to their own rules.
    I hope that hon. Members will not start complaining about the way in which the NUM conducts its business. Over the years, many Conservative Members have thanked the miners for the way in which they have conducted their business. I sometimes wonder whether that was because the outcome has been what Conservative Members have wanted. We must be careful not to get involved in union matters, as the report recognises.
    The report, in page 11, says that the industry lost 32,000 jobs between March 1981 and September 1983 and that scope for further voluntary redundancies is very limited. In September 1983 there were about 190,000 miners. There are only 180,000 now. I expect that the number at the end of September 1983 was considerably reduced. Even so, if the number of miners aged 55 and over is 18,000 out of a total of 190,000, no doubt there will be even fewer middle-aged miners in future. The number may fall to as low as 11,000 or 12,000. There are only 22,000 men in the 50 to 54 age group.
    We are not talking about a bottomless purse, despite what has been said. We are reaching rock bottom for that age group. After so many voluntary redundancies we are coming to the crunch, and there must be some compulsory retirements. My union will certainly be considering that fresh problem.
    I felt it necessary to make those opening remarks about the mining industry, but I shall return to the Suplementary Estimates. The deficit and operating grant and the overtime ban are included in the Estimates, but the overtime ban takes up only £30 million to the end of December. After the end of March, that figure will be £135 million. As a Select Committee member said, based on information emanating from various quarters, it was a surprise to him. We were all told that the overtime ban was not having a positive effect. Now we find that the overtime ban will finally reduce the board's finances by £135 million, only £30 million of which is provided for in the Supplementary Estimates.
    Subsidence claims account for only £60 million in these Estimates, although we were originally told that a further £68 million was to be added. The subsidence claim will thus become £128 million, and the overtime ban will become £135 million.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend has long experience in the House and association with nationalised industries. Can he remember a previous occasion when, in the space of six months, a nationalised industry chief, such as Mr. MacGregor, has said at the

    1047
    outset of an overtime ban that he was prepared to see it last for decades because it would benefit the Coal Board financially? However, after a ban of 18 or 19 weeks, the Coal Board is at least £135 million in debt, as the Estimates show. Does my hon. Friend know of any chairman who made a monumental error, tactical blunder or whatever it was, such as that made by Mr. MacGregor, and yet survive and keep his job?
    Mr. Concannon: The Select Committee would agree with all that my hon. Friend says. That criticism was made in the report. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber at the beginning of my speech, but I read out a question put to Mr. MacGregor by the Committee. His answer shows that the Coal Board's losses have been willingly underwritten by the Government out of public expenditure.
    The Government are involved politically and financially in this dispute, because they are willing and able to underwrite the Coal Board's losses in the Supplementary Estimates. If the Estimates had been put forward without provision for the overtime ban, I am sure that the Government would have taken much stronger action against the miners.
    A figure of £68 million has been allowed for additional subsidence claims, plus another £60 million, making a total of £128 million, which must be considered against the original Estimates of £102 million for the whole of the industry. The addition of £128 million puts up the Estimates immediately to £250 million for claims from the industry as a whole. Mansfield was allocated £35 million from the original Estimates. I knew there might be changes in subsidence claims from Mansfield, but I never thought that they would be of such magnitude. Out of that £128 million, all but £15 million, which is spread over the rest of the mining areas, will go into the office at Mansfield, making a total of £148 million for the year.
    The north Nottinghamshire coalfield made a profit of £310 million from 11 pits between 1973–74 and 1982–83. One may ask how that has been achieved and what might have been done to avoid the present situation. During the weekend I had many interesting meetings and telephone calls, not to mention conversations with people from the press, television, and the rest. I wish to be as fair as I can for the benefit of my constituents and others. In December, which really amounted to no more than two weeks, 647 new claims arrived at the Mansfield office. There are already 8,000 claims outstanding. Taking the average given in the report of £8,700 per claim, those claims amount to £69,600,000. I am not absolutely sure, but I believe that most of that is covered in the second Supplementary Estimate.
    In all my time as a Member of Parliament I had no problems with the Coal Board about subsidence claims until two years ago. The performance of the NCB in my area was excellent, processing claims extremely quickly with a staff of four plus office staff. There is now a staff of 25 plus office staff to deal with subsidence claims.
    Mr. Skinner: That is the free market economy.
    Mr. Concannon: I shall come to that.
    Why is there suddenly such a surge in the number of claims and in the scrutiny that they receive from the House and the media? I cite just a few headlines. The Yorkshire Post says, "Town sinks into riches". The Daily Telegraph
    1048
    refers to a "Rich Vein for Estate Agents", and the Nottingham Evening Post writes of a "£113 Million Pit Bombshell" and of
    "Coal Board 'Millions' going on Luxuries"
    such as cruises and new cars. When the Select Committee inquiry began, we all thought that we should be considering the cost to the industry of the overtime ban and redundancies. I knew that there had been an upsurge in subsidence claims in my area, but I had no idea that it was so great. Why Mansfield?
    Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): The right hon. Gentleman is about to explain the position in Mansfield. He speaks vociferously and persuasively on behalf of his constituents, and we respect that. Does he agree, however, that the problems of subsidence are not confined to the coalfields of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire? In Staffordshire, whole villages above mine-workings are sinking.
    Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) should declare an interest. He makes money out of it.
    Mr. Heddle: Does the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) agree that the basis of compensation enshrined in the 1975 Act allows the NCB to act as judge and jury and to offer compensation on a take-it-or-leave-it basis so that his constituents and mine do not necessarily receive a fair deal?
    Mr. Concannon: I said that I wished to be as fair as possible. I shall deal with that point later in my speech. First, I wish to deal with Mansfield.
    Clearly, mining under the fields or the sea, or under the mountains of Scotland or Wales, creates very few subsidence problems. In areas such as mine, however, coal has been taken out from under built-up areas for many years. The problems are therefore much greater and the claims seem to have caught up with the NCB all at once—with considerable help from professional agents. As Mr. MacGregor rightly said in his evidence, people's hopes have been raised by the activities of agents.
    In recent times local newspapers in the area have been full of advertisements from agents touting for claims. There is one aspect that I find morally unpleasant. It is not unusual for agents to leaflet certain parts of the town touting for business. My constituents appear to have nothing to lose from putting their claims into the hands of such agents, as the agents charge on results. The going rate seems to be 10 per cent.—5 per cent. from the Coal Board and 5 per cent. from the client—falling to 2·5 per cent. on amounts above £10,000.
    I gather that all this was set in motion a few years ago when an ex-NCB employee, having left the estates department, set up as an agent-consultant in the area. There are now more than 40 such agents in Mansfield. One agent's name crops up in every discussion. I am reliably informed that this agent handles 75 per cent. of the claims and has made himself a multi-millionaire in no time at all. After all, 10 per cent. of £148 million is a great deal of money. It hurts me to think that a great deal of money is being made out of the coal industry by a person who has probably never hit a lump of coal in anger in his life.
    Mr. Tony Favell: Was that ex-NCB employee eligible for redundancy money? If so, was it paid to him?
    Mr. Concannon: This is a serious matter and I am trying to be as fair as I can. I hope that interventions will keep to the point. A great deal of money is flying about in my area, as well as a large number of stories which I hope the House will help me to kill.
    The agents take the view that they are simply catching up with the NCB on claims that should have been made over the years. Many of the claims relate to coal dug five, six or seven years ago, and new claims now coming in relate to damage caused by diggings in the past two or three years. I saw some of the claims last weekend. One was for £45,000. After investigation, it was knocked down to £24,000. To be fair, I must make it clear that the NCB investigates claims carefully. In respect of a house valued at £8,000, a claim was made for more than £14,000. The NCB paid £13,000. Those claims have been settled, but 8,000 remain remain outstanding.
    I am surprised at the amount of detail given in the claims. One contained 17 foolscap pages of details such as
    "Take down house number plates, store and later replace … £1.50.
    Take down, store and later refix pelmet 1·5 metres long … £7.50.
    Take down and renew softwood curtain rail … £3."
    The claims are very detailed and must be gone through in detail with the NCB.
    No one is saying—the NCB is not saying this and neither am I—that my constituents should not claim. If damage has been done to their property, they should certainly claim. Indeed, the agents may be right that over the years the people of Mansfield have tended to regard cracks in their ceilings, doors not fitting, and so on, as part and parcel of living in a coal mining area.
    The NCB's point of view was given by the NCB press officer to the Nottingham Evening Post, which, on 1 March 1984, reported as follows:
    "He said the NCB in Nottinghamshire did not feel it was `being taken for a ride' by claimants and surveyors.
    `We feel surveyors have got their job to do and we have got our job to do. We try to deal with all claims in a reasonable manner.
    `It is true that some of the claims are settled for cash and we are aware of the fact that some of these claims are not spent on repairs. But these claimants sign a document from us saying they have been properly compensated.'"
    That is the board's point of view. The board's view is also that, due to the surge of old claims for mining carried out in the past few years, and further expected claims, the Supplementary Estimates for this year are certainly necessary to cover them.
    The profit and loss accounts of two mines in my area —Sherwood and Mansfield—and one, Sutton, in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) will be affected. The situation is an absolute mockery. Those three pits will De charged 75 per cent. of the bill. What is ridiculous is that subsidence claims are charged against the mine from which the coal comes. As I have explained, three mines in my area which in the past nine years have made a profit of £310 million could become uneconomic overnight, not because they are not good or productive pits but purely and simply because the costs of subsidence claims will be quoted against them. In the previous year, one of those pits made a profit of £5·50 on every tonne on an output of 1 million tonnes. That profit has been turned to a loss of £4·50 a tonne in one year, perhaps because of these arrangements.
    1050
    One NCB official said to me that the effect on the three collieries this year will be horrendous, but that, once it has been paid, they will be able to carry on as if nothing had happened. Mr. MacGregor's evidence to the Select Committee was not as specific as that. He talked about new mining techniques—the sterilisation of coal and so on. There will be long-term effects on the viability of those pits and their length of reserve time. At my request, Coal Board officials visited the three collieries last weekend, or are to visit them, in order to explain the problems to the representatives. If there is to be a long-term problem—I was reliably informed that there is not—the effects on the economy of Mansfield and certain pits in my area will be disastrous.
    In its speedy investigation of the Supplementary Estimates, the Select Committee brought to light some interesting goings-on. The report, in page 22, states:
    "This may not however, be sufficient to satisfy public concern, particularly in the areas most affected, and we may therefore wish ourselves to return to this subject in the near future."
    I am sure that the NCB, the agents and my constituents would welcome the Select Committee to Mansfield. I believe that it is the only body that could now satisfy public concern.
    Various questions can be asked about who should pay, and how the money should be paid. It is nonsense to charge it to the mine from which the coal comes. That ludicrous arrangement can turn profit-making collieries into loss-making ones. Should it be the area that pays or the NCB as a whole, or should the state cover the cost? I made that suggestion and got short shrift from the Secretary of State for Energy. However, one cannot expect three small collieries to cover these costs.
    Mr. Frank Haynes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, looking back over the years, it has not been usual to pay compensation for subsidence to such an extent? The chairman of the NCB talks about mining techniques. It is not a question of the men who work in the pits. They have proved their ability by breaking output records. However, they are under pressure from management and from the Government to produce as much coal as they can. The ideas about mining techniques have come from management and the Government, and the responsibility is theirs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we go on in this way, there will be more pit closures and more people in the dole queue?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we go on in this way, very few right hon. and hon. Members will have a chance to speak.
    Mr. Concannon: I accept your strictures, but I hope that you will be lenient with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the Chairman of the Select Committee was.
    At the beginning of his evidence, the Secretary of State for Energy pointed to me and said that it was all Mansfield's fault. I have therefore found myself mixed up in these matters. I hope that I am being fair. I am trying to put everybody's point of view. I apologise for speaking at length, but Mansfield and my constituents are involved.
    There are certain matters that should be considered. Should we pay for completed work? I must be honest. One does not have to go far in Mansfield before one hears stories about what people have done with the compensation money. I do not know how large the problem is. Local councils, the gas board and the water

    1051
    board also have compensation problems. I have heard it said, on good authority, that, on odd occasions, compensation has been claimed and paid by the board and the beneficiary has then applied for a local council improvement grant and got it, the council not knowing that he had had money from the Coal Board.
    There is also the unique problem of what used to be the Duke of Portland's estate, where payment of compensation is written into the deeds. I do not know how extensive the area is, but the duke owned most of Mansfield at one time. I do not have much information about that matter. When I went home last weekend I wondered whether Mansfield would have slumped into a huge hole, but, fortunately, it is still there.
    I think that I have said enough.
    Mr. Skeet: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Concannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. At least I understand the problems, having worked in the industry.
    Mansfield is not usually in the public eye, and I do not believe that Mansfield likes to be in the public eye. I am concerned about our good name. Except for a handful of people who never touch a lump of coal in anger, no one is getting rich in Mansfield at the taxpayers' expense. I invite the Select Committee to "satisfy public concern" and "return to this subject". I ask the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the Select Committee to visit Mansfield soon to study the problem in greater depth. I hope that in that way we can do the right thing by my constituents, the industry and everybody else.
    7.47 pm
    Mr. Michael Morris: It is fortunate that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) serves on the Select Committee, as it is clear that the problem is of major significance. I want to consider the macro-financial implications of the Supplementary Estimate and to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that Mansfield is not the sole cause of the problem.
    Paragraph 12 of the report referred to the fact that no winter Supplementary Estimates were laid before the House. When the Secretary of State was questioned, he said that there was a general downward trend in the National Coal Board's deficit, that it was not until August that an upward trend appeared, and that the Department did not receive the figures for another five weeks. However, I presume that the Department had access to the chart that the Select Committee studied, which showed consistently that the estimated outturn of the whole of the board's finances was way above the original deficit grant limit. It would be to take us as a little more than credulous to suggest that we had no winter Supplementary Estimate because the Department was not clear what was happening. It is clear that the National Coal Board was clear about that, but with just three weeks of the financial year left we are asked to approve £290 million. That is extraordinary. However, that is not the end of the issue as, apart from the continuing problems of Mansfield, I should have thought that the House could have been slightly more reassured. In paragraph 15, the PAC draws attention to the fact that there is an additional £200 million. If we take out the £68 million for Mansfield, we are still left with an additional £132 million.
    As has been said, that is not all. There is one element missing in these figures—the cost of the wage offer if it
    1052
    is accepted. That will not involve an additional £5 million or £10 million. We now find that one nationalised industry which operates through one Department of State is effectively asking the House for more than £0·5 billion in Supplementary Estimates. I know that the Committee was told that the extra £200 million, plus the wage increase, will be hidden away in next summer's Estimates. Were that expenditure to come under the control of the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General, it would not be acceptable. It would not be acceptable to any other Government accounting dimension that the House oversees, nor would it be acceptable to any of the private sector companies that are audited. Such laxity in forecasting is not acceptable to the House.
    I must ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not with us—what he and his colleagues are doing to control the financial dimensions of this nationalised industry.
    When the Committee produced its report on electricity prices, I said that the 2 per cent. increase was a blatant example of the Government interfering in the pricing policy of a nationalised industry. I said that because last year the House tried to persuade the Government to extend the National Audit Act 1983 to cover the nationalised industries and we were told that if we did that we should be interfering in the nationalised industries and that we would not be able to do the job as well as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or the then Secretary of State. The laxity in financial control cannot be acceptable to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We cannot believe that he will accept an extra £0·5 billion.
    I shall rest my case there and compensate, to some extent, for the length of the previous speech. Like the House, I should like to know when the Department believes that it will get its forecasting under control. Its present forecasting makes an utter mockery of our debate earlier this week on the public expenditure White Paper. It is a mockery to have Supplementary Estimates of £290 million with another £250 million hidden under the bed. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say.
    7.54 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: This is an alarming report and it has been recognised as such in all parts of the House. It is alarming because of what it reveals about the National Coal Board's ability to project its financial circumstances and about the Department of Energy's apparent lack of grasp about what is going on in the industry. It is not surprising that right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the fact that, since the Supplementary Estimates were produced, other major factors have come along, not least the announcement of a massive expansion of the redundancy scheme. I can see that there is obviously justification for that, but it is a substantial amount of expenditure, the cost of which has not yet been set out by the NCB or the Government.
    The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) dwelt on many aspects of that problem with expertise. The more I listened to him talking about subsidence problems the more convinced I became that the expansion of Ellington colliery is the best way ahead for the NCB, as subsidence problems do not occur under the sea as they do under built-up areas such as Mansfield. We are bound to feel sorry for areas that suffer a problem such as

    1053
    Mansfield. The fact that the climate of pursuing claims has changed so dramatically in one community is bound to suggest that the same can happen in other places.
    The other key element of the report is the effects of the overtime ban. It was nonsense to claim that the ban was something that the board could live with or even benefit from. It is obvious—some attempt was made to explain it in the evidence that the chairman gave to the Energy Select Committee—that the ban will prove quite costly for the NCB, not least because it cannot continue to meet all the demands for coal, while at the same time it has surplus coal in other places. That points to a miscalculation by the NCB and shows that the overtime ban is not doing anyone any good. It is not stopping pit closures and it is not encouraging customers to take out long-term contracts for the use of coal. It is harming the NCB's finances and is an expression of real frustration among many people in the mining industry but it is difficult to see what benefit anyone, anywhere will get out of it.
    The announcements and revelations of the past few days have increased frustration in most parts of the industry and alarmed people in communities that will be badly hit. Many of them are areas where the general effects of recession and Government policy are most severe, such as the north-east of England. Collieries such as Bates in Blyth and Ashington are in areas where alternative opportunities are negligible. Hon. Members who represent County Durham can tell the same story. The major closures are projected in areas where there is no prospect of replacing jobs.
    There is, however, some prospect, at least in the Northumbrian coalfield that, by expansion in areas such as Ellington, we can create additional jobs. It is certainly possible that more investment in Ellington to take up the reserves under the sea northwards towards Amble can create new opportunities in that part of the Northumbrian coalfield. The industry must have investment to replace what is being taken away. We must have greater confidence that we are not removing capacity which will be needed quite soon. It is well within living memory that, during a Labour Government's term of office, 200 pits were closed and before very long we were importing coal because there was a clear under estimate of future demand for coal. The record of prediction by all of the energy industries is appalling, whether it be the coal industry, the nuclear industry or the electricity generation industry. All of their projections have been drastically in error, and miners are therefore bound to question the closure of pits where there are clearly mineable reserves.
    I do not believe that we shall get out of the circumstances that I have described or benefit in any way from strikes in the coalfields. At its meeting today the NUM executive stepped a little way back from the brink. It refrained from calling a national strike. It is clear, however, that we now have an atmosphere in which there will be area strikes. That will not encourage the taking out of long-term contracts for the use of coal. Moreover, it will lead to the House being presented with Supplementary Estimates not for the things that we desperately need, such as new investment and schemes to deal with the fact that miners are not where the best mineable coal is, but to deal with a mess in the NCB's finances and the types of problems to which the report refers. We should be
    1054
    strengthening the industry's prospects by electricity generation in the coalfields, and industrial action in the coalfields will harm that.
    The true motive for much of the emphasis on the nuclear alternative in energy policy is not admitted often enough. The Northumberland coalfield in my constituency is engaged in a bitter and lengthy argument about the installation of nuclear power at the Druridge bay nuclear power station. People in that area are bound to wonder what assumptions that is based on. There is no doubt that in the back of the mind of the Government and, I suspect, of previous Governments is the belief that unless we invest heavily in nuclear power, we place our energy supplies too much in the hands of the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers. That feeling should be dispelled. I fear that industrial action in the coalfields will only play into the hands of those who use that argument for an expansion of nuclear power, which the costing figures do not justify.
    We should be in the business of the promoting the use of coal. Some of the steps being encouraged by some leaders in the mining industry will have precisely the opposite effect. I do not want to see the House confronted with Supplementary Estimates to rescue the Coal Board from a financial mess. It should be considering estimates for investment in the coal industry, which will safeguard energy supplies and ensure mining in the most effective way in the best places.
    The sort of report that we have seen today and its description of the implications of the overtime ban is just the beginning of the problems that could face us, if an unrealistic attitude is taken about the future of the coal industry.
    8.2 pm
    Mr. Terence Higgins: It must seem the most natural thing in the world to hon. Members who were returned for the first time at the general election that we are debating a particular Estimate and considering whether it is justified. At school we were all taught that the power of the House of Commons stems from its control over money, which is how it exercises control over the Executive. However, with the exception of a one-day debate in the previous Parliament, after we had reformed our procedures, this is the first occasion since the Lord Chancellor's bathroom was debated last century that the House has had an opportunity of debating an individual Estimate. If there were any justification for the new procedure, it is the debate that we had earlier today and this debate. They show how necessary such debates are.
    What has been said gives grave cause for anxiety. I welcome the fact that no fewer than 25 hon. Members wished to speak. That shows the genuine demand of the House to consider individual Estimates. Two days ago we debated a White Paper covering a total cost for the current year of more than £120 billion. It is interesting that the House is now much fuller than it was when we debated the generality of public expenditure. It shows that we need to consider the matter in detail, and so far that has proved illuminating.
    The last thing I wish to do is to speak at great length, since many hon. Members wish to speak. Therefore, I shall make three points. During the debate on the public expenditure White Paper the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) accused me of making a managerial speech. I make no apology for that because

    1055
    there is a great deal to be said for looking at the actual figures. Those figures represent matters of great concern to our constituents.
    The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said how important the matter was for his constituency. It is equally important for my constituency. It is however difficult for my constituents to comprehend what is meant by £120 billion, or even £290 million, which is covered by this Estimate. If we pass the Supplementary Estimate, we will levy on every man, woman and child an additional £5 approximately, in taxation. That means £500,000 from my constituents. Therefore, it is right that we should question whether the Estimate is justified.
    My second point relates to the White Paper on public expenditure. I shall ask Ministers two specific questions and, therefore, I hope that I shall have their attention. The report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee cast considerable doubt on the figures in the White Paper, which showed for the present year a deficit on nationalised industries of £2·5 billion. The White Paper suggested that that deficit over the two to three-year planning period would come down to only £90 million. The Committee challenged that figure and cast doubts on its credibility.
    Will the Minister tell the House whether the amount of this Supplementary Estimate was included in the White Paper figures? Are the additional costs for future years, which have been so clearly revealed by the Select Committee's report and tonight's debate, also included? It is estimated that the deficit of nationalised industries at the end of the present period will be down to £90 million. If doubts are to be cast on the figures in the White Paper, as they have been this evening, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should read the report of the debate before he introduces his Budget on Tuesday. I do not want to put him off making tax reductions but he should consider the matter.
    My third point stems from what the right hon. Member for Mansfield said about his coal mining constituency. He suggested that subsidence costs should be borne by the individual pits, but I disagree with him totally. That cost should be attributed to the individual pit, taken into account in pricing policy and used when deciding whether a pit is economic. As that point was brought out clearly in the report and in tonight's debate, I hope that the Department and Mr. MacGregor in particular, and even the National Union of Mineworkers, will take that into account when considering whether a pit is justified in continuing to operate.
    The cost of keeping uneconomic pits in operation, which has gone on far too long, is a burden on the rest of the community. We need to know who is subsiding whom. My constituents are paying out more than £5 a time for the cost of providing concessionary coal to miners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Untaxed."]—untaxed, as my hon. Friends say. It is strange that my constituents, many of whom are poorer than the miners concerned, are paying to provide them with concessionary coal.
    For the first time in many years the House of Commons has an opportunity to look into these matters. There is overwhelming evidence that the cases we have debated tonight should be examined. I hope that they will receive the attention they deserve from Ministers.
    8.8 pm
    Mr. Kevin Barron: I was a member of the Select Committee on Energy and found it interesting
    1056
    to consider the Supplementary Estimate in the short time that we had to do so. It was interesting and enlightening to listen to the evidence given by the Secretary of State for Energy and the chairman of the National Coal Board. I am worried about the Estimate. I was in the industry for many years before I became a Member of Parliament, so I know about the difficulties of rationalisation in the coalfields.
    We should examine the apportionment of £290 million to the deficit grant, although it is not clearly defined. The subsidence allowance was originally estimated by the Coal Board to be £102 million for the year, but under Tonight's order the board will receive another £60 million, and a further £68 million is projected for the future. The Board has underestimated the subsidence damage compensation by more than 100 per cent. That is incredible.
    The chairman of the National Coal Board was asked whether he thought that the National Coal Board was being taken for a ride. He said that he was sure it was but that he did not know how to stop it. That was the man for whom the British taxpayer paid a £1·5 million transfer fee, and he tells us that he does not know how to stop misconduct in handling claims in the Mansfield area. If all those claims are valid because of damage by subsidence, he should not have had to answer such questions. We must get to the bottom of the problem in Mansfield, because if taxpayers' money is being paid for damage that has not occurred, someone is guilty of misconduct and should be called to order.
    The deficit grant includes £30 million towards the cost of the overtime ban. Paragraph 5 of the Select Committee report shows a table of the cost of the overtime ban. Mr. MacGregor has been telling us for a few months that the ban has caused no problems. However, the table shows that the board has lost 4·4 million tonnes of coal that could have been sold, although we have many stocks at present. The board has also lost 9·5 million tonnes of coal that could have been produced during that period. Even after the saving in wages was taken into account, the overtime ban still cost the National. Coal Board £135 million. Paragraph 15 of the Select Committee report states that another £105 million is likely to come from the summer Estimate. The total cost of the overtime ban to the British public will be £240 million.
    Who is to blame? My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that during questioning Mr. MacGregor said that he had been given, if not an open cheque book, a licence to pay for the overtime ban in the mining industry. I cannot blame one organisation or individual for the miners' overtime ban, but everyone will agree that it stems from one organisation and individual. On that basis, we must protect the British public from having to pay that £240 million.
    In The Times on 10 November 1983, Mr. MacGregor talked about the overtime ban that had then been continuing for only a few weeks, and said:
    "The overtime ban is having no effect whatsoever. We have stocks and supplies that will last until 1985."
    Only a few months later he tells us that we have lost £240 million. In a television interview on 11 November 1983, Mr. MacGregor said that there was so much surplus coal in the world that the overtime ban could last for 15 or 20 years before our coal stocks were used up.
    Those are incredible remarks from the chairman of a nationalised industry, who must have known then that the ban would cost the NCB millions of pounds, yet he and others were adamant that they could not get round a table

    1057
    and settle the dispute. This new style of management has come into the mining industry since Mr. MacGregor was appointed chairman of the board. It has altered the position of the industry extraordinarily. Since the industry was nationalised, we have never examined the concept that management is there to manage. At collieries we worked as teams and worked together on consultative committees. There has never been the dictatorial attitude that we have now. Thousands of my constituents are on strike because of the recent dictatorial attitude taken in the south Yorkshire coalfield, when some miners who had been promised, only a few months previously, that they would have five years' work at a colliery, were then told that production would cease on 6 April. They had no time to implement the colliery review procedure in the industry.
    In those circumstances, the attitude that has entered the industry since Mr. MacGregor became chairman is something that we cannot afford either in terms of running the industry or in terms of the cost of overtime bans perpetrated and carried on by the person who should be trying to get people round the table, bring peace back to the industry, and to assure people that they will have jobs in the future so that their families can live well.
    The sorry mess that has occurred since Mr. MacGregor became chairman was predicted months before he was appointed, and not by anyone from the miners' side. Sir Norman Siddall, who was chairman of the Coal Board in August of last year, said:
    "I would say that to return the industry to profitability within three years is a fairly massive task."
    Mr. MacGregor was brought into the industry to do exactly that. His predecessor knew that it would be an impossible task without creating much upheaval in the industry, but in six months we have seen the upheaval that has been created and the cost to the British public.
    Sir Norman Siddall also said, after warning Mr. MacGregor quietly that a softly, softly approach to pit closures was necessary, that he had done so himself. He said:
    "I do not think he is the sort of man that would make a facile assumption that he can import his strategy from BSC to coal mining. The situation of the two industries is entirely different."
    Sir Norman Siddall recognised the problem. He was not the president of the NUM but a man who had worked his way up from the bottom in the coal industry and who knew all about it. He knew that if the BSC measures were introduced into coal mining they would create chaos. They have created chaos, and £30 million of the money that we are discussing tonight will be used to continue the chaos created because the Government gave Mr. MacGregor a licence to continue the overtime ban for as long as he thinks necessary.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider withdrawing what he said on 28 March 1983, when he was Secretary of State for Energy, about Mr. MacGregor's appointment:
    "I am confident that securing the services of Mr. MacGregor as chairman of the National Coal Board will prove excellent value for money for the taxpayer, the industry and the nation."—[Official Report, 28 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 20.]
    The Chancellor should sit down and read that statement that he made nearly twelve months ago, and perhaps when he has thought about it he will withdraw it.
    Mr. Tony Faye11: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the coal industry was making vast
    1058
    losses long before Mr. MacGregor was appointed? Thank goodness he has been appointed, because he might bring some sense to the industry.
    Mr. Barron: If the hon. Gentleman believes that it is sensible to add another £240 million to the already terrible economic consequences of trying to get the industry back on its feet, he is welcome to do so. I do not believe that it is sensible. Ian MacGregor has played as big a part in the overtime ban and in the dictatorial attitude of the NCB than has any person who works in the industry.
    We need a new plan for coal. We need the Government—
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: We need to implement the previous one.
    Mr. Barron: Yes, but we need the Government, the unions and the National Coal Board, to sit down together again and to consider a strategy that will give people in the industry confidence that they will still have a job in six or twelve months' or even in 10 years'. Areas in which there is disagreement should be considered with a more conciliatory attitude than is shown at present. If that does not happen soon, Mr. MacGregor should be sacked as the chairman of the National Coal Board. He will be leaving the industry in one or two years' time, and he can be of no benefit to the long-term needs of British miners or the British people in their quest for coal. The Government should consider removing Ian MacGregor and replacing him with someone who will sit down with the miners and ensure that we have a mining industry on which Britain will once again rely when we get out of the recession.
    Finally, I wish to ask the Minister a question which was not asked in the Select Committee. It relates to where these deficit grants are going, and specifically to compensation for industrial deafness in the British coal mining industry. I am sure that the Minister knows that at the present time the National Coal Board has paid out about £350,000 in out-of-court settlements to people suffering from industrial deafness—about 750 miners in all. One estimate is that there could be in the region of 37,000 miners out of the total of 200,000 claiming industrial deafness compensation at the present time. This could mean an immediate payment of £60 million for that compensation, and in the next 10 years perhaps another £50 million. I therefore ask the Minister to tell us, when he is winding up the debate on these Supplementary Estimates tonight, if he knows of any provision within the deficit grant that is being put forward for compensation for industrial deafness.
    8.21 pm
    Mr. Peter Rost: The Committee has examined a huge overrun in the budget of the coal industry. The enormous support budgeted for has not proved adequate. Moreover, we are told that for the current financial year another £200 million at least of additional subsidy is likely to be required. Nobody in the House can regard that as satisfactory. The total amount of taxpayers' funds going into the coal industry in the current year, therefore, is likely to exceed £1,100 million, and that does not include capital investment. With that, it is likely to be £1·6 billion.
    We have heard about the subsidies and we know that much of the money is going to pay for redundancies and pit closures. I do not think that the Committee can be satisfied and I hope that hon. Members will not be

    1059
    satisfied, because what this investigation shows, surely, is that the huge cost of maintaining the coal industry has not resulted in that industry's putting its house in order. We have a right to demand, in the taxpayer's interest, in the national interest, that a greater effort is now made to do just that.
    The whole nation—with one or two exceptions among NUM leaders—realises that coal can no longer be immune from the facts of life as we have had to accept them in this country in recent years. The industry must now come forward urgently with a medium-term corporate strategy, as we have recommended in our report—a tight timetable, a tough timetable, which will start to take the burden off the taxpayer and put the industry's house in order.
    Secondly, it is time that the Government played a firmer role in ensuring that the timetable is achieved. Let us end the drift and the political cowardice of all Governments in recent decades, who have been afraid to face up to the coal industry. It will be painful, but other industries in both the private and the public sector have had to face this. The essential adjustment is necessary if coal and coal miners are to have any secure future. Coal has to compete in the energy market and it is time everybody realised it. Of course there is a price to pay for the strategic importance of the coal industry, the advantages of self-sufficiency in energy. Of course we need coal and shall need it even more in the future. But we do not need coal at any price. We must consider what the economy can stand, what the taxpayer can afford, the effect of high coal prices on industry and its competitiveness and on the price of electricity and the hardship that this causes to consumers as a whole.
    Coal has a prosperous future, but only if the industry accepts the realities of modernisation. There is tremendous potential in the immediate term in converting from oil to coal. There is huge potential in starting to meet the problems of fuel poverty in this country. Millions of people suffer from inadequate heating because we have not developed more efficient combined heat and power schemes in district heating, which would of course provide a market for coal. There is an export potential if we can only get the costs of the industry right, as we know can be done with the new investment balanced by closing down the old high-cost coalfields.
    Mr. Jack Thompson rose—
    Mr. Rost: I am trying to be brief so that other hon. Members can come in, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
    Unless the industry accepts that there must be a limit to what the taxpayer can be expected to provide, that the coal industry must now make an effort to put its house in order, and unless the Government take a grip and ensure that this is done, there will not be a long-term future for the coal industry. I believe that this necessity is now accepted by the Government, and I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that the Government are not best pleased with these huge overruns and will in future monitor the progress of the coal industry more effectively than in the past.
    The Government are right to give support to the modernisation programme, redundancies and closures. They are right to finance the new investment. But the two must go hand in hand. I believe that management in the
    1060
    coal industry needs a good shake-up too and I am pleased that the new chairman is to try to achieve that. Too often in my area in the east midlands, Derbyshire, I am told by miners that there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I get complaints about the ineffectiveness of the bonus scheme—it is not sharp enough and does not benefit sufficiently those who are doing the productive work. Rather, it benefits those who are not. That is a management problem that must be tackled.
    I also believe that the Government have a responsibility to sharpen up the industry and make it more efficient by ensuring that there is more competition from outside. Let us see some privatisation at the edges; let us encourage licensed opencast operators instead of trying to clobber them; let us encourage more private deep mine operations. Why should companies like BP have to mine abroad and be prohibited from doing so in this country when we could get genuine private sector investment in partnership with the nationalised industry to develop the new fields and supplement the capital that taxpayers are having to put in, which the Coal Board has failed to provide because it has not had any positive cash flow?
    Most miners understand this. They know the facts of life, especially in the area of the east midlands. Unfortunately, some of the militant NUM leaders who are leading the industry to destruction refuse to accept this. Instead of co-operating to try to make the industry more competitive, improve sales and secure the future, Arthur Scargill and one or two others are trying to wreck the industry. The huge sums that are being invested could be providing more new jobs and a future for the coal industry—but only if the hopeless, loss-making, old, dangerous and dirty pits are now closed down more speedily and the subsidies reallocated to provide a more economic industry by building on the new low-cost coalfields.
    If the president of the NUM was really concerned about defending miners' interests, instead of trying to ruin their future, he would encourage miners to leave those dirty, dangerous old pits and encourage the industry to modernise. If Arthur Scargill was really concerned he would not be trying to frog-march miners over the precipice to their own destruction, as he is doing. This will surely lead to more closures, more lost markets for coal and less investment in new mines. Nobody can benefit from the overtime ban, and certainly nobody will benefit from any strike.
    The president of the NUM, like all Marxists, is scared of democracy. That is unacceptable and shameful. He does not have the guts to call a ballot, which his members in the east midlands, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire demand. Why? Because he lost the last three ballots that he called. He prefers deliberately to cheat on the NUM rules, abuse his position and use the miners as sacrificial pawns to pursue his personal political ambitions. If he really believes that miners want to ruin their own future, why is he afraid to put his disastrous confrontation policies to the test in a proper secret ballot? He should overcome his prejudices and cowardice, call off this headlong push over the precipice and call an immediate ballot. Indeed, he is so out of touch with the aspirations of the majority of his members, who know that the industry has a future if he will only allow it, that it is time that he put his own job on the line and sought a new vote of confidence by standing for re-election.
    The disastrous leadership in the NUM has led to the present aggravation of the problems. The Government

    1061
    should support the new management to put the industry in order. The Government have a role to play, but we must ensure that we get better value for the money that taxpayers are putting in—a medium-term strategy and a tough timetable that the Government must see is met.
    I hope that we shall hear that message from the Government Front Bench tonight. The Government are right to back the industry, but only provided that we now get results. I hope, too, that the NUM leadership will realise that there is a limit to taxpayers' generosity and that politically motivated adversarial militancy will wreck the jobs in the industry, instead of securing a promising future for coal and making a contribution to that vital part of our economy. That would be a real disaster for which all miners would pay a heavy price.
    8.32 pm
    Mr. Alexander Eadie: It is rich for the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) to talk about democracy in the mining industry, when the chairman of the Conservative party is appointed, not elected.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Lloyd), who opened the debate, I take no exception to the fact that he brought in the new scheme on redundancy pay. He would expect me to say that I am glad when—in mining language — anyone who is shoved down the road is treated generously when it comes to redundancy pay. Let me point out that the average age in the mining industry is 36·7. So we are not talking about 50-year-olds—possibly they will be 30-year-olds—who will be sent down the road. Hon. Members should recognise that. May I say, in passing, that if money is to be made available, we should use it on an early retirement scheme in the mining industry. Such a scheme is long overdue, as I am sure the Minister will agree.
    I have just returned from Sheffield. We are debating this report against the background of a serious situation in the coal industry. As hon. Members may have heard in the news, Yorkshire and Scotland will be on official strike, commencing next week. I was at the meeting. I would not call myself a prophet, but I predict that many other areas will be on strike before next week is out. It has been said that there has been a violation of the rules, but it has all been done according to the rule. It was done according to rule 41. Areas are autonomous, and we have democracy in the NUM. It is for areas to decide. Under rule 41, the NUM, which is a confederation of area unions, will decide what policy to operate.
    Let no hon. Member say that the miners will be on their own in the strike that is developing. They will not. If the strike develops, the triple alliance will be triggered. Let us not imagine that we shall be able to go about our business as if nothing was happening. The situation is serious, although I do not like to have to say that. All my life I have stood for conciliation—indeed, I have been criticised for it — not confrontation. We debate this Select Committee report against the background of that serious situation.
    Mr. Favell rose—
    Mr. Eadie: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not give way.
    We are talking about the industry contracting. I am sure that the Chairman of the Select Committee and the
    1062
    Minister who will be winding up our debate will agree that this year the industry has been contracting. We have had pit closures. Twenty-three pits have closed this year, and about 21,000 men have been made redundant as a result. Hon. Gentlemen say that the industry should contract and that all dying pits should go out of existence, but I can tell them that it is happening already. The House should know what has happened this year. The House should know that 21,000 men have gone down the road. So no one should say that nothing is happening in the mining industry. The industry has, of course, been contracting.
    The report dealing with the closure programme talks of the need for the industry to contract. I hope the House will accept now that the industry has been contracting. We are in a debating chamber and we are entitled to debate the issues. If we are to talk about personalities, it is not Arthur Scargill who is on the rack, according to the Select Committee, but Mr. MacGregor. We warned the Government. If our advice had been taken, Mr. MacGregor would never have been made the chairman of the National Coal Board. Mr. MacGregor has no credibility in the report, and he has no credibility among the miners or the people of this country. It was a disastrous appointment.
    I want to develop what I said at the start of my remarks about the serious situation that faces us. Mr. MacGregor must bear a big responsibility for that situation. The style of management that he has perpetuated in the mining industry has been responsible for the overtime ban. I draw a distinction between managers and people in Hobart house, such as Mr. MacGregor, who know nothing about mining engineering. We have some of the finest engineers in the world. I object to the fact that our mining engineers are not being allowed to manage our industry because of people like MacGregor being appointed to carry out the board's policies.
    When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Committee, there was talk, as the hon. Member for Erewash will agree, about how the industry should be developed and how investment could be made in terms of the contraction of the industry. When the Secretary of State gave evidence, I noticed that there was a lot of talk about the Vale of Belvoir. One of the reasons for bringing in the Vale of Belvoir was that money and costs were being discussed. If the Committee had examined the whole issue of the Vale of Belvoir, it would have realised that the Vale of Belvoir, even before it started, was a millstone round the neck of the NCB. Rather than one pit, it should have been three pits. Since we are discussing money, millions of pounds were spent on a feasibility study of the Vale of Belvoir. If the House, in considering the report of the Committee of Public Accounts, is worried about how money is being spent, it is as well to know that, in the case of the Vale of Belvoir, instead of one pit there should have been three.
    I am bound to say—and I have said this in many other debates on the coal industry — that the Government's record in relation to new investments and new pits is not good. The Government have not sunk one new pit since 1979. They talk about sinking a pit at the Vale of Belvoir. The Secretary of State has sometimes said in the House that he was associated with Selby. He was indeed associated with Selby, yet it was a Labour Government who acted and were responsible for the Selby sinking. It is as well for the House of Commons to know these facts.

    1063
    Some comment has been made about the need to get rid of old capacity. I used always to put it another way. I said that one should talk not about closures, but about a replacement policy. The House should not be deceived into thinking that the MacGregor policy—the policy of the NCB—is to get rid of old Victorian relics.
    In Scotland, I have called for a public inquiry into the administration and management of the NCB. I have done that because there are two pits that are not Victorian relics. The first is Bogside mine. I have documentary evidence—I will give this to the Minister—that proves that the National Coal Board deliberately let the mine be flooded in order that it could be closed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has Polmaise colliery in his constituency. That is not a Victorian relic; it is a comparatively new mine. A sum of £15 million was spent on going for reserves. The colliery was not producing any coal. Under an edict from MacGregor and the area director of the NCB, based on a geological report, it was decided to close Polmaise. I can give the Minister the geological report showing that it is untrue. The £15 million spent on Polmaise is an indictment of the National Coal Board and of the Government if they allow the taxpayers' money to go down the drain, with the result that hundreds of miners in the area are out of work. To some extent, that embarrasses the local authority as well, because it sterilised the ground in the area for the development to go ahead. I know that the Minister is aware of these facts.
    I should like to say much more in the debate. In these mining debates, some of us do still have the coal dust in our lungs—
    Mr. Richard Hickmet: Rubbish. Why does the hon. Gentleman not tell us about the effect of high coal costs on the steel industry?
    Mr. Eadie: I worked for years in the industry, and I am taking no snubs from any hon. Gentleman who can make such a remark.
    I do not like having to make some of the remarks that I have made, because I believe in the greatness of our industry and of the people who work in it. Those who work in the industry are among the best people in British industry. I wonder whether we have reached the situation—I have never before seen such a volatile situation not only in Scotland, but throughout the coalfields—where conciliation has gone out of the window. Will any hon. Gentleman stand up for conciliation and consultation before the country is plunged into a national strike that will not only do the miners a great deal of harm, but injure the nation?
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.30 pm. Many hon. Members still wish to speak in the debate.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Richard Alexander: The need for the Supplementary Estimate is a symbol of the problem that faces the coal industry and those in it, the problem of uncertainty. The sum under discussion is, of course, a considerable one. It is a sum that would transform the prospects for kidney patients in the country and for hospital building, so it is an earnest of the commitment that the Government have to the coal industry. Like marriage,
    1064
    it is a commitment that ought to be entered into not lightly or inadvisedly but with full awareness of what is being done. The Estimate will uprate the redundancy support that we are giving to the coal industry, support that has been operating for some time. It complements the already high investment that has been made in the industry by successive Governments, not least the Conservative Government since 1979. Since 1974, over £7,000 million of investment has been made in the coal industry. When we hear the comments from some Opposition Members about the Conservative attitude towards the coal industry, I think that statistic could well be borne in mine. Since 1979, £2 million a day has been invested in the coal industry, so our commitment is there for all to see.
    However, it is the future that is worrying for the tax-payer and for those who work in the industry, for those who use it and for the many young men who have committed their future lives to working in the industry. It is for them that we as a Government ought to spell out our commitment to the industry and how we see the future. It is for them that I believe that "Plan for Coal 1974" ought to be bought up to date. "Plan for Coal 1974" cannot be strictly relevant in 1984. The Committee of Public Accounts asks for a medium-term strategy. I would rather see it called Plan for Coal 1984. This would spell out not only the commitment of the NCB and the Government to the industry, but also the structure of pits, the commitment of manpower and the levels of involvement by the Government to be forecast over the next 10 years.
    Miners are generally very reasonable people. If one tells them the truth, where their future will lie in the industry, I believe that they will respond. The Supplementary Estimates give the Minister the opportunity to state that commitment. There is obviously a natural anxiety about our future — politicians, opticians, solicitors and coal miners are all concerned: "Will I survive, what will my future be?" It is quite natural to ask this question.
    The very proper contraction of the coal mining industry that has taken place over the years, of which the Supplementary Estimate is a natural part, feeds this anxiety.
    The antics of Arthur Scargill stir anxiety further. If that gentleman would talk less about pits and jobs and a little more about the mining industry as a whole, we might get the more constructive dialogue for which Labour Members have been calling. People are asking the Government and the NCB to spell out for them where they stand.
    I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does see a thriving, viable future for Britain's coal industry. He should continue to spell that out and tell us what the plan for coal is over the next 10 years. Tell the industry that our pits must be profitable if they are to remain open. If they are not profitable, cheaper energy will come in and jobs will continue to be at risk.
    An article in The Mail on Sunday on 12 February said, to my astonishment and regret, that that decision may already have been taken. It said that the CEGB had decided to run down all its coal-fired power stations, to do no more maintenance on them, and that, in the words of one CEGB official,
    "Britain's coal industry had had it."
    I invite my hon. Friend to repudiate those words when he replies. I invite him to repudiate the conclusion reached by the author of the article, Mr. John Rawlings, when he says

    1065
    "The … progressive run down of the National Coal Board now seems inevitable".
    No Conservative Member is asking that we continue to subsidise unprofitable pits. No one is asking that we should not have competitive prices. No one is asking that we should not have alternative sources of fuel in Britain. But many Conservative Members as well as Labour Members are asking for a continuing commitment to an important natural resource in Britain and an indication of the likely proportion over the years of future energy from coal, from nuclear power, and from abroad.
    The threat of industrial action is incompatible with confidence in the industry. But no one wants to have foreign control over our power supplies. That would be unacceptable too. If the industry shows, not least at this time where there is anxiety in the industry and in the country, that it is willing to produce coal at a profit which people are willing to buy at home and abroad, which can be sold at home and abroad, it deserves our support. It deserves this Supplementary Estimate and I am confident that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it.
    8.53 pm
    Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) expressed concern about the coal industry, as I think have all hon. Members since the debate began. It is obviously right that there should be concern because of the large sums of money about which the House is talking—they seem likely to increase as a result of the large figures that have been talked about today—but it is a concern about the industry which does not seem to have been taken deeply enough.
    People are blaming Mr. Scargill, or others in the mining unions. Some feel that Mr. MacGregor might have played an important part, but the basic problem is that the modern mining industry in Britain is geared to meet a large part of the energy needs of Britain when it is in a healthy and economic condition. But Britain is not in a healthy and economic condition and because of that the energy industries are in difficulty. It is no good blaming the miners or their leaders for the fact that the industrial devastation which has taken place in Britain in the past three or four years has had an enormous effect upon the coal industry. My constituency has seen the most successful steel plant in the world brought to short-time working and the amount of electricity used in our special steels industry, which used to consume as much as half a dozen cities when it was working properly, has been brought down to a low level of activity.
    Mr. Hickmet rose—
    Mr. Hardy: No, I shall not give way. Let the hon. Gentleman go and look after his hotels.
    Mr. Hickmet rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Member is not giving way.
    Mr. Hardy: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman came in in a very excited state three quarters of the way through the debate, yet he expects me to restrict my remarks when I have very little time to speak about matters of enormous importance in my constituency. I shall have to curtail my remarks now because I promised to speak for less than 10 minutes.
    1066
    I have in my house a plan of what we call the Fitzwilliam pits in the western half of my constituency. They have all closed. Most of them closed 100 years ago and the last one closed in December. The 100 or so men from that pit, Elsecar, which had been carefully supported and sustained by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), who once worked there, were advised that they could transfer to Cortonwood, and they did so between October 1983 and January 1984. They were told by the area director on 1 March that Cortonwood, which produces the finest quality coal in south Yorkshire—a pit with an enormously high reputation for stability, common sense and superb industrial relations — that he expected it to cease production on 6 April. That is no way to run an industry. That is no way to reward men who have demonstrated the stability, common sense, and co-operation at all levels at the colliery that we have seen year in and year out. I know the colliery well.
    A few miles away is the Manvers colliery where my father worked and which I represented on my local authority. We are told that it must start doing well by June. Three miles away, Kilnhurst colliery has been told that it must show a marked recovery within a short time. Is it any wonder when those demands are made at a time of industrial fragility, at a time of dispute, concern and anxiety, that the situation is explosive? The situation in south Yorkshire is serious. The Minister will understand why I am going to refer to the Secretary of State. In south Yorkshire we have a particular difficulty. In 1973 the Secretary of State was one of those who called on Britain to be geared to produce over 30 million tonnes of steel. The coal industry in south Yorkshire invested heavily to ensure that it could meet the coal market for 30 million tonnes of steel production and more. Now industrial demand for metallurgical quality coal has diminished.
    The overheads on south Yorkshire pits are still very large. They cannot make a profit while they bear that burden. Now we are told that the south Yorkshire pits must cut production by half a million tonnes in the next 12 months. That merely means that the burden will be borne by a smaller volume of coal. That is the economics of madmen. Moreover it is imposed on a fragile human situation. I propose to ask the Minister—and I hope that he will consider the request very carefully—not to allow the position to deteriorate. The Secretary of State himself must intervene in the coal industry. It is obvious that Mr. MacGregor cannot command the absolute confidence of the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made this point already. The Secretary of State—
    Mr. Favell: They do not all feel that way. What about Mr. Scargill? He does not have the confidence of Members on both sides. Should he resign?
    Mr. Hardy: I wish the hon. Member would go back to his hotels, or to whichever benighted constituency has the misfortune to be his. I am making a point of real importance. I hope that I can make it without the hon. Member's infantile interventions.
    I ask the Minister to convey to the Secretary of State the urgent need for him to bring both sides of the industry together to reduce the temperature which is now rising rapidly. I shall be addressing the men of Cortonwood tomorrow night. I have remarked already on their common sense and stability, but their mood will be one which is

    1067
    developing very widely in the industry and I do not believe that it is in the national interest for that mood to develop further.
    I accept and the Minister knows that the Conservative party has few friends in south Yorkshire. However, it has a responsibility to the nation as a whole. It cannot simply serve the interests of those who may be pleased with the hon. Member for whatever constituency he represents. It must govern the country in the national interest. It must recognise that the coal industy cannot prosper unless the economy is healthy. It must recognise that constituencies such as mine can no longer face the prospect of 40 or 50 per cent. unemployment. I cannot face the thought of looking at my constituency as I now must and seeing that last year 85 per cent. of school leavers there were unable to find jobs and that next year the figure will rise to 90 per cent. and to 95 per cent. in the following year.
    What sort of society does the Minister think we ought to put up with? The Government have a responsibility to the nation and it is about time that they exercised it.
    9.1 pm
    Mr. David Ashby: We seem in this debate to have been placing a great deal of blame on Mr. Ian MacGregor, a man who has only just taken up his post as chairman of the National Coal Board. he has scarcely had a chance to get into the job, yet we are blaming him already for estimates drawn up and actions taken years before. What we are seeing today is the outcome of decisions taken some considerable time ago.
    I wonder whether some Opposition Members want a strong and viable coal industry. What do they really want out of it? If there is one person who is responsible for many of the problems besetting the coal industry today it is Mr. Scargill, the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, who has made a god out of confrontation. For an industry to ask, as the coal industry is doing today, for an extra £289 million of grant when it is already receiving £624 million per annum in grants shows that there is something gravely wrong with that industry and proves how right we are to have appointed someone of the calibre of Mr. MacGregor. It also shows the size of the task facing him. Already £11 for every man, woman and child in this country is paid in grant to the industry. Now it wants an extra £5 for every man, woman and child, an increase of almost 50 per cent. That is not the end of it; there is more to come.
    The industry asks for the money that has already been spent. It is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We are given no opportunity to suggest areas for savings. We as taxpayers are simply left with the bill and I and most other taxpayers resent that very much. If the Coal Board had any decent form of cost or management control, we would never be faced with this extra demand. The effects of the Coal Industry Act 1983, which lowered the eligibility age for redundancy from 55 to 50, could have been foreseen. The likely take-up of that redundancy scheme should not have been so underestimated. I could understand the estimate being out by 5 per cent., 10 per cent, or even 15 per cent. To be 100 per cent. out is ridiculous.
    The redundancy scheme is good for the mining industry because it gives miners redundancy terms that are superior to those available to employees in any other industry. Many of my non-miner constituents, taxpayers for many years, would love those terms. Many of them, being
    1068
    closely associated with mining — delivery contractors and others involved in the industry on the periphery, not employed by the NCB—are losing their jobs because of the decline of the industry in Leicestershire. They would love the redundancy terms that the miners have. There appears to be one law for the new super-privileged in the nationalised industries and another for the poor underprivileged and over-taxed people who create the wealth.
    Mr. Jack Thompson rose—
    Mr. Ashby: No, I will riot give way.
    Having asked for such vast sums of money and having created super terms for the industry, they are not interested in having an industry that will be efficient and slimmed down. They are demanding that any measures designed to improve the industry should not be taken. As lemmings rush over the cliff edge, so they are going on strike when the industry is on its knees. They want to take it into the grave. We find that attitude coming from their leader. Mr. Scargill believes in confrontation time and again.
    Mr. Kevin Barron rose—
    Mr. Ashby: I fear this sort of situation arising next year and the year after. Some of the NCB's capital proposals leave me in grave doubt about the future financial viability of the schemes. I urge the Minister to consider carefully the proposed investment in the Phurnacite plant on the Aberavon site. I understand that £30 million is to be invested there to produce a new smokeless fuel called Ancit. It is proposed that the site should produce 80,000 tonnes per annum. On capital expenditure alone, it will cost £96·50 per tonne. That same fuel can be bought in Germany for £99 per tonne.
    Is it right that we should make that sort of investment on that plant when it can be bought in that way? One cannot buy it in this country at that price because of the muscle of the NCB, through its subsidiary, National Smokeless Fuels, which in a most improper way stopped a constituent of mine importing that type of coal. My constituent had already purchased for £99 per tonne, had chartered a vessel and was trying to load that vessel. National Smokeless Fuels sent its people to Germany arid stopped the loading. It told my constituent that it would buy at £102 per tonne and that he would have to buy it back from it at £105. In fact, he had intended to sell the coal to retailers for £105 per tonne. But no, National Smokeless Fuels says that he must sell it at £109·30 per tonne. That is why we have high fuel costs. Coal can be bought more cheaply on the continent but people are not permitted to purchase there because of the industrial muscle of a nationalised industry that is using taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to support it.
    Mr. Hickmet: Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, Stir Walter Marshall, stated only last week that if he were free to purchase coal from overseas it would reduce his coal costs by 25 per cent. and the cost of electricity by 15 per cent.? Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous effect that would have on my constituency, which is a major steel producer?
    Mr. Ashby: Those figures are right. I have spoken to Sir Walter Marshall and I have heard those figures from his lips. I hope that Mr. MacGregor will be able, in due course, with his new management and improvements to

    1069
    the National Coal Board to produce coal at a price competitive with coal produced abroad. We must give him a chance.
    Mr. Allen McKay rose—
    Mr. Ashby: I am not giving way.
    Subsidence has been referred to in the report. The suggestion has been made that those seeking compensation for the effects of coal mining upon their property are doing something that is immoral or is certainly not in the public interest. Most people in mining and steel know that the Coal Board has detailed plans for years ahead for the areas it intends to mine. It is not difficult to superimpose those plans upon a ground plan to see what buildings the mining will affect. Where normal mining takes place under buildings, subsidence can be expected to follow. Surely that can be measured and gauged by the National Coal Board when it is working upon estimates for future years.
    If the National Coal Board thinks, as seems to be suggested, that it can dig under somebody's home or factory and that the victim of the resultant damage should agree to the repairs without professional advice, it must be out of its mind. This is a sophisticated society where people can and should get proper advice before agreeing to something as important as major repairs to their homes. What also surprises me about the report is that the National Coal Board does not seem to have heard of the escalating cost of house repairs.
    The report relates a sad tale and, as I have said, we are left with no choice. I end as I began, by repeating that we have a new chairman who has had a baptism of fire. The problems that he faces must be crystal-clear to him. The immensity of his task means that he merits the support of all hon. Members and of the miners, who must surely want a good and healthy industry.
    9.14 pm
    Mr. Jack Dormand: The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) does no service to himself or to the House by giving the impression that he intends to make a short speech, and then refusing three interventions from my hon. Friends, giving way to one of his hon. Friends, and speaking for 13 minutes. I hope that he will bear that in mind in the future. I had intended to go into detail on figures, but in view of the time I shall be brief.
    If there was every any doubt in anyone's mind about the National Coal Board's policy on the coal industry, it must now be completely dispelled. The chairman's single-minded aim can be summed up in one word—profit. My hon. Friends and I are not opposed in principle to profit, but there was never a more inappropriate time to call for profit from a publicly owned industry.
    I repeat what I and other hon. Members have said in this debate and previously: Mr. MacGregor's appointment was the Prime Minister's most provocative action since she came to power in 1979. Hon. Members have all directed their remarks to Mr. MacGregor. I hold no brief for the chairman of the National Coal Board. The initial mistake was made by the Prime Minister, who knew exactly what she was doing when the appointment was made. That act, more than any other, has brought the industry to what must be recognised as a crisis.
    1070
    This week, the chairman of the NCB said that he must cut production by 4 million tonnes to balance supply and demand. It is not possible in present circumstances to be so precise in forecasting demand, especially in relation to energy requirements. By common consent, that is notoriously difficult to do. I presume that the upturn in the economy, which the Government tell us has now begun—if I remember rightly, it has now begun seven times—will have a substantial effect on the coal industry.
    The Government's and Mr. MacGregor's policy of profit above everything else pays no heed to the devastation caused to the coal mining communities by pit closures. The chairman of the Coal Board said this week in his announcement that there will be 15,000 job losses; the president of the National Union of Mineworkers said there will be 25,000 job losses. Whatever the figure, it can be doubled, and perhaps even trebled, when applied to the tradesmen, business men, professional people and virtually everyone who lives and works in a mining community. The Government have consistently refused to recognise that fact, and publicly have never made any statement that that is the effect of pit closures.
    The Government and the NCB point to redundancy payments. Miners deserve every penny they get, because of the nature of coal mining, and I believe that a Conservative Member was good enough to say that. We are worried about retaining jobs not only for today's miners but for future generations. Today the announcement had been made about extending the redundancy scheme by reducing to 21 the age at which redundancy payment is made and paying £1,000 for each year worked in the industry. That measure has been produced like a white rabbit out of a conjuror's hat. Because of that redundancy sum of £1,000 and the same amount which, a couple of weeks ago, was paid to GCHQ employees to forgo their basic human right to belong to a trade union, the Government will be known in history as the £1,000 Government.
    It is not for me to say whether the NUM should accept that extension of the scheme. The policies of the Coal Board and the Government, which are profoundly mistaken, have given rise to these conditions. It is of the utmost significance that Mr. MacGregor is refusing to deny or confirm that there will be compulsory redundancies because of his announcement this week.
    I direct two questions to the Under-Secretary of State which could be directed also to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, whose report we are debating. They may wish to consider these points. Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that the Government are still committed to their promises in 1980 at the Venice summit of OECD leaders? The Government were vociferous then in proclaiming that there would be massive investments in and extensions of the coal industry. The main reason for the conference was to free economies from excessive dependence on oil. I believe that the Under-Secretary of State and the House will agree that there is no dispute about our limited oil reserves, so it is economic lunacy to run down our coal industry. The Government often boast about their adherence to international agreements. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give an unequivocal answer to my question.
    What will the Government do to create a common coal policy on the lines of a common agricultural policy? The CAP was created in the name of the vital need of the EEC

    1071
    to be self-sufficient in food. If the principle of self-sufficiency in agriculture is here to stay — whatever criticisms we may have, we would agree that, and I see the Under-Secretary nodding his head—why should it not be extended to other, equally vital, commodities? Self-sufficiency in coal would not only be logical but would be a cast-iron insurance against the vagaries of the various energy supplies.
    One commentator, in The Guardian, said of such a step that the effect on Britain's coal industry would be "revolutionary". What the Prime Minister and her Cabinet defend in the way of preference and the protection of farmers they condemn out of hand when it comes to the British coal industry. I shall not repeat the substantially greater subsidies measured by each tonne of coal produced in other EEC countries. However, they provide a strong case for a common coal policy. Such a policy would be good for Britain, good for Europe, and in the longer term good for all coal-producing countries.
    In my constituency, 12,000 people are employed by the NCB and many more are directly or indirectly dependent on the Coal Board. It represents more than 30 per cent. of the district work force. Our rate of unemployment is already 16·2 per cent. and I shudder to think what would happen if there were further pit closures. Such circumstances as these are repeated over other coalfields throughout the country. If the board persists in its policies, it must take full responsibility for the consequences, as must the Government. I hope that even at this late stage there will be a realisation that the butchery of the industry cannot continue and that a new start can be made to bring bout a more civilised approach to the industry's many problems.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. Spencer Batiste: I share the concern of many of those who have spoken about this large Supplementary Estimate coming in so late in the year, and I, too, congratulate the Select Committee on an informative report, which has enabled us to have this debate in what might be one of the most critical weeks in the life of the coal mining industry. I should declare an interest at once as a director of a company that undertakes advanced technology research into industries, including mining, and I have a strong constituency interest in mining in that the area headquarters for the NCB in north Yorkshire is at Allerton Bywater in my constituency and many of my constituents work in the local pits.
    Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) commented on the effect of the difference between ours and foreign coal prices on the profitability of other industries, especially those that are heavy energy users. This has been reflected by other speakers tonight. I remember similar comments being made in the 1960s and early 1970s about oil and how that illusion was shattered in the early 1970s when we discovered that what we thought was cheap and plentiful was not so. One thing that was left clear in my mind was the strong and overwhelming strategic necessity for this country to be independent, self-sufficient and diverse in energy.
    I accept that such a policy will inevitably be expensive, but I should prefer to see Government money going towards investment rather than subsidy. I should prefer to see it going to structural reform of the industry so that it may be profitable rather than in supporting the high costs
    1072
    of maintaining uneconomic pits. I welcome the Government's good record in investment, a record that stands every comparison with that of other countries in Europe, such as Germany, France and Belgium and, despite what the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said, it stands good comparison with the record of previous Labour Governments.
    I support the Government's Estimates because they will be of great importance to the mining industry and to its modernisation. In my constituency, those who work in pits that are shortly to close can look to Selby for alternative employment, but in many other areas there are no such opportunities and we must recognise, in steel as in coal, that whole communities are tied up with those industries. The substantial redundancy payments made in those industries are the seed corn that enables the local communities to establish a new industrial base and create new employment for themselves.
    There is, however, an overwhelming cause for concern arising from the £135 million cost of industrial action thus far. No bottomless purse is available. Money that is wasted on industrial action and confrontation cannot be available elsewhere.
    In the past few months I and other hon. Members in the Chamber tonight have been sitting through the Committee stage of the Trade Union Bill. The NUM was put forward as one of the best examples of democracy at work within the trade union movement. Yet, this week we hear Mr. McGahey widely quoted as saying, "We shall not be constitutionalised out of action." That is not the language of the sort of industrial democracy mentioned in Committee, and will not encourage new customers to the coal industry or help to retain existing customers
    Despite the comments made tonight by right hon. and hon. Members who clearly feel heat and passion about the subject, I hope that when they return to their constituencies and speak to their constituents they will do their best to calm the temperature in the interests of the industry as a whole so that an industry that is central to our future prosperity and is of strategic importance to the whole range of industries in this country can move forward, on the basis of confidence.
    9.27 pm
    Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I have to be brief, and I cannot accept interventions, as I have only three minutes to try to save 700 jobs.
    Polmaise colliery in my consitutuency in some ways has sparked off much of the industrial unrest, although NUM officials have played an exemplary role in keeping the men there from going on strike. The men saw the only way to defend their jobs as being to withdraw their labour and prove that they meant to hold on to them. The colliery is the life of the village. If it closes, the village will die with it. The miners realise that that cannot be exchanged for whatever redundancy money has been put on the table so far. The new offer issued today may prove overwhelmingly attractive to some of them, but only time will tell.
    There is much dispute about whether the Coal Board has a case for closing the Polmaise mine. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to the gulf between the views of the board and those of the NUM about the extent of geological faulting. It is believed that if a further £1·3 million was spent on top of the £15 million already spent out of the programme's provision of £23

    1073
    million, the miners and the board would know for sure whether the coincidence of two faults results in such bad faulting behind as to sterilise the supplies of coal that are known to exist. The board accepts that that is only a hunch.
    I ask the Minister to take the points that I have already made to Mr. MacGregor, Mr. Whelan and his colleagues and to the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is an overwhelming case for giving the Coal Board powers, permission, encouragement and whatever is necessary to spend that £1·3 million to prove the hunch. The NUM has said that it will accept the consequences if the road is driven through and the miners go through the fault to see what is behind it.
    I plead with the Minister at this point in the debate, because our mood is one of pessimism, gloom, frustration and bitterness. We look to the board for some willingness to conciliate and a prospect that it is prepared to talk about the future of the industry, not simply to offer the miners money to walk away from it. The men in my constituency want to continue working at Polmaise. It is a development mine in the process of creating 450 more jobs with a massive impact on an area of high unemployment. It would have employed 700 people within 18 months, but it will become a graveyard—as will the village of Fallin—if urgent action is not taken.
    I ask the Minister to take up the NUM offer and to spend the money required. It will take only five or six weeks to test the matters on which geologists and mining engineers cannot agree, and the men will accept the result. They may not be happy to accept the judgment if it is negative, but they will know that they have done everything possible to save their colliery. At the moment they feel that it has been stolen from them by a board acting on instructions from a Government who have neither the interests of the industry nor the interests of the country at heart.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: First, I thank the Select Committee for its report. The invaluable evidence and information forming the background to the debate has justified the nature and character of the Select Committee at work.
    Some of the severe strictures in the report have received little attention because the broader, more serious, situation facing the industry has inevitably loomed large. Nevertheless, the report contains severe strictures on the presentation and timing of the Estimates, and so on. I hope that the Government will take those strictures to heart and that the Minister will tell us how he intends to avoid putting the House in a similar position in the future.
    It was not until the Committee really got down to work that we appreciated the extraordinary developments in relation to subsidence in Mansfield and elsewhere. The rising number and cost of claims has led to a severe financial problem which could damage the prospects of a number of pits. I shall not dwell on this, as I understand that the Government have promised an urgent review of the situation. Both the Secretary of State and the chairman of the NCB have said that they will review the matter in the light of the overwhelming new evidence.
    Two major issues are reflected in the Estimates and are central to the present arguments in the coalfields—first, the cost of the overtime ban and, secondly, pit closures and
    1074
    redundancies. Again, it is to the credit of the Select Committee that for the first time the House and the country appreciate the cost of the overtime ban in this financial year. It certainly did not emerge from any of the remarks of Mr. MacGregor as NCB chairman. The cost of the overtime ban for this financial year will be £135 million. Unless something dramatic happens, the cost in the next financial year will also be very large—perhaps another £100 million.
    Whatever our stance in the current arguments, perhaps we can agree about the presentation of the NCB's case. Mr. MacGregor has gone around the country and has regularly given the press selective steers which could not have led anyone to suppose that the NCB estimated that the cost of the ban would be of such magnitude. An important case has to be answered. The NCB chairman utterly misjudged the financial consequences and implications of an extended overtime ban. Whatever our attitude to the ban, it is clear from the report that the chairman seriously miscalculated its financial implications. Interestingly enough, when the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) put the question to Mr. MacGregor, he did not answer but passed it on to the marketing director, Mr. Edwards. After weeks of travelling round the country and constantly telling the press that the ban was of marginal consequence in financial terms, he must now admit that that is far from the case—unless he regards £135 million in one financial year as marginal.
    I share the fundamental criticisms made by my hon. Friends about Mr. MacGregor's handling of the situation during the past three or four months. The reason for that mishandling is deep and fundamental. Mr. MacGregor completely misjudged the character and the mood of the miners and the mining communities. He did not fully appreciate the character and nature of those communities and miners. The impasse that the industry finds itself in is, to a significant extent, the result of Mr. MacGregor's misjudgment of those important factors.
    I say with a measure of regret that, at a time when the Government have published a new redundancy payments scheme offering new redundancy payments to miners between the ages of 21 and 50, Mr. MacGregor—who is 71 years old—should consider his position. I say that, too, in the light of the report.
    Secondly, there is the issue of pit closures and redundancies. One of the major reasons why the supplementary estimate had to be made is that the number of redundancies has increased. The estimate was of 10,000 redundancies, but there have been 20,000. Not only have there been 20,000 redundancies, but, in the past 12 months or more, 20,000 jobs have been lost in the industry. When Government Members criticise what they call the Luddite attitudes of the miners clinging to their jobs and their mines, they should remember that 20,000 jobs is equivalent to the closure of four Ravenscraigs. The Minister of State would do well to remember that. If the closure of four Ravenscraigs had been announced in the past year, there would have been uproar in the House and in the country and we would have heard the Secretary of State for Scotland promising to resign.
    It is little wonder that, when Mr. MacGregor told the NUM this week that the equivalent of four more Ravenscraigs would have to go in the next 12 months, there was an explosion of frustration and resentment.

    1075
    Another 20,000 jobs are to be lost in the British coalfields if the MacGregor plan as proposed to the NUM goes ahead unaltered.
    On top of that, there is the new redundancy scheme. We will be able to debate this scheme in more detail later on, but it must be considered, too, in the context of this debate. Paragraph 16 of the report of the Energy Committee states:
    "We were surprised that the Chairman of the NCB was unable, or unwilling, to give even a broad indication of the number of redundancies likely to be budgeted for in 1984–85".
    Now we know why. We did not know then that a completely new redundancy scheme was to be put forward, proposing that miners between the ages of 21 and 50 could collect £1,000 for every year of their service. What sort of industry are we trying to develop when we offer a 26-year-old miner with training and skill—who, with experience, could be at the peak of his productive capacity—£10,000 to walk away from the industry? Do we want an industry that is staffed by young, experienced, skilled miners? If so, does this scheme represent the right answer to the problems of redundancies and of the industry?
    My hon. Friends were right to express their suspicion that the scheme has been devised as a substitute for compulsory redundancies. The industry was facing such redundancies and the scheme is an attempt to hide the fact that there would now be a compulsory redundancy programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) spoke about Polmaise. There is an expression of frustration in the coalfields because there is a growing feeling that the take-it-or-leave-it type of management is no longer personified only by the chairman but at area level by managers who pay only lip service to the concepts of colliery review procedures. That experience has been growing, although the Secretary of State, when giving evidence to the Energy Select Committee, and the Minister, speaking in our debates, have said that the colliery review procedures are sacrosanct. We are increasingly witnessing only the bare letter of that procedure being observed. The experiences that my hon. Friends have described reflect that. That is why a combination of factors — frustration, fear and resentment—has led us into present circumstances.
    Conservative Members sometimes put about the notion that Opposition Members think that there is some joy or glory in being on strike. No Opposition Member thinks that. I certainly do not. I represent a mining constituency and, in 1972 and 1974, I saw the difficulties and hardship that face families when people go on strike. No one finds glory or joy in a strike. People go on strike only as a last resort when their patience is ended and their frustration has reached a peak. We are worried that the events of the past few days and what might happen in the next few days might mean that the conflict and the frustration grow.
    I hope that we can avert the extension of confrontation. That process must begin with the chairman and top management. The take-it-or-leave-it management that the chairman has promoted has proved costly and inappropriate for the industry of which he is chairman. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to consider what he might be able to do during the weekend. I am not suggesting that he makes a highly publicised and dramatic move. There are ways in which to start conciliation. We
    1076
    plead with the Secretary of State to examine the ways and means by which he can bring people back to the negotiating table.
    Statement after statement on radio and television today from Yorkshire and Sheffield show that the NUM wants to go back to the negotiating table to have genuine negotiations. If there cannot be such negotiations with the chairman the Secretary of State should play whatever role he thinks fit in an effort to assist. The report shows that he has a role to play. He has a function as he must pick up the tab for misjudgment and miscalculation. We plead with the Secretary of State to play an important role to ensure that rather than heading towards confrontation we head towards conciliation, thus ensuring that the industry and the men in it make the greatest possible contribution to the nation's wealth.
    9.43 pm
    The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): I have to respond to this debate in three phases. I must respond first to the Select Committee's report. I join others who have congratulated the Committee on the speedy way in which it has taken evidence and produced a report on this extremely important matter. Secondly, I must respond to as many of the points that have been raised as I can. Thirdly, I must respond to the comments about the immediate circumstances that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made in his winding-up speech.
    The Secretary of State for Energy drew attention to the supplementary provision with which the Estimate and report are concerned in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on 8 February, the day on which the Supplementary Estimates were made available to the Select Committee. He explained briefly the reasons which had led to the need for a substantial additional provision, and added that there were significant areas of uncertainty which could further increase the board's deficit. The Government might, therefore, need to consider seeking parliamentary approval for a further payment of deficit grant since, as the House is aware, the National Coal Board now has no reserves on its balance sheet. The Government took prompt action to bring Supplementary Estimates, and the reason for it, to the attention of the House by virtue of that answer. I am a little surprised that the Select Committee's report did not mention that.
    The board's deficit grant limit for 1983–84 was set in the autumn of 1982 at £409 million. That figure was derived from the board's own projections of its expected financial performance, which were examined carefully by the Goverment in setting both the board's external financial limit for 1983–84 and the upper limit to deficit grant payments. The Government, having set the hoard's financial objectives for the year, proceeded to monitor them carefully.
    My Department receives monthly reports from the board on its performance which arrive about five weeks after the end of the period to which the report relates. The discussion of the reports with the board, which is also undertaken every month, provides an opportunity for the board to give early warning of trends since the report was prepared.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) was especially critical of the speed with which the Department monitors these trends. The Select

    1077
    Committee recommended that efforts be made to ensure that the Department's information on the board's financial performance is more up to date. We shall certainly look into that, although it may not prove possible for the board to let the Department have reports more quickly than at present. It is no simple matter to bring together detailed information about a large organisation such as the NCB. I can, however, confirm that the board habitually gives the Department warning of significant new trends as they emerge during the regular discussions that we have with it, in advance of receiving the formal reports.
    In March 1983, the NCB was forecasting an outturn deficit for 1983–84 of £606 million. During the first several months of the year the forecast came down steadily, and by August the forecast deficit stood at £520 million. The evidence which the NCB gave to the Select Committee shows that, without the adverse factors which emerged during the autumn, the outturn deficit for the year would have been less than £500 million. In other words, it would have been closer to the deficit grant limit of £409 million than to the figure of £606 million which the NCB had forecast at the beginning of the year. That trend gave rise to the view, from the examination of the monitoring results, that the problem was not of the gravity that ultimately emerged.
    Why is the board's deficit for the year now expected to be higher than the £409 million originally provided? The main factors are that output has been significantly lower, by 6·6 million tonnes, which has reduced the board's net proceeds by more than £100 million. Secondly, prices in major markets have also been lower, and that has cut the board's revenue by over £150 million. Interest payments will be higher than £51 million. There were certain other provisions and the provision for subsidence, to which the Committee paid special attention in its report.
    About £60 million of that is reflected in the Estimate now before the House. Since the Estimates were laid in February, it has become clear that the board will have to provide a further £68 million on that one score alone. Other measures, also agreed to by the Government, have contributed to the board's deficit. These are measures to help the foundry coke market, import compensation paid to CEGB, and measures to promote coal stocking. The total costs of these is a further £31 million.
    Finally, the overtime ban had an adverse effect on the board's revenue accounts. About £30 million came from this and is reflected in the Supplementary Estimate. Since then, as the chairman said in evidence to the Committee, the cost of the overtime ban to the end of the financial year will be about £135 million. On the other side, there have been substantial reductions in operating costs net of social grants.
    The Select Committee felt strongly about discipline, but the discipline of the deficit grant system was not given much prominence in its report. It is a yardstick against which the Government can measure the board's performance, and against which we expect the board to plan. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be wrong for the Government to relax financial disciplines on the NCB, and my hon. Friends have said eloquently that they should be increased. It would have been wrong to seek further Estimates provision before it was clear that there was no hope of the board being able to stay within
    1078
    the deficit grant limit. That was not a decision to be taken lightly or as a snap judgment on the basis of one-monthly returns. The deficit grant is not demand-led in any sense.
    The first several months' returns from the NCB showed a fall in estimate. On 1 November we received the September return, and it appeared that the trend might have changed. The Select Committee report refers to the August return instead of the September return, which must be a mistake. In mid-November the Department received the first informal warning from the Board of the need for higher provision for subsidence damage, and only in January was the full scale of that problem apparent. Until the beginning of November it was unclear whether an overtime ban in the industry would take place, or for how long it might last. Of course, we are still uncertain as to how long the ban will continue. Considering those uncertainties, and the Government's proper reluctance to relax financial discipline on a nationalised industry, it is readily apparent that the Government were not in a position to seek a winter Supplementary Estimate to increase the deficit grant payable to the board. That was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South.
    I note what the Committee said about the possibility of a late winter Estimate. That would have been an unusual procedure for Supplementary Estimates. Moreover, I do not know whether the House would have regarded it as satisfactory if a large additional Supplementary Estimate had been made. Nevertheless, the Government lost no time in informing the House that the board's losses after deficit and social grants might be about £200 million. My right hon. Friend made that clear when he opened the Second Reading debate on the Coal Industry Bill on 15 November.
    Those matters relate to the Committee's report, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Havant wishes to have a further and fuller written comment on his report, that will follow.
    The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) mentioned subsidence. Much additional provision has now been made, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Select Committee that we are alarmed by the increase. The Select Committee questioned the chairman of the NCB on the reasons for it, and he explained that the number of claims and the size of claims had been much higher than expected. The board is investigating the circumstances, and my right hon. Friend told the Select Committee that he has asked for special inquiries to be made by my Department to examine those figures closely. The Government will ask the board for a full report. An interim report has been received, and my Department will investigate fully the reasons for this large increase in the board's call on Exchequer support, and will keep the House and the Select Committee informed of its results.
    I stress, in case there has been some confusion on this point, that the increase is in the provision for claims that will be made in the board's accounts this year. Only a small part of the provision will be spent in cash in this year. The rest will fall in future years as claims are made, examined and settled.
    Mr. Heddle: Could the reason for the increased claims be that the form of compensation is not the same as the form of compensation in any other respect? It is not on all fours with the Land Compensation Act 1973 but is an entirely voluntary code of compensation. Does my hon.

    1079
    Friend agree that the Waddilove report, which is about two months overdue, should he debated by the House so that hon. Members can consider whether the basis of compensation for coal mining subsidence can be put on a more fair and equitable footing?
    Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in these matters and I can assure him that the Waddilove committee was set up because of the Government's concern that there should be fairness in the compensation system and the legislation under which it was taken through. There are two sides to this question and both will be fully considered as and when the Waddilove report comes before the House.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised a question about whether or not the White Paper included absolute provision for subsidence. I can confirm to him that the White Paper, Cmnd. 9143, shows the National Coal Board's expected financing needs as £1·409 billion, and the NCB's estimate of the outturn at the time the PWP went to press is included in that figure. That, of course, he will recognise is after the publication of this Supplementary Estimate. So in broad terms the answer is that it has been provided for.
    Mr. Higgins: I should, of course, have referred to the external financing limits and not to a deficit. The point I was making is that the White Paper suggests that the EFLs will decline from £2·5 billion in the present year to only £90 million at the end of the planning period. What I wished to know was whether the point about subsidence but also all these other matters, including the new redundancy scheme, were included in those figures or if account has not been taken of them.
    Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend would not expect me to be able to say how that £90 million would be distributed among the various nationalised industries which are involved, but he has my assurance that the provision that will be made for the forthcoming redundancy payments scheme will be featured and will be accepted within the White Paper estimates as they come to be laid before the House.
    The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) referred particularly to the problems of Mansfield and his offer to invite the Committee to Mansfield to examine them. I hope that my hon. Friend the chairman of the Select Committee will look at that very closely, because that would be an extremely useful thing to do.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Mr. Rost) and for Newark (Mr. Alexander) asked about medium-term plans for the board. Until we get some sense of stability within the industry it will be difficult to produce a corporate plan which will be meaningful in the full sense of the word. They will remember that the planning procedure does include consultation and that Mr. MacGregor was able to consult the unions by laying before them on Tuesday of this week the full propositions for the following financial year.
    With reference to the points made about Mr. MacGregregor, the chairman of the National Coal Board. There has been very clearly a consistent suggestion by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and perhaps one or two of my hon. Friends that the chairman of the National Coal Board is in some way the architect of the misfortunes which at present prevail within the industry. The chairman of the National Coal Board is committing himself to
    1080
    ensuring that there is a viable and prosperous future for the coal industry. He believes in the coal industry and he believes that it can return to financial viability. No industry can in the long run offer secure jobs and good wages to its employees if it is dependent upon substantial support from the taxpayer. The strategy which Mr. MacGregor has applied and which the Government accept is that it is a matter for the Coal Board to ensure that this industry returns to viability. Mr. MacGregor has told them that the board is determined to create and maintain a high-volume, low-cost industry one that will have an exporting future and a production future. It is really nonsense for hon. Gentlemen to talk about the butchering of an industry when he is prepared to commit £800 million, or £2 million a day, to the industry. Nobody could say that that was the work of somebody who was about to destroy the industry.
    If the House really expects the Government to stand by and allow the coal industry to die, to kill itself or to put itself away, that is an absurdity. We are committed to ensuring that this industry is provided with substantial financial resources. For 1984–85 we envisage grants totalling £680 million. We envisage the deficit grant next year at £522 million. This will mean that on present terms, in the current year, the National Coal Board's loss before deficit will be the equivalent of £62 per week for every man employed in the industry. The Supplementary Estimates will provide deficit and social grants of £57 a week for every man employed in the industry. The investment this year accounts for £60 a week for every man employed in the industry. The Government have come before the House with these Supplementary Estimates as an indication of our commitment to ensure that the coal industry can have the financial resources to enable it to be viable. No Government in recent times have ever made such an important commitment.
    I put it to the House, and to my hon. Friends, who are rightly critical of public expenditure, that the prize of securing viability in the coal industry, of removing uneconomic pits to enable the price of coal to be competitive, is a prize which every hon. Member of this House should be committed to achieving. The work that Mr. MacGregor and his colleagues are doing in the National Coal Board is a commitment to achieving that objective — a viable coal industry with a long-term future, high employment and a high wage industry. [Interruption.] I repeat, a high-employment industry, because there will still be a 100-million tonne industry—
    Mr. Michael Cocks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has talked out his part of the business.
    It being Ten o'clock, the Question was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates).
    MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates, 1983–84, Class XI, Vote I and Class IV, Vote 3.
    Question,
    That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 he granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1984 for expenditure by the Department of Health and Social Security on the provision of services under the national health service in England, on other health and personal social services including certain services in relation to

    1081
    the United Kingdom, and on research, exports, services for the disabled and certain other services; including grants in aid and international subscriptions.
    put and agreed to.
    Question,
    That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £289,952,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1984 for expenditure by the Department of Energy on assistance to the coal industry including grants to the National Coal Board and payments to redundant workers.
    put and agreed to.

ESTIMATES, 1984–85 (NAVY), VOTE A
Question,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1985 a number not exceeding 74,500 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.
put and agreed to.

ESTIMATES, 1984–85 (ARMY), VOTE A
Question,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1985 a number not exceeding 190,500 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 5,000 for the Home Service Force, a number not exceeding 125,000 for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 86,000 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 12,600 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.
put and agreed to.

ESTIMATES, 1984–85 (AIR), VOTE A
Question,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1985 a number not exceeding 96,600 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service,
1082
a number not exceeding 11,675 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 4,550 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
put and agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1983–84
Question,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,103,954,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1984, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 244, 245 and 281.
put and agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1983–84

  ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1982–83
  Question,
  That a sum, not exceeding £135,693,449·27, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended 31st March 1983, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 250.
  put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the Resolutions come to this day relating to Supplementary Estimates, 1983–84, and Estimates, Excesses, 1982–83 by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Peter Rees, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Barney Hayhoe and Mr. Ian Stewart.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND
  Mr. John Moore accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1983 and 1984: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

Jonathan Mills
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
10.2 pm
Mr. Michael Marshall: I am especially grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to outline some of the problems and concerns that have arisen following injuries sustained by Weapons Engineering Artificer Apprentice Jonathan Mills from the efflux of a Seacat missile on board HMS Fife off the Falkland Islands on Saturday 28 January. [Interruption.] This is a matter of serious concern, and I would be grateful if I could have a period of quiet.
As I was saying, this tragic incident occurred on 28 January this year and my constituent subsequently died as a result, at the age of 18, on 1 February.
I shall not spell out the facts, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give as much background as he can to the incident. I stress that my concern for the problems that have arisen since the end of January, when these terrible injuries were sustained, takes account of the situation in which the Commander-in-chief, Fleet, has, I believe, ordered a full board of inquiry which, together with the coroner's inquest, adjourned in Oxford on 8 February, rules out any consideration of the circumstances leading to Jonathan Mill's death under the sub judice rules which govern the procedures of this House.
In any case, my comments about the events that have taken place since the end of January relate, above all, to the concerns expressed to me by Jonathan Mill's parents who, in turn, reflect the anxieties expressed to them by many other naval families. I am therefore glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will reply to this debate.
I have been able to give the Minister some advance warning of the things I intend to raise. I know there will not be time to cover all the issues that I had hoped we might discuss. However, I have previously referred to a number of the issues that I intend to raise on behalf of Jonathan Mills' parents and myself. I know that the Minister will want to take this opportunity of giving as much reassurance and comfort as he can. I recognise that detailed responsibilities for handling this matter have previously been with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces who, for obvious reasons, cannot answer the debate in this House, but with whom I had extensive correspondence, and whose offer to arrange a meeting with the family was much appreciated.
I am also aware, following approaches which have been made by members of the Mills' family or myself, of the interest shown in these matters by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has written in helpful and supportive terms to Mr. and Mrs. Mills, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. To conclude my preamble, I am especially grateful to my hon. Friends who are present here tonight to support me. If I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), it is because he is an old friend of the Mills' family, and of course he takes a deep interest in all matters affecting the welfare of the Royal Navy, as do my other hon. Friends who are present. I am also appreciative of the
1084
fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) has written to me to express his concern, following approaches made by one of his constituents, who is one of Jonathan Mills' uncles.
As to the concerns I wish to put to the Minister, I wish to specify these into three brief areas. First, there were problems of communication and travel after news was received of Jonathan Mills' severe injuries. Having visited the Falklands myself, I am aware of the major problems posed in trying to get communications between Port Stanley, the Royal Navy in Portsmouth and other parts of the United Kingdom. I also appreciate the logistical difficulties in arranging swift travel to the Falkland islands via Ascension island. The tragedy in this case was heightened by the fact that by the time Mr. and Mrs. Mills reached Port Stanley, their son had died some hours earlier. From the full account that they have given me, and in which, incidentally, they express the view that every possible kindness and consideration was shown to them from the time they left this country until the time they returned, I am nevertheless worried about the fact that their Falklands visit was arranged at their own suggestion when news of their son's medical condition proved sparse and difficult to obtain. I put it to the Minister: would it not be appropriate in such cases for an immediate option to be given to next of kin for such a visit?
Second, I have to say that. I am further concerned about what appears to be a complete lack of written formal advice to families in such cases. It was only as a result of detailed questions, which Mr. and Mrs. Mills submitted to me, and which I put to my noble Friend, that such basic information as the processes for registering death, the issue of a death certificate and arrangements with the coroner in Oxford were made known to me by a letter from my noble Friend dated 1 March, a month after the death of Jonathan Mills. It should surely be standard practice in a situation such as this for guidance notes to be made available to families at the earliest possible moment. It would also have been helpful, and, I believe, more sensitive, to have arranged for some form of personal caller to make contact with Mr. and Mrs. Mills, rather than the repeated use of the telephone by a number of differing contacts and telephone callers.
Thirdly, the period awaiting further advice has caused anxiety of an even more profound kind. I refer to the rumours which perhaps inevitably come with uncertainty, in this case to the effect that the Seacat missile and launching system, which had been in service for many years, are inherently unstable. Such suggestions were put to Mr. and Mrs. Mills, riot by those serving in the Falklands, but by other naval families including, I am bound to report, some with direct Royal Navy experience. The anxieties of Mr. and Mrs. Mills in recent weeks can well be imagined, and, while some judgment must be reserved until the naval inquiry is complete, I believe that the Minister and I have an opportunity tonight to try to set at rest the minds of not only Mr. and Mrs. Mills, but also of other naval families by a re-statement of established facts relating to this missile system.
First, I give in evidence the comment that my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne made in a letter that I received on 29 February, in which he confirmed that there was no truth in the suggestion that the Seacat was to be phased out due to instability. Secondly, during a public hearing yesterday of the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member, I was able to establish from Ministry of Defence

1085
officials and serving Royal Navy officers that there was no other examples of any serious injury or loss of life since the Seacat came into service in the early 1960s until this recent tragic event. While there is evidence of a small proportion of misfirings over the period and also of Seacat circuitry problems in service with the Brazilian and Swedish navies, about which I shall be seeking further information, the complete absence of previous serious accidents or fatalities gives considerable reassurance. I am also bound to say that public disquiet could have been allayed earlier by reference to such facts. I hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to re-emphasise the assurances and facts that I have put before the House tonight.
I cannot conclude without asking the Minister for his help in two other matters. First, I realise the constraints on my hon. Friend and myself because the naval inquiry makes the matter subjudice. However, there are certain matters of fact with which my hon. Friend could assist me. If he cannot answer tonight, perhaps he will undertake to write to me. Will my hon. Friend give as much information as he can? Am I right in assuming that there was an immediate inquiry on HMS Fife which was superseded when the full naval inquiry set up by the Commander-in-chief, Fleet, began its work? Can my hon. Friend describe the composition of that inquiry? Has it already begun its work, and what is the latest estimate of when it will complete its deliberations?
My hon. Friend will be aware that the latest estimate that my noble friend gave me in a recent letter was some time in April. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that that inquiry is of the greatest personal significance to the Mills family. He will know of press reports saying that its findings will not be made public. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the representations and questions that I have put to my noble Friend will be taken into account by the board of inquiry and by Ministers? Further, will he reiterate the assurance given by my noble Friend that he would return to the outstanding questions when
"the promised full account of the accident is provided for you and the parents"?
I am sure that my hon. Friend, and indeed all hon. Members, will wish to join with me in offering sincere condolences to Mr. and Mrs. Mills and their family. They have told me of their son's total dedication to the Royal Navy and of a remark which he made shortly before leaving for service in the South Atlantic. He said that if he had to die for his country he could think of no better way than in the service of his country in the Falklands. His death is a tragedy, but I know that his family's chief concern now is to ensure that death in this way will not be repeated and that the anguish that they have experienced will not be unnecessarily shared by other naval families.
It is in that sense that I pay tribute to the memory of Jonathan Mills and I invite my hon. Friend to reassure the House and the country with his answers tonight.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): I am sure that the House will join me in expressing to the parents of Jonathan Mills our profound sorrow at the tragic death of their son. He is reported as having been a cheerful, lively young man, and popular on board his ship HMS Fife, where he will be greatly missed. It must be a terrible shock for parents to
1086
lose such a fine young son in an accident in a faraway place, and a terrible experience to know that he was lying seriously ill in a place where they could not get quickly to his bedside.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) for securing this debate. Even in peace time there are special risks for the men of our Armed Forces, not least because they often have to work with weapons, explosives and missiles, but it is always a matter of grave concern to my Department, and, I am sure, to the House, when a service man dies or is seriously injured in an accident of this kind.
I assure the House that full inquiries into the cause of this incident are well advanced. However, the coroner for Oxfordshire has opened and adjourned an inquest and is actively investigating the circumstances and cause of this young rating's death. My Department is in close touch with the coroner and is giving him all the assistance he needs so that he may determine the issues that are his legal responsibility and enable him to complete his inquisition. I am sure that, in the circumstances, the House will appreciate why I cannot comment on matters that the coroner will wish to determine for his purposes, or anticipate the results of our own inquiries. When all these inquiries have been completed we shall make available a full summary of the events and the conclusions of our investigations.
I can, however, say something about the way in which our own investigations are being conducted. On 1 February, the day Jonathan died, the Commander-in-chief, Fleet, immediately convened a board of inquiry. Its members included as professional experts a medical officer and a weapons engineering officer. They sat on board the MV Bar Protector in San Carlos water, starting a few days after the accident, and completed their report in the middle of February.
That was only the beginning of a comprehensive investigation. The advance copy of the report has already reached the Commander-in-chief, Fleet, and the full proceedings, including transcripts of statements by all witnesses and records of the technical data, are expected to reach him in the next day or two. He will study it with his professional advisers, consulting the Commander-in-chief, Naval Home Command on matters related to casualty reporting and arrangements for the next-of-kin, and will forward his complete report and recommendations to my Department.
Technical and other professional aspects must then be studied by specialist staffs within the Ministry of Defence, and all the reports will be submitted to the Admiralty Board, including a Minister. When the Admiralty Board has formed its opinion and given the necessary directions for future action, my hon. Friend — I give him this assurance—will be given a full account of the whole affair, and an opportunity to discuss the case with the Minister concerned. Before then, if they attend the inquest, Mr. and Mrs. Mills will hear evidence for themselves. There is nothing at present to suggest that security will inhibit the account that will be presented.
I cannot say for sure how long this process will take. If all is straightforward, we should receive the commander-in-chief's report in two or three weeks. However, sometimes additional information has to be obtained and analysed. It will all be done as swiftly as possible, but we must balance speed with thoroughness, to be sure we get at the root cause of the accident.

1087
Meanwhile the chain of command will take any interim action considered necessary to reduce the risk of accidents. When the inquiries are complete and the Admiralty Board has made its judgments, any final arrangements for the future will be put in hand.
I had not intended to say anything that might touch upon the accident itself. But, lest the House should fear from what has been said that there might be some widespread defect in the Seacat system—a matter of importance to defence, and hence to the House—I ask your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be allowed to say that the Royal Navy's stability requirements for explosives and missiles are at least as stringent as those in any other navy of which we have detailed knowledge.
Any rumour that Seacat was or is about to be withdrawn from service because of instability are without foundation.
The Seacat missile system has been in service with the Royal Navy since the early 1960s. Its first sea trials were in 1962. During its long period of service, my Department has had no occasion to harbour doubts about the inherent safety of the missile. Apart from this one tragic case, there have been no accidents resulting in loss of life or serious injury.
The House will appreciate that it has not been possible to check back over every incident in over 20 years. But I can say that in the past five years there has been no history of accidental firings. It is a weapon the stability of which has given no cause for concern and is planned to stay in service until the 1990s.
The Navy has a combination of safety measures in the design of systems and of correct procedures by maintainers and operators which prevent accident in normal circumstances. When there is an immediate operational problem, some safety measures have to be modified, but special procedures are introduced to replace them. Although safety receives a very high priority in design and in procedures for maintaining and operating, such a missile system is there to be fired, and, when engagement might be needed, the firing procedures must be simple and swift.
As the House will appreciate, however remote the threat may seem, our forces in the Falklands must maintain a high state of operational readiness, with Seacat missiles normally on the launchers. Coupled with their high state of operational readiness there must be a regular routine of maintenance and checks of the weapon systems. That is the context in which the accident occurred; a force in constant readiness, constantly testing the efficiency of its weapons.
I come to the question whether the family was kept properly informed and why the parents were not flown out before Jonathan died. These matters are being studied by the Commander-in-chief, Fleet, in consultation with the Commander-in-chief, Naval Home Command. It would be premature to make judgment until we have studied their reports.
But I can give the House a summary of the system and explain the nature of the problems affecting this case. It is, of course, a fundamental principle in the Royal Navy, as with the other services, that they take particular care to look after their casualties and to keep next-of-kin fully informed when a service man is injured.
Within a short time of the accident, Jonathan was on his way by helicopter on the 150-mile journey to Stanley. The helicopter was met by an ambulance, and Jonathan was quickly in the British military hospital at Stanley. The
1088
commanding officer of HMS Fife sent one of his chief petty officers, whom he knew to be a close friend of Jonathan's parents, ashore to Stanley to be with Jonathan. The commanding officer wrote immediately to Jonathan's parents giving an account of the accident and what followed. Since then, the coroner has opened his inquest, and I cannot now comment on what was said by the commanding officer.
When naval personnel are injured overseas, a signal is sent to the appropriate shore establishment, in this case HMS Nelson at Portsmouth. Among its many duties is the sad and always difficult one of informing next-of-kin of service men killed or injured. Within a few hours of the accident, the duty staff on HMS Nelson telephoned Jonathan's family to let them know what had happened. They were in touch several times that day and kept Mr. and Mrs. Mills informed whenever they had information during the days that followed.
If a service man is seriously injured overseas he will normally be flown back to this country when his condition permits. If he is so seriously ill that he cannot be flown back, there are special arrangements under which he can be visited by next-of-kin flown out at public expense. That system is known as DILFOR.
One of the criteria laid down for DILFOR is that, for obvious reasons, there must be little possibility of the casualty being evacuated to the United Kingdom before the visitors arrive, and no likelihood that he will die before they arrive. This creates special difficulties with the Falklands because the total journey time is over 30 hours.
A decision was made to fly out Mr. and Mrs. Mills. Whether the decision should have been made earlier is a matter we will be looking into. They left Brize Norton early on 31 January and arrived at Stanley at 1500 hours local time on 1 February. Sadly, Jonathan had died while they were flying there.
Mr. and Mrs. Mills were met at Stanley by Jonathan's divisional officer and the chaplain from the ship, who accompanied them during their two-day stay in the Falklands. They were also attended by the chief petty officer who had been landed to be with Jonathan, and the commanding officer of HMS Fife released him to fly home with them to provide comfort.
On their return to England the commodore of HMS Nelson wrote personally to Mr. and Mrs. Mills and offered his assistance. He appointed an officer to assist them, particularly with any problems connected with their son's estate, and the chaplain of HMS Collingwood—where Jonathan had recently served—made several visits to the family to provide comfort and offer help. Sadly, at such a time of loss it can never be enough.
When my Department has studied the reports we shall know whether all that could reasonably be done was done. What I have said should, I believe, show the House that the Royal Navy does take trouble to look after its families. If the final analysis shows anything wrong, I believe that it will not be through failure to care.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of other detailed points. I assure him that I shall be covering in writing those that I have not been able to deal with in this short debate. I assure him once again that he will have a full account once all the inquiries have been completed and when all the reports have been studied. My Department is as concerned as he is that the possibility of accidents is reduced to a minimum. That is why we have these very thorough inquiries, and why such boards of inquiry are

1089
studied so carefully by commanders-in-chief and by my Department. However, a balance must be struck between speed in remedying any faults found, and thoroughness of study to be sure we have got at root causes.
It is a matter not of looking for scapegoats—though where there is personal responsibility that is dealt with as necessary—but of finding the root causes, remedying
1090
any faults found, and if necessary introducing new arrangements or new procedures or modifications to equipment, for the future safety and operational efficiency of the Royal Navy. I give my hon. Friend my assurance on that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o' clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members (Mileage Allowance)
  Members (Mileage Allowance)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Water Charges (Non-payment)
  Water Charges (Non-payment)
  County Courts
  County Courts
  Street Committee (Membership)
  Street Committee (Membership)
  Tenancies
  Tenancies
WALES
  Voluntary Service
  Voluntary Service
  Local Amenity Groups
  Local Amenity Groups
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  United Nations Children's Fund
  United Nations Children's Fund
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Remand Centre, Risley
  Remand Centre, Risley
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Kerb Crawlers
  Kerb Crawlers
  Prisons (Exercise Periods)
  Prisons (Exercise Periods)
  Remand Prisoners
  Remand Prisoners
  Licensing
  Licensing
  Court Fines
  Court Fines
  Sporting Events (Special Police Services)
  Sporting Events (Special Police Services)
  Foreign Visitors (Police Escorts)
  Foreign Visitors (Police Escorts)
  Shotguns
  Shotguns
  Prison Chaplains
  Prison Chaplains
  Young Offenders (Sentences)
  Young Offenders (Sentences)
  Lion Intoximeter
  Lion Intoximeter
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Waterloo Cup (Prosecutions)
  Waterloo Cup (Prosecutions)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Adult Further Education
  Adult Further Education
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
  Chief Education Officers
  Chief Education Officers
  Fabian Society (Exhibition)
  Fabian Society (Exhibition)
SCOTLAND
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
  Hamilton College of Education (Selling Fees)
  Hamilton College of Education (Selling Fees)
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Electricity Prices
  Electricity Prices
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Government Policy
  Government Policy
THE ARTS
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Export Licences
  Export Licences
NATIONAL FINANCE
  TUC (Economic Committee)
  TUC (Economic Committee)
  Corporate Liquidity
  Corporate Liquidity
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Coal Miners (Free Coal)
  Coal Miners (Free Coal)
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Beer and Wine (Duty)
  Beer and Wine (Duty)
  European Community
  European Community
  Forestry Commission Assets
  Forestry Commission Assets
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Share Deals (Stamp Duty)
  Share Deals (Stamp Duty)
  Balance of Payments (Financial Services)
  Balance of Payments (Financial Services)
  Crown Estates Office
  Crown Estates Office
  Public Spending Options
  Public Spending Options
  Manufacturing Unit Costs
  Manufacturing Unit Costs
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Tobacco Products (Taxation)
  Tobacco Products (Taxation)
  Taxation Practice
  Taxation Practice
  Economic Recovery
  Economic Recovery
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Company Profitability
  Company Profitability
  Wine and Beer Prices (Harmonisation)
  Wine and Beer Prices (Harmonisation)
  Excise Duty
  Excise Duty
  Motability (Car Tax)
  Motability (Car Tax)
  Goods (Personal Imports)
  Goods (Personal Imports)
  Duty
  Duty
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Charities (Tax Relief)
  Charities (Tax Relief)
  Inland Revenue
  Inland Revenue
EMPLOYMENT
  European Community Directives (Representations)
  European Community Directives (Representations)
  Short-time Working
  Short-time Working
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  MSC Schemes (Company Liquidations)
  MSC Schemes (Company Liquidations)
  Labour Statistics (Erdington)
  Labour Statistics (Erdington)
  Redundancies (Merseyside)
  Redundancies (Merseyside)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Republic of Ireland (Cross-border Co-operation)
  Republic of Ireland (Cross-border Co-operation)
  Maghaberry Prison
  Maghaberry Prison
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
  Student-Teacher Ratio
  Student-Teacher Ratio
  Public Buildings (Fire Precautions)
  Public Buildings (Fire Precautions)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  NHS (Manpower Restrictions)
  NHS (Manpower Restrictions)
  Overseas Visitors (Health Care)
  Overseas Visitors (Health Care)
  Doctors (Dispensing Costs)
  Doctors (Dispensing Costs)
  Nurses (Training)
  Nurses (Training)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Paediatric Registrars
  Paediatric Registrars
  Special Care Baby Units
  Special Care Baby Units
  Tobacco Products (Talks)
  Tobacco Products (Talks)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Royal Liverpool Hospital (Breast Screening)
  Royal Liverpool Hospital (Breast Screening)
  Family Incomes, Leicester
  Family Incomes, Leicester
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Cancer Rates
  Cancer Rates
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Mental Patients (Rehabilitation)
  Mental Patients (Rehabilitation)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Clatterbridge Hospital
  Clatterbridge Hospital
  Heating Additions
  Heating Additions
  NHS (Charges)
  NHS (Charges)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Girls (Pregnancies)
  Girls (Pregnancies)
  Private Health Care
  Private Health Care
  District Nurses
  District Nurses
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Junior Motor Cycle Clubs
  Junior Motor Cycle Clubs
  Housing (Southwark)
  Housing (Southwark)
  Rates (Southwark)
  Rates (Southwark)
  Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield
  Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  STOLport (Docklands)
  STOLport (Docklands)
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Council Houses (Insulation)
  Council Houses (Insulation)
  Insulation Grants
  Insulation Grants
  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Water and Sewerage Charges
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Veal
  Veal
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Leghold Traps
  Leghold Traps
  Milk
  Milk
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  British Tourist Authority
  British Tourist Authority
  Regional Development Areas (Wales)
  Regional Development Areas (Wales)
  Textile and Knitwear Industry
  Textile and Knitwear Industry
  India and Pakistan
  India and Pakistan
  Protective Suits and Gas Masks
  Protective Suits and Gas Masks
  Mail Delivery and Pilferage
  Mail Delivery and Pilferage
  Post Office Investigation Department
  Post Office Investigation Department
  Post Office (Compensation)
  Post Office (Compensation)
DEFENCE
  Arctic (Urination and Defecation)
  Arctic (Urination and Defecation)
  Jet Provost Fleet
  Jet Provost Fleet
  Air Staff Target 412
  Air Staff Target 412
  RAF (Pilot Training)
  RAF (Pilot Training)
  Nuclear Weapons Systems and Warheads
  Nuclear Weapons Systems and Warheads
  Live Animals (Experiments)
  Live Animals (Experiments)
  Kodak (Film Processing)
  Kodak (Film Processing)
  Protective Clothing
  Protective Clothing
ENERGY
  Electricity Production
  Electricity Production
  Energy Consumption
  Energy Consumption
  Coal Production
  Coal Production
  Coal Consumption
  Coal Consumption

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

Gatwick Airport: Runway Capacity
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of recent developments, they are still of the opinion that Gatwick Airport is best served by a single runway.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they do not intend to pursue the possibility of a second runway at Gatwick. We remain of the view that with the trend to larger aircraft the single runway will be able to handle 25 million passengers a year, the estimated capacity of Gatwick's two terminals, by the mid-1990s.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he has noted the leader in the 25th February issue of Flight magazine? It comments on,
"an inadequate form of Gatwick development—a single runway when, for safety alone, it should have two runways for planned traffic".
May I ask the Minister also that when the British Airports Authority is privatised and its airports are offered for sale, will a condition of the sale of Gatwick Airport be that no second runway is ever to be laid down?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, to answer first the second part of that supplementary question, if Gatwick Airport were to be privatised as the noble Baroness suggests—and I emphasise that no decision, let alone announcement, has been made on that—then all property rights, liabilities and obligations of the statutory body would be transferred to any successor company as they stand. The position would therefore be unchanged by privatisation, or whatever it was decided to do.
As to the leader article in Flight to which the noble Baroness referred, there are really no implications for safety in the question whether there is one runway or two runways. As the noble Baroness will be aware, it is in any event planned that the northern taxi-way at Gatwick should be available as a second runway for emergency purposes.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, what the Minister has said is of great interest in view of the possible privatisation of the authority. Without wishing to embarrass the Minister unduly, but just to jolt him a little, would he care to refer to the debate we
360
had in this House on 24th January 1979, when the views he himself then expressed were very differernt from those he has expressed today on this matter? As the noble Minister himself is a skilled pilot, presumably he is having to say—and I fully understand this—what the Government intend. But perhaps he will read that previous debate.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I will certainly refresh my memory of the debate to which the noble Baroness has referred, although I believe that I was speaking from the Dispatch Box opposite. Be that as it may, circumstances have changed pretty substantially in that time, and I have no doubt that a new view is now appropriate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that, as I believe has been more than once stated, the assurance given by the British Airports Authority to a local pressure group against the building of a second runway does not hind the Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think I could describe West Sussex County Council as a local pressure group. It was indeed to that body that the British Airports Authority gave that undertaking. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, the rights, liabilities and obligations of the statutory body will be transferred to any successor company when and if that should come to pass.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that when Gatwick Airport was orginally planned—and I had something to do with that planning—it was always intended that there should be two runways? Also, is he aware that the arguments against two runways have absolutely nothing to do with wide-bodied aircraft development but with the protests of the residents around Gatwick?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about the advantages or otherwise which may flow from a two-runway layout at Gatwick. For example, two runways were contructed at Heathrow, and it has not proved possible in the light of modern standards to use both those runways to the maximum extent. If a second runway were to be constructed at Gatwick, it would only increase the busy rate, as it is called, in terms of aircraft capacity by about 10 per cent.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, the Minister is not being quite frank with the House. Will he give the House the possible movements at Heathrow with two runways and the possible movements at Gatwick with one runway?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of movements at Heathrow is, I submit, another question. At any rate, and as the noble Lord will be aware, movements at Heathrow will be subject to a limit after Terminal 4 comes into use.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that people living in those parts of Surrey and Sussex which surround Gatwick are extremely pleased

361
that there is not to be a second runway there? We suffer enough from noise pollution as it is.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that at least one of my noble friends is happy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that presumably the people living under the flight-paths at Heathrow would warmly welcome the development of a second runway at Gatwick?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have endeavoured to explain that were a second runway to be built at Gatwick it would offer little in the way of relief to those who live around Heathrow.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the establishment of Gatwick Airport has provided most valuable employment in the neighbourhood? Were the airport to be allowed to expand to the size orginally planned it would also increase the useful provision of employment, which is very acceptable to many people living there.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure that the employment advantages to which my noble friend has referred are indeed welcome to people who live in the district—but the noise of the airplanes is less so.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Surrey and Sussex are not unemployment blackspots and so the argument about employment would be much more valid if applied to Newcastle, Liverpool or possibly Scunthorpe? Certainly it does not apply to Surrey or Sussex.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. The difficulty is that the passengers tend to come from the South-East and not the places to which my noble friend refers.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, will the noble Lord also remember that the people of Bishop's Stortford, Epping and Harlow will be delighted with developments at Heathrow and Gatwick?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt quite correct, but that is another question.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the maximum possible passenger capacity at Gatwick. Can he inform the House whether there is a fixed figure of annual aircraft movements at Gatwick?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the maximum annual number of passengers that we anticipate at Gatwick is, as I said in my original Answer, about 25 million when both terminals come into use. That predicates about 100,000 movements a year.

Cruise Missiles and Arms Reduction Talks
3.14 p.m.
Lord Kennet: 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 consider that it would be useful for cruise missiles (such as the Soviet sea-launched Shaddock and SSNX-21 as well as United States ground, ship and air-launched cruise missiles) to be included in START, or in INF, or in merged arms reduction talks; if so in which, and if not, why not.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, long-range nuclear-armed ground-launched cruise missiles were appropriately dealt with in the INF talks and following the SALT precedent long-range nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles on strategic heavy bombers were under discussion in START, until the Russians discontinued both negotiations in Geneva. Long-range nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles have not yet been clearly classified for the purpose of arms control negotiations; they are regarded by the United States, and it seems also by the Soviet Union, as strategic weapons.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do not the Government agree that whether or not a nuclear delivery system has been classified as this, that or the other, is not of great interest to the peoples of the world? What is of interest is that their reduction and elimination should be negotiated about. What is the justification for leaving this category of nuclear delivery system out of all negotiations in the past and, as far as we know, in the future?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the United States Administration has stated its readiness to consider all strategic nuclear weapons in the START talks. It now only remains for the Russians to return to the table.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, since the Stockholm conference there have been sporadic reports that the INF and START talks might be reconvened. There have been recent reports that the Russians might be prepared to attend the START talks as early as April. Can the noble Lords say whether the Government have any expectation that the talks might be reconvened? Indeed, are the Government pressing for the resumption of the talks?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we certainly hope that the START talks can be reconvened. The Soviet Union has not yet said it is willing to do that, but we hope it is and urge it to do so.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, in view of the warmer climate in international affairs now and the fact that there are three conferences meeting at the present time dealing with disarmament, cannot the Government take the initiative to raise proposals at these conferences, particularly in view of Soviet suggestions, for ending nuclear weapons in Europe?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that it is as easy as the noble Lord suggests. We are, of course, willing to play our part in the various discussions to which the noble Lord has referred. However, it must be recognised that the main forum for discussions of this kind must be a forum involving, above all, the two super powers.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, as we have for many years now learned to live with a mutual level of total destruction, what is there left to talk about?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, not for the first time I do not entirely follow the drift of the noble Lord's supplementary question. However, I would like to see a reduction in the level of nuclear weapons across the world provided that that can be achieved in a balanced and verifiable manner.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect what my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel said in our debate on 29th February about the importance of verification of agreements on disarmament, and so on, and the Russian reluctance ever to agree to any verification of any kind so far? Can my noble friend the Minister do his utmost to ensure that this point is brought home to the Russians as a test of their sincerity?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that verification has often proved to be the stumbling block in these negotiations. That is why we made important new verification proposals at the current talks in Geneva in connection with chemical weapons.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that verification of the cruise missile is particulary difficult and that it is, therefore, particularly necessary to bring this type of missile under some form of agreed control? What proposals does the noble Lord have for bringing the cruise missile under generally agreed and verifiable control?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to sea-launched cruise missiles—as perhaps he is, and which are the subject of this Question—I agree that they are somewhat difficult to verify. That is why we must get round the table and talk about it. We are ready to do that at the START talks.
Lord Carver: My Lords, arising from the last supplementary question, may I ask whether the noble Lord has taken note of a recent report by the British Atlantic Committee, which was approved by an ex-Chief of the Defence Staff—not myself—an ex-permanent under-secretary of the Ministry of Defence and an ex-chief scientist of the Ministry of Defence, which draws attention to the very serious matter that it is at the moment quite impossible to distinguish between a cruise missile carrying a nuclear warhead and a cruise missile carrying a conventional warhead?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is of course quite correct that there is a difficulty of that kind. There are other difficulties, too. However, I believe that these difficulties ought to be capable of solution, but we must get round the table to talk about the matter.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the House be correct to infer from the series of answers given by the noble Lord to supplementary questions that his answer to the original Question is, yes, in the Government's view
364
it would be useful if these missiles were considered in disarmament negotiations instead of being ignored?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Answer was as I gave it.

Medical Practitioners: Employment Statistics
3.20 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether statistics of the numbers of unemployed doctors are to be collected now that they do not have to register by profession at unemployment benefit offices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): No, my Lords. We see no need to collect them as we have no evidence of significant medical unemployment at the moment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that admission. Of course, the Government have no evidence because they do not collect the figures. Is the noble Lord aware that the British Medical Association feels very strongly on this subject, since doctors are no longer allowed to register as being unemployed as doctors, and wishes to know the numbers so that it may gauge the problem and be able to help its members and also the National Health Service? Therefore, is the noble Lord not prepared to consider the matter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am aware that in July 1982 the Hospital Junior Staff Committee carried out a survey, although I believe that the results were never published. The estimate of 2,000 unemployed doctors attributed to the survey was subsequently denied by the BMA. I can tell the noble Lord that I understand that a further survey is to be carried out by the BMA juniors this year.
Lord Morris: My Lords, surely it is for the unemployed doctors to inform the BMA of the fact rather than for the BMA to use the Department of Employment as an information collecting centre?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have no doubt that they do exactly that.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister care to comment on the report in The Times yesterday that the Secretary of State for Social Services is studying ways of limiting the number of doctors in general practice, including those with list sizes of between 1,700 and 2,100? Is he aware that such action was recommended, not by the Medical Practices Committee but by Binder Hamlyn, a firm of accountants? Is he further aware that not only would such action be against the interests of the public, who rely very much on their general practitioners, but it would also be much resented in the medical profession if the judgment of a statutory body were to be overruled?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, Ministers are studying the Binder Hamlyn report at the moment, and there is nothing more that I can say about it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the BMA feels strongly about this matter simply because it wishes to gauge the extent of unemployment among doctors? As the noble Lord has said, it is probably true that the majority of those involved are junior doctors, but it does not mean to say that because they are junior doctors it does not matter. In fact, I am reliably informed that the problem of unemployment goes right the way up, and even some consultants are unemployed. Should there not be sensible co-operation between either the BMA and the DHSS or the BMA and the Department of Employment? The sole purpose of asking this Question is in the hope of getting sensible co-operation between the Government and the BMA.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is of course sensible discussion between the BMA and the department. In the department we already collect a large range of statistics relevant to the planning and control of medical manpower, and in particular to help in projecting the supply of and demand for doctors. We are reviewing the entire range of information collected; but at present, as I have said, we see no need to collect additional statistics.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for saying that Ministers are considering the recommendations of the Binder Hamlyn report, but can he give the House any indication at all as to when decisions will be taken and, if so, whether any Statement will come before your Lordships' House? It would be a matter of very great concern if the Government were to limit the growth of the general practitioner service.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not able to give the noble Lord any indication of timescale. As for a Statement, that is of course a matter for my right honourable friend and the usual channels.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I must press the point. Is the noble Lord aware that we are not asking for something new but simply, on behalf of the BMA, that the practice which existed for many years and which was very useful should now be reinstated in the interests of the Government, of doctors and, generally, of our National Health Service?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I understand it the statistics, and the split among the various groups that might be unemployed, are no longer collected in the way that they were. This, of course, is a matter which more directly affects my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but nevertheless, as I said, the DHSS is involved in it. I am sure that my right honourable friend will note the noble Lord's comments, but I very much doubt whether anything can be done about the matter.

Recreational Facilities: Extension of Use
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in persuading public and private owners of recreational facilities to share them with those in need.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government are anxious to ensure that all sports facilities in both the public and private sectors are more widely used. To this end we have approached the chairmen of all the nationalised industries, chief constables, chief fire officers and over 100 top private sector employers. The response has been very encouraging and we are now taking the initiative forward at the local level. At the same time my honourable friend the Minister for Sport has been considering ways in which shared use of school and other community facilities can be extended.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend the Minister most sincerely for that encouraging and helpful reply? I know that the Minister in another place has been actively engaged on this subject since last July. I am very pleased, as I am sure is the whole House, to hear that there has been such an encouraging response.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. She is quite right: my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is extremely active in these matters.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the Minister recall that recommendations in the sense of the noble Baroness's Question have been the subject of many reports over many years, at least as far back as the report of the noble Countess, Lady Albemarle, in 1970? Does he agree that over the past 15 years or so the need has grown very greatly? I feel sure that I am not alone in joining the noble Baroness in expressing great pleasure at what the Minister has said.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again I am most grateful to the noble Lord. We are slowly winning through, but it is a slow process of encouragement. I think that this is the right way to pursue this activity.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on an attack on a British vessel at Bandar Khomeini.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Housing and Building Control Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period for dinner and that during this adjournment the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1984 and consideration of a Commons amendment to the Merchant Shipping Bill will be taken.

Travel Concessions for the Unemployed Bill [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy rose to move, That the proceedings of 10th February last be vacated.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill received its Third Reading the usual privilege amendment before the Bill was sent to the Commons was omitted. Such an amendment is necessary because of the financial implications of the Bill. The purpose of this Motion is to enable the error to be corrected by giving the Bill another Third Reading and including the privilege amendment before the Bill is finally sent to the Commons. I beg to move.
Moved, That the proceedings of 10th February last be vacated.—(Lord Molly.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Pensions Commutation Bill
3.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this minor measure is to modernise the arrangements established by the Pension Commutation Acts of 1871 and 1882, for commuting certain pensions into lump-sum payments. Dissolving the Pensions Commutation Board is expected to lead to a substantial reduction in the administrative costs of providing the commutation service.
The board was originally established by Act of Parliament in 1869. It is composed entirely of officials, the chairman being the director of the national investment and loans office in his capacity as comptroller-general of the National Debt Office. Other members are appointed from the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and Social Security, and the Treasury. The right to apply to the Pensions Commutation Board for commutation of part of a pension is conferred by various Acts of Parliament. At present almost all applications come from retired officers of the Armed Forces, although certain civilians in receipt of pensions awarded for abolition of office before the implementation of the 1972 Superannuation Act are also entitled to apply. At present the board is dealing with over a thousand applications a year, involving lump sum payments totalling about £20 million a year.
At the time the board was established, commutation decisions were much more difficult, and potentially more controversial than they are now. That no doubt was why elaborate control procedures were established. However, in recent years, when we have a mass of published information about the likely effects on life expectancy of various medical conditions, much of the work of the board has become routine. Commutation decisions are taken in accordance with tables drawn up by the Government actuary. Most applicants receive the full amount unless medical evidence suggests otherwise.
368
In recent years the board has become something of an historical curiosity. It is insulated from the main pensions commutation work of the Ministry of Defence, and the national investment and loans office, with which it is associated, has no other pension or commutation functions. Nevertheless, the board has to meet every six weeks or so. As a result of changes in pension arrangements for the armed forces introduced in 1978, the Board's work will eventually come to an end, but there is expected to be a substantial body of commutation work each year until the end of the century and beyond.
The main effect of this Bill would be to dissolve the Pensions Commutation Board and provide that, in future, the commutation of pensions will be exercisable by the Secretary of State, or, if the Treasury so directs, by another Minister of the Crown or other authority. In practice, this will be the Secretary of State for Defence. The commutation work on officers' pensions will be done as normal departmental business by the division of the Ministry of Defence which deals with other pensions matters.
The Bill is confined entirely to changing administrative procedures. It does not affect in any way the rights of any person who is eligible to be a potential applicant, nor does it affect the amount of money which he is likely to receive. Applicants for commutation are charged a fee which is related to the costs of providing the service. By making the changes proposed in the Bill, we can reduce the administrative costs, and this will be of benefit to applicants. The Officers' Pension Society has been consulted and has raised no objection.
Under the provisions of the 1871 Act, commutation awards are paid out of funds administered at present by the national investment and loans office, and are reimbursed by annuity payments from the votes upon which the respective pensions were charged. To change these provisions could affect the way in which the defence budget is at present controlled, and the Bill leaves them in place. However, it also provides for the financing of commutation awards direct from Votes, and for the early discharge of annuities, thus giving a greater measure of flexibility.
The Bill also provides for the continuing in force of the existing regulations which are concerned with fees and with the commutation tables. This is a very small measure; but I hope your Lordships, will agree that it is a useful one which will secure a worthwhile reduction in costs and greater efficiency. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to welcome this Bill on behalf of the Opposition. It seems, if I may say so to the Minister and to your Lordships, a sensible if modest reform of an Act of 1871. The Minister referred to the situation as being a sort of historical curiosity. I suppose if we were to dispose of all historical curiosities, going back to 1871, we might be here for a long time; but I certainly would not wish to detain the House on this particular Bill. It is welcomed by the Opposition. As the noble Minister has said, it is accepted and welcomed by the officers' pension association and, I gather, everyone concerned with this particular question.

369
I only have one or two points, if I may, to put to the noble Minister. First I note in the Memorandum to the Bill—and he himself said—that there will be a substantial reduction in costs. I wonder whether he could give us an estimate of what is meant by substantial. Secondly, I note in the Memorandum to the Bill that the benefits will be taken into account in reviewing the fees to be charged. Does this mean, as I hope it will, that the whole of the savings will be passed on to the pensioners concerned? If so, what is that likely to mean?
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his explanation of the contents of this Bill, and to say that we on these Benches fully support it. As he has made clear, it eliminates a body which is no longer necessary: the Pensions Commutation Board, which has been in operation from 1871. Advances in medical science have made the work of the board largely routine, and it does seem sensible to pass is functions over to the appropriate Secretary of State, who will be exercising precisely the same function as the board and will be using precisely the same tables.
I understand from what the noble Lord has said that savings will allow the fees which are paid by successful applicants to be reduced. I should like to ask whether it is necessary to charge a fee, and do those successful applicants who are not covered by the 1871 Act have to pay a fee? What proportion of the cost of the operation of the board at the present time is covered by the fees? The noble Lord has said that the Officers' Pensions Society have raised no objection to the contents of this Bill and nor do we on these Benches.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lords on the Benches opposite have received this small measure in the way that they have. So far as savings are concerned, the present administrative costs of the Pensions Commutation Board work are in the region of £80,000 a year. With the work being done in effect by the Ministry of Defence, it is estimated that the cost can be reduced by about 50 per cent. or perhaps even more. Most of this will arise from savings in accommodation costs and some from a decrease in staff and changes in staff grades. No staff will be made redundant in this exercise. The fees will not go up, as they otherwise would, over the next 20 years or so, so I hope that is some comfort to the noble Lord opposite. So far as the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is concerned, at present fees range from £10 to a maximum of £75, depending on the amount of the award. Most applicants pay £75, although the average is about £73.
No increases have been made to fees while consideration is being given to proposals which are introduced in this Bill. It is therefore unlikely that the savings which will be achieved by this Bill will bring about a lowering of fees. However, they will not go up, as I said just now, by the amount which they would have done under the present system. Fees are only paid by the successful applicants who are told what they will be awarded before they decide to proceed with it.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
3.40 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 11 [Information about acts of terrorism]:
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 11.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that Clause 11 be left out of the Bill, and I do so even though I recognise that as a provision it is a substantial improvement on the form in which it existed in the previous Act. That comes about as a result of the Government's acceptance of several of the recommendations by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, as to the way in which the provision should be improved. As your Lordships will all recall, the clause provides that a person,
"who has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance…in preventing the commission by any other person of an act of terrrorism",
commits a criminal offence if, without reasonable excuse, he does not inform the police of that information. I venture to regard this clause as the most otiose and objectionable of the whole Bill, and I say that making it clear, if I may, that I am a supporter of the Bill and have no desire whatsoever to weaken its impact in any way.
The provision in Clause 11 is one which has given cause for much anxiety in recent years. Your Lordships will recall that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, after considerable and careful examination of the issues, came down against renewing this power. The report by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, after very careful argument, came down marginally in favour of renewing the power. There is scope here, I believe, in particular among those who support the Bill, for honest disagreement as to the impact and the desirability of this clause. The effect of the clause—putting it in terms of perhaps an extreme, but by no means improbable, case—is that if, for example, a housewife in Northern Ireland happens to hear from somebody that her husband may be contemplating the commission of an offence in the near future, she is committing a criminal offence if she does not at once go to the police and report that information.
I would suggest that on that basis there are really four objections that can be made to the clause. First, it is totally unrealistic. It is simply not appropriate to regard as plausible the creation of a criminal offence of that kind in a situation such as exists in Northern Ireland, with all its fears, anxieties, distrusts, reprisals, hostage-taking and so forth. I can speak about those matters only at secondhand, using my imagination, but no doubt many of your Lordships were fortunate enough to hear the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, speak at firsthand about them during the Committee stage of the Bill, and anything that I could say would I think only weaken the impact of anything that I suspect, and hope, he is going to say about this particular clause. So, as I say, first of all the clause is unrealistic in the terms of life as it is lived on the streets and in the houses, flats and apartments of Northern Ireland.
Secondly, the provision in the clause has proved itself to be very largely ineffective, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was dubious about the effects and indicated that the legislation could be operated perfectly satisfactorily by the police without the inclusion of this particular power. In Great Britain, from 1974 to the end of 1983, 10 people were convicted under the relevant section of the previous Act. Of these people, only two were sent to prison and the sentences were less than 12 months, which appears to indicate that no very serious criminal is being caught by this particular provision. In Northern Ireland over the eight-year period I think 22 people have been convicted. I have not been able to ascertain what happened to those 22 people. I asked the noble Lord the Minister whether he would be kind enough to write to me before the Report stage, but I can understand that he has been somewhat pre-occupied with other matters. The only importance of trying to discover what happened to those 22 people lies in the point that again it would indicate whether they are serious criminals in possession of really important information who are being caught by the provisions, or whether, as I rather suspect, the contrary is very much the case.
Thirdly, this offence is one which has certainly been unprecedented in the criminal law in our lifetime. I say that because I do not again want to get involved in an altercation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who at the Committee stage referred to matters of English law going back some 400 years or so. Leaving that on one side, if I may, I put forward a proposition to which I hope the noble and learned Lord will assent on this occasion, which is simply as follows. In this century there is no recorded case of there being convicted of a criminal offence a person whose only action has been to hear that somebody else might be going to commit a criminal offence and who has not himself in any way been a party, an accomplice, or a conspirator in the commission of that offence. Further, I very much doubt whether it has ever been remotely contemplated by anybody that that should have been done.
I believe that the clause confuses the concept of a moral duty with the concept of a legal duty. I can well understand the moral duty that may rest upon certain people, in certain circumstances, who happen to come into possession of information, to hand it over to the police. But to make it a legal duty, to make it a crime to fail to do that, is, as I said when I began my few observations, not really in accordance with common sense.
The fourth observation that I want to make about the provision as it stands concerns a matter that is not only of historical interest. The provision was introduced—I was going to say by chance, but certainly without any great premeditation—at a very much earlier stage, in one of the earlier Bills, as a result of a Back- Bench amendment. It was never contemplated by the Government, nor indeed by those who advise them, that this was a power that was needed and ought to have been in the original Bill.
Those are the observations that I should like to put forward to your Lordships as reasons why the Bill would be a better Bill if Clause 11 were omitted. I do
372
not, may I add, want to go on to the issue that was raised in Committee as to whether the clause in addition to the points that I have mentioned, would have a possible impact upon the freedom of the press and the rest of the media, because I believe that that would be to introduce into this discussion a form of special pleading and to start to suggest that perhaps certain people should have certain privileges which are not available to the community as a whole. I should rather not pursue that line; I believe that the case is strong enough not to have to do so. I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that the Bill would not be weakened by the removal of the clause, but would be strengthened. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I still hope that your Lordships will retain the clause. My noble friend Lord Wigoder is quite right in saying that in this century there has been no prosecution for misprision of a felony that may be committed, or is about to be committed. But in respect of a theft or other crime that had been committed and an individual who knew about it not telling the police, as he should have done, there was in 1960 a prosecution and a conviction. It was a simple case which might occur at any time. The owner of a car let it out, and the hirer dealt with it fraudulently. Then, in order to track down the matter the police went to the owner, and instead of telling the police the truth about it and telling them to whom he had let the car he told a lie and put the police off the scent.
These statements putting the police or the authorities off the scent were clearly misprision of felony and the court, presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Parker, so held. That was the position only 20 years ago when misprision of felony was applied to a man who put the police off the scent. As I stated in Committee on this Bill the House of Lords in 1962, when I was presiding, declared that it was still an offence in English law. It was only taken away—by mischance, almost—in 1967. That is in regard to offences that have been committed where you want to trace the offender. Surely, a person who knows what has happened and puts the police off the scent is guilty of an offence. More important is the case in which a person knows that a bomb is to be planted or that a bank raid is to take place. That is a matter of general law. However, if a bomb is to be planted, an ambush laid, or whatever may be the case, the person ought to tell the police. If he tells the police, the bombing and the murders could be prevented. If he does not tell the police or perhaps even puts them off the scent, is that to be, or not to be, an offence? Under this clause it will be an offence, repeating in some respects what has existed in Northern Ireland before.
I submit that it is a matter of justice to the community as a whole. An individual who withholds information that could save lives is quite properly to be brought before the court. The illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was that of a wife or mother of a terrorist. They might well have a reasonable excuse for not informing. This clause only applies when the information is withheld without reasonable excuse. The instances that I have put are those in which there is no reasonable excuse for the individual who knows that a terrorist crime has been committed or is about to be committed. That person

373
is rightly to be guilty of an offence that extends back hundreds of years in our law.
Although statistics may show that there are not many prosecutions, the number of prosecutions does not test the efficacy of the law. When the police can remove a person's doubts and tell that person that it is his duty to tell them what he knows, it may help them in getting vital information. Statistics do not count. I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said. However, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in an excellent report, following careful examination, recommended that the clause should be retained. In exceptional cases, concerning relatives and so forth, it should not apply. I ask your Lordships to retain the clause.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have advanced arguments against this clause in another place and in this House. It is obvious from the remarks made today that none of us has found a Damascus road since we last debated the matter; none of us has been converted into a change of opinion. I wish briefly to say, again and again, that this clause is superfluous to the Bill. The clause will not strengthen the Bill. In the eyes of many people, the clause is completely unrealistic. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, knows this, but there are people in Belfast and in Northern Ireland generally who do give information to the police about both crimes that they think are about to be committed and those which have been committed. We have in Northern Irleand a confidential telephone, which is used frequently, as the authorities will confirm. It is the position therefore that people do give information to the security forces without the compulsion that appears to be contained in this clause. I believe that those who are going to give information to the security forces will not be influenced by this clause. Those who are not going to give information will not be prepared to change their minds because of the existence of this clause in legislation.
This may be an appropriate time, since we are discussing the prevention of terrorism, to express our regret over the brutal and vicious murder of the young prison officer buried today in Belfast. There must be thousands of people now living in Northern Ireland who have been aware that a terrorist crime is going to be committed or that a terrorist crime has been committed. The existence of the Clause 11 offence did not change their minds one way or the other.
I have repeatedly spoken and voted against this legislation. If my noble friends wish to take the issue into the Lobbies this afternoon, I shall again vote against the inclusion of Clause 11. I believe that it is totally unrealistic in the circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland. Far from helping the Bill, the clause brings it into a certain amount of disrepute.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, like the majority of your Lordships, I hesitate very much before crossing swords with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. However, it seems to me that we can either rely on the patriotism and civic sense of people at large, or we cannot. If we cannot rely on that sense, this clause will not make them come forward with the evidence.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I have such an affection for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that I am not afraid of disagreeing with him. His arguments are very powerful. However, as a supporter of the Bill, I am bound to say that we still need to look very closely at every detail. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, came to a different conclusion to the one that I reached in my earlier inquiry. The noble Earl had additional information which made him come down on the opposite side. I would, however, say to your Lordships concerning legislation which I have never called draconian—I have, indeed, suggested that it is an excessive description—that the fact remains, for reasons that my noble friend Lord Fitt gave, that it is not really a very good thing to have an Act that people are contravening every day of the year.
There is no doubt that people in Northern Ireland are aware of these matters. To have a criminal offence that is ignored seems, in the first instance, to be bad law. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, thought that the argument with regard to the press or the BBC was not a very good one. I am bound to say that it is an extension that nobody foresaw when this particular provision was put into the Bill. I would therefore say to your Lordships that this is not an issue on which we should quarrel on party political grounds. It is one that we should be examining to see whether it is really essential or whether it does damage to the effectiveness of the Act and, incidentally, produces effects that were not foreseen. It is always the danger in dealing with matters of human rights, as we shall be able to say on other matters, that there will be some further extension. I would hope that the public spirit, the BBC and the press will recognise their responsibilities. I am not in favour of having them threatened, as they have been by the Attorney General, and, therefore, with a good deal of reluctance and some hesitation, it is still my view—not because it was my view several years ago—that we ought to leave this clause in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I should begin by saying that I fully understand the concern underlying the arguments advanced by noble Lords against the offence in Clause 11. I have considered very deeply, in consultation with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and with colleagues in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, whether we could agree to relinquish the clause or to remove Section 1A, to which most criticism has been directed. We have been driven to conclude that we should be wrong to do so, and I must dwell for a moment on that.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I give some illustration of the kind of case in which prosecutions have been brought for the offence now embodied in Section 11 of the 1976 Act, and which are to be embodied in this clause. In Great Britain, eleven of the 13 prosecutions were against people who had had knowledge of the whereabouts of a notorious provisional IRA terrorist and who had not given that information to the police. The remaining two related to persons who had information about the manufacture of incendiary devices and the whereabouts of weapons stores.

375
These are serious matters—a dangerous and ruthless terrorist at large in Great Britain, details about weapons and devices which could be used to kill and to maim. People who have this kind of information and do not give it to those who can act upon it and thus save life are actually acquiescing in the bloodshed and mayhem which may follow from their failure of public spirit.
Because of the greater number of prosecutions in Northern Ireland, I cannot be as specific about individual cases there, but I can say a little about the kind of case in which changes are brought. As we all know—and none better than the noble Lord, Lord Fitt; (and I would join with him at this point in his condolences to those so recently bereaved)—one of the ways in which terrorists operate is by hijacking cars or taking over a house to carry out their crime. Clearly, when a person is held prisoner there is no way in which he can give information, but there are cases often involving people who sympathise with the terrorist cause but who do not wish to become actively involved, in which an agreement is made that the police will not be informed about a stolen car or about a house which has been or is to be taken over until a certain period has elapsed. I believe it is right that where people have done this—perhaps in the full knowledge that the car would be used to facilitate an attack or actually to kill somebody, or the house would be used as a snipers' perch—they should be subject to the process of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, spoke at Committee stage with convincing passion and this afternoon with convincing coolness of conditions in the Province and of the appalling fear in which honest men and women can be put when they are used as the utterly unwilling tools of terrorism or when they are put entirely innocently in possession of information about terrorist deeds and terrorist intentions. The noble Lord reminds us, in the stark language of experience, that people can be threatened with terrible reprisals if they give information that will lead to the arrest of a terrorist criminal or the forestalling of a terrorist crime.
I ought to remind your Lordships of two things. The first is the extent to which the authorities in the Province are now able to keep secret the identity of those who give them such information. The noble Lord himself has drawn attention to one scheme which enables them to maintain secrecy of identity. The noble Lord is familiar with the Confidential Telephone Service. It is open to anyone, anywhere to ring Belfast 652155. No one has to give a name. The calls are not traced. The identity of callers is not known.
If, later, the caller were to fall under suspicion of an offence under Clause 11, to have made the call would be an immediate bar to further proceedings, He, or she, would merely have to say when it was made and if indeed it had been made that would be that—and there would be no publicity. But the noble Lord will say that one cannot always get to a telephone, or that in some cases one can only do so by putting oneself at risk of being suspected by terrorists of giving terrorist secrets away to the police.
There is, as I have said before—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has very helpfully
376
reminded your Lordships of it—the defence of reasonable excuse provided in subsection 1. The courts are familiar with conditions in the Province. They are as capable as your Lordships of weighing the terrible conflict of interests, of loyalties, even of instincts, under which people there may be required to live. We ought not to assume that they will in some way forget that they are dealing with human beings who love one another and fear for one another as well as for themselves, and I do ask your Lordships to have confidence in the judiciary to do its job, which is a necessary part of the job of protecting society from both the evil corrosion of terrorism and the unjust operation of the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, expressed concern about the possibility that journalists may be hampered in their proper functions by the knowledge that they may be liable to prosecution for this offence. As I said during the Committee debate on this clause, I do not accept that journalists should be under an obligation different from that applied to the rest of the population. If they have information which they know or believe might be of material assistance in preventing acts of terrorism or in leading to the capture of terrorists, and the withholding of such information is an offence under this legislation—as I believe it must remain—it must be an offence for journalists, too.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Minister will allow me to correct him, I did not say that journalists should be exempted. I said that an unforeseen and undesirable consequence of using this sort of power was that it would hamper them, and that the ordinary moral and disciplinary conditions should apply. I did not suggest that they should be exempted.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I did not wish in any way to misrepresent the noble Lord, and if I have, I apologise. It seems to me there is still force in the argument that journalists should be subject to the same legal and moral obligations as the rest of us, and it ought not to be necessary to distort legislation in order to protect their profession for any purpose.
I am quite clear that there can be no exemption for journalists, and that the safeguards for them must be the same as the safeguards for everyone else. Those safeguards consist principally of the defence of reasonable excuse and the objectivity of the courts. Given the exceedingly modest use that has been made of this power, they will not have need of that safeguard over often.
There is also the reassurance given by paragraph 3, Schedule 3, to which I failed to draw your Lordships' attention at Committee stage and for which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked, that proceedings cannot be instituted without the consent of my right honourable and learned friend, the Attorney General or, in Northern Ireland, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said it would not be realistic to seek to keep this clause in the Bill and that it confuses moral with legal duty. In the circumstances of Northern Ireland particularly, and in the country at large and generally, there is a lot of advantage if legal and moral duties do unmistakably coincide.

377
Some of your Lordships view this clause with a certain distaste, and that I understand, but terrorism is a far more distasteful matter. There is no question in my mind that the cure is a great deal better than the disease and it is well worth keeping in the Bill. I hope I have made that clear.
Your Lordships will be looking at this clause not on its own but as a part of the Bill, and you will be looking at the Bill not on its own but in its proper context. An important part of that context is made up of the safeguards to the operation of the Bill as a whole, and the Bill itself provides important safeguards. For a start, Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise the case for continuing the Act each year. That is not a new provision and there were some complaints at Committee stage that perhaps Parliament seemed to treat that renewal as routine. The remedy for that must to a large extent rest with individual members of this House and in another place.
A new safeguard in the present Bill is that the life of the Bill, once enacted, cannot be extended beyond five years. Parliament would have to look de novo at the entire Act if it was thought that any of these powers should continue beyond that time. Those are important safeguards. I hope that House will accept that the Government does recognise and welcome close scrutiny of these exceptional powers. It is clear from the Marshalled List, however, that several of your Lordships would like to see some additional safeguards. It is upon that in particular that the Government has focussed its attention since Committee stage.
I do not think that your Lordships would wish me to speak now to the amendments to later clauses. If I were to do so I am afraid that this debate would snowball into confusing proportions. Noble Lords will wish to know, however, that we have proposals on both Clause 12 and Clause 14 which differ from those on the Marshalled List, but which are addressed to the same essential problems. We recognise the desirability of finding something stronger than a merely administrative way of limiting the powers at large in Clause 12. We also recognise the desirability of adding a further dimension, in the form of a commission, to the supervision of the working of the Act which rests at present with the Secretaries of State and Parliament itself.
I do not wish your Lordships to let that earnest of good intentions cloud your judgment of the merits of the present question—that Clause 11 should not stand part of the Bill. Emphatically, I believe that it should do so. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe believes that it should do so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, believes that it should do so. I hope your Lordships will agree with us all that it should do so.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we are dealing in this amendment with a proposal which was put forward by my noble friends and myself and by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and his friends at the Committee stage. It is repeated today from both Benches and it is supported by no less a Member of your Lordships' House than the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whose report was viewed with the utmost interest and
378
admiration when it came before your Lordships' House. Therefore, your Lordships will find that there is very ample support for the Motion, That Clause 11 should not stand part of the Bill. It means that the Motion has received support from people who have said that they regard this Bill as being a very necessary Bill, and who have supported all its other measures. Why, therefore, is there the thought in their mind that Clause 11 should be omitted?
I intend to deal with only two matters. The first is that those of us who are accustomed to the sanctions of criminal law find this clause offensive in that it does not deal with a perpetrator of a crime or someone who is at all interested in the crime itself; it deals with the failure to give information. We must view this, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said—and who has had better experience of terrorism than he?—against the background of Northern Ireland in its present lamentable state.
We view it in that context, knowing—and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, briefly referred to this matter, but I would like to give a little more detail—that we are dealing with a clause which found its way into the prevention of terrorism legislation by a very odd course. It was not even in the 1974 Bill. It was not even in the 1976 Bill when it first came before Parliament. The first time it ever came into existence at all was by an amendment that was moved at Committee stage and which was at first resisted by the Government as being unnecessary, but eventually the Government had second thoughts in view of the amendment moved by a Back-Bench Member, and it has now found its way into this Bill. So it has not had "an origin of necessity" (if I may put it that way) so far as anyone dealing with this legislation is concerned.
Secondly, the noble Lord the Minister was perfectly fair, as he always is, in referring your Lordships, according to the information given to him, to how this measure was working out in prosecutions that had taken place and in the investigations of the police. One got the impression that it had to be a pretty diehard case—if I may put it that way—before the police even seriously investigated it.
I am going to read to your Lordships from a very recent account of a case under Section 11—the very one with which we are dealing—in the Irish News of 20th February 1984, only a matter of a couple of weeks ago. I am told—and I could not have a better authority—that the Irish News is a most reputable paper and one which is very objective in its editorial policy.
Having said that, let me read to your Lordships this extract. I shall read it in full because I believe that it will weigh with your Lordships very heavily indeed, because it will give your Lordships a completely contemporary idea of the evil of this clause. It is headed, "Escape hostage may be charged". It says:
"Belfast: A man whose terrified family was held hostage during the mass IRA escape from the Maze jail last year could face criminal charges.
"An official RUC report on hostage victim 38-year-old Ian McFarlane has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. RUC sources believe he could be accused of withholding information about the eight escapers who burst into his isolated home last September.

379
"For six hours Mr. McFarlane, his wife and three young sons were held hostage at their cottage near Dromore, Co. Down.
"As they fled, the fugitives made Mr. McFarlane swear on the family Bible that he would not alert police search parties combing the area for 72 hours.
"A deeply religious church-goer, Mr. McFarlane kept his oath after consulting his local preacher.
"Since then, the McFarlane family has lived in fear of IRA reprisals and wants to emigrate to England. But the husband cannot leave the North until the DPP decides whether to prosecute. An RUC spokesman said: 'A file on the McFarlane incident and its circumstances has been sent to the DPP for direction"'.
I have read an account from the paper concerning the McFarlane family, dated only a matter of three weeks ago. I could not, in my view, put forward a more eloquent argument for the Motion, That Clause 11 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, there is little that I can add to that. Does the noble Lord, Lord Elton, want to say something?
Lord Elton: Yes, my Lords, with the leave of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord has just quoted a specific case with which I am not familiar and which may indeed be sub judice. So I cannot really comment on that specific case. But I did make copious reference to "reasonable excuse", and the noble Lord will probably have some idea of what plea might be entered. But I do not think that I ought to discuss the case further.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I was not dealing—and I think perfectly fairly—with what might happen when this matter reached a criminal court. I left my observations—as did the newspaper—with what had happened to that man in regard to police inquiries. In spite of the words "reasonable excuse", the matter has been referred, according to this report and according to an RUC spokesman, to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for just a moment?—because there are exceptional circumstances in the case which has just been referred to—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I only want to make one or two observations on the points that have been raised in the course of this interesting debate. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred several times to the position of a person who puts the police off the scent. We are not considering in this clause the question of putting the police off the scent. In this clause we are considering the question of a person who, for particular reasons in particular circumstances, may remain silent. That is all.
In the course of his reply the noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave, first, an example about a person who might know that his car had been stolen and who, by agreement with the thief, remained silent for a particular period of time in order to enable the getaway to
380
take place. Unless I am very mistaken, that would be covered by the common law in any event, because the man would clearly be an accessory to an offence that had been committed, and it certainly would not need this clause to cope with him.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to the arrangements by which anonymous telephone calls can be made. I do not think that that meets the problem at all because over and over again, if a person in the conditions prevailing in Northern Ireland is interrogated, it is bound to be apparent to him who, in fact, has given the information, whether it is by means of an anonymous telephone call or a call to a number that cannot be traced, or whatever it may be. I think that it is an unrealistic safeguard.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, repeatedly referred to the words "reasonable excuse". Short of duress, I am in some doubt as to whether there would be reasonable excuse. I am in some doubt whether, in the case which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised—and it cannot be sub judice if no charge has been preferred—that reasonable excuse could be put forward, however grave the ordeal the man had, in fact, suffered at the time he was taken hostage.
I would add only one other matter, which is that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has still, inadvertently, omitted to give the figures as to what happened to the 22 people in Northern Ireland who were convicted under the corresponding section to this one over a period of 10 years. If he would give us the number who were sent to prison and for how long, it might be some indication as to just how seriously the offence is regarded by the Northern Irish courts. If the noble Lord would like to intervene, I am very happy to sit down.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I regret to tell the noble Lord, as a result of inquiries that I made about this on his behalf, as it were, between the stages, in Northern Ireland, that the results of these cases are not separately recorded.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I hear that with a certain amount of gloom, if we are to be told at a later stage that there will be particular reviews of the operation of the Act so that the Houses of Parliament can discover just how effective Clause 11 is.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, repeatedly referred to people who fail to give information as failing in their public duty or in their public spirit. That may be so, but it depends very much on individual circumstances. But I accept that it may be so. However, what I find quite an unwarrantable intrusion on the ordinary liberties of the ordinary person, particularly in Northern Ireland, is that there should be a law on the statute book saying, in effect, that every failure of that public spirit is a criminal offence. I do not find that acceptable. I know that your Lordships will agree that there is room for an honest difference of opinion about the merits of this clause. I think that at this hour that honest difference of opinion should be expressed in the Lobbies.
4.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 129.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

McNair, L.

Banks, L.

Mais, L.

Barnett, L.

Mar, C.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bishopston, L.

Molloy, L.

Broekway, L.

Nicol, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Oram, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Parry, L.

Caradon, L.

Peart, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Denington, B.

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Roberthall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Foot, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shinwell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Somers, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hale, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hall, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Hughes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt, L.

Strauss, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ilchester, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoffi, L.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Leatherland, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Caithness, E.

Adeane, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carver, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Alport, L.

Chesham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Auckland, L.

Cockfield, L.

Avon, E.

Coleraine, L.

Bauer, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cox, B.

Bellwin, L.

Craigavon, V.

Beloff, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

Daventry, V.

Bessborough, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Blake, L.

Denning, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Brookes, L.

Effingham, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Elton, L.

382

Ely, M.

Onslow, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Orkney, E.

Faithfull, B.

Pender, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Pennock, L.

Ferrers, E.

Porritt, L.

Fortescue, E.

Portland, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Radnor, E.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glanusk, L.

Reigate, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Richardson, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Hampden, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hawke, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hemphill, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Soames, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Spens, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Kitchener, E.

Strathspey, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Suffield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Lyell, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Terrington, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Teviot, L.

McFadzean, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thorneycroft,, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Middleton, L.

Tryon, L.

Milverton, L.

Vaizey, L.

Molson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mottistone, L.

Vickers, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Munster, E.

Wardm of Witley, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Northchurch, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Attack on "The Charming" at Bandar Khomeini
4.32 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your permission, I should like to repeat a statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the recent attack on a British vessel near Bandar Khomeini. The Statement is as follows:
"We learnt on 7th March that a British-registered ship, "The Charming", which formed part of a convoy under Iranian protection, was hit in an Iraqi attack in the northern Gulf on 1st March? The attack took place within Iranian territorial waters in the approaches to Bandar Khomeini.
"The ship, which was carrying a cargo of alumina ore, is reported to be substantially damaged and aground outside Bandar Khomeini. I am glad to say that none of the crew was seriously hurt and I understand that most of them have now left Iran. It has been reported that Turkish and Indian ships forming part of the same convoy were also hit.
" 'The Charming', like other ships in the convoy, had been and was required to maintain radio silence. Her owners did not subsquently inform Her

383
Majesty's Government about the attack on their ship, and have requested no assistance.
"Her Majesty's Government deplore this incident and indeed all attacks on shipping in the Gulf area. We have summoned the Iraqi Ambassador to protest at his Government's action and to demand an explanation of it.
"Her Majesty's Government remain deeply concerned to see an early end to the wasteful and destructive conflict which is continuing between Iraq and Iran. We are working vigorously with the international community to that end."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. We recognise that it could refer to what is an increasingly menacing situation. The House will be relieved that despite substantial damage to the British-registered ship, none of the crew was seriously hurt. Can the Minister say why the owners were not in touch with the Government about the attack on their vessel on 1st March? We understand news came on 7th March and that they sought no assistance.
Can we be told any news about other British vessels in the area? The lack of communication could mean that others may be affected and that we are unaware of the situation. Is the Minister able to say what protection is being afforded by the Government while avoiding being drawn into the conflict? Does the reference in the Statement to Her Majesty's Government
"working vigorously with the international community"
for an early end to the conflict—a statement I am sure we all welcome—mean also that we are in touch with the United Nations? Finally, with the dangers of escalation, it is vital to be in touch with the super powers. We are grateful for the Statement and would appreciate replies to some of these questions.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we too are grateful to the noble Lord. When the Government ask for an explanation, we assume they will also ask for an apology and for compensation. Could we be assured about that? Secondly, the noble Lord will recall that last week United States naval vessels opened fire in a situation in which there was no threat or interference with shipping. Could the Minister assure us that British naval vessels have been given clear rules of engagement and that these rules of engagement have been explained to the Iraqis and the Iranians? Finally, may I ask whether we have any formal or informal understanding with the United States about military co-operation in the Gulf?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception to this Statement. I shall reply first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. We heard as far back as 1st March that an attack had taken place. The Iraqis announced as much, but it was only much more recently—namely, yesterday—that we heard that a British ship was involved. I should explain that the ships within the Iranian convoy are required by the Iranians to maintain radio silence, and thus it was I imagine that
384
we were not able to hear of this matter sooner. As for other ships, I understand that the number of ships in the Gulf area varies from day to day; but on 2nd March, for example, there were believed to be 12 British ships in the Gulf altogether.
As for protection, this convoy was within Iranian territorial waters and therefore the question of Royal Naval protection does not arise. The ships were indeed sailing under the protection of the Iranian naval forces. In reply to the last point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, I can confirm that we are actively concerned to secure an end to this conflict, which has now dragged on for three or four years at least. We are seeing what can be done at the United Nations to achieve that, and we are particularly concerned to ensure that the Secretary-General of the United Nations enjoys all the support he can get in his efforts to bring this conflict to an end. As the noble Lord will recall, this conflict has proved to be particularly intractable and a number of efforts have been made to secure an end to it, and all have so far been unsuccessful.
Turning now to the remarks and questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, the Government will almost certainly be seeking an apology, and as for compensation we shall wish to reserve our rights in respect of that matter. It may be that compensation will be appropriate. As for British naval vessels, I can tell the noble Lord that we maintain a patrol of two warships, available if needed, to come to the assistance of British shipping in the Gulf but I cannot really go further than my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did on 21st February in the other place.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, can the noble Lord shed any light on the actual ownership of this vessel which appears to be a rather grey area?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the owners are resident in Guernsey but I do not think that I can shed any more light than that.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, may I ask him to reply to the third question that I asked: whether, in view of the great dangers in the Gulf, we have any formal or informal understanding with the Americans about military cooperation in the Gulf?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are in close touch with all our allies, including the United States, on this matter.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
4.42 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 12 [Powers of arrest and detention]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 28. at end insert—
("() No arrest by a constable is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is an old saying that goes back to the early eighteenth century

385
that arrest may be called the beginning of imprisonment. It is the right of every citizen to be free of arrest unless there is in the constable or some other citizen the right to arrest him. It is almost without exception a condition of lawful arrest that the man arrested should be entitled to know why he is deprived of his freedom. This amendment therefore does not introduce any novel principle into our law. It merely proclaims the fundamental proposition that it is a condition of lawful arrest that the man arrested should be entitled to be told why he is deprived of his freedom.
At Committee stage the Minister accepted the principle and relied on the legislation which is embodied in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, but with great respect that piece of legislation has not been enacted. We heard in Committee how wide and extensive are the powers which are contained in the Bill, and in our submission the principle that the arrested person should be told the grounds for his arrest should therefore be embodied in this legislation. This important common law principle should never be far removed from the mind of the constable when exercising the very wide powers contained in the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, this is quite unnecessary. In 1947, in this House, Lord Simonds, afterwards Lord Chancellor, declared that when a man is arrested with or without a warrant he is entitled to know at once the reason why he has been arrested so that he can take as soon as may be the steps to release himself if he can. The principle is so undoubted that it would be a mistake to put it specially in this Bill. You know what our lawyers are! They will say that Parliament has thought it necessary to put it in here, and therefore there is no such general principle. Leave it to the general principle. The lawyers will have no difficulty about it. I should not trouble about inserting it into this Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord PrysDavies, will not need me to assure him of the effects of the common law. I think that I ought only to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that we agree with him that the specific provision ought not to be in a Bill so narrow as this one. But, with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, we feel that the constable ought to have these things very much in mind. That is why we are seeking an opportunity in Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which the noble Lord has rightly reminded me has not yet reached your Lordships. When it does so, the noble Lord will be able to satisfy himself as to this. That is why we are putting it in that Bill, which applies generally, as opposed to this one, which applies particularly. The actual requirement is very ancient, very strong and very well known.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, could the noble Lord say in what way the constable would inform somebody arrested under this legislation? Could the noble Lord give an example of the ground for arrest?
Lord Elton: My Lords, any of the grounds provided by the legislation, which are to be found particularly in Clauses 12 and 13.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I know that this is not Committee stage but the noble Lord has not answered my question. Could he give an example of what would be said? Would the constable read out the Act?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it would be because he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a person to be guilty of an offence under Clauses 1, 9 or 10 of the Bill. No doubt he would go on to explain which of those was involved and, if he were a good constable, he would see that it was clearly understood.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, I am advised that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 4.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 33, leave out from ("description") to end of line 36 and insert ("either—

(i) committed in the United Kingdom; or

(ii) committed outside the United Kingdom and involving genocide, hijacking or piracy").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was going to say that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, had asked me whether, in his absence, I would move this amendment, but I think I see the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, rising to his feet, and if he has had the same request made to him I shall be very happy to sit down forthwith.
I want to make only one or two observations about this amendment. It may be that your Lordships will think that, after I have done that, about the most helpful course would be for the Minister to indicate his attitude to this amendment. I would then ask leave to withdraw it, and the observations of the noble Lord the Minister could be borne in mind when we come to deal with the more substantive group of amendments which immediately follows this one.
What the noble Lord, Lord Monson, had in mind in tabling this amendment was that it met the objections that had been raised to Clause 12(3) at Committee stage and, at the same time, it also met Lord Elton's point about our obligations under international conventions. What the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was trying to provide was an amendment that would cover terrorism falling within our major international obligations—the Tokyo Convention Act 1967, the Genocide Act 1969 and the Hijacking Act 1971. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also indicated (and I can see the force of the point that he was trying to make) that his amendment would further have the beneficial effect of removing some of the small anomalies consequent upon Clause 12(3)(b) as it stands. I hope that I have indicated what was in Lord Monson's mind, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to deal with the point.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, on a matter of procedure, I understand that it is the Minister's intention to refer to the amendment standing in my name and that of a number of other noble Lords; and, of course, I would reserve my right to speak to that. But if he is not going to refer to it then I shall not speak to this amendment at this stage.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful for that helpful intervention. As I understand the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder (whom we are pleased to find in loco parentis to this amendment), it is not his intention to press it. I will explain why, if he had pressed it. I would have asked your Lordships to disagree with it. Maybe it would keep things tidier, therefore, if we reserved reference to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, until we got to it, if that is satisfactory to him.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, the point is that if I had some idea of what might be the attitude of the Government I would not take up the time of your Lordships by arguing in support of this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking me my attitude to the amendment in his name and that of other noble Lords, then I intend to be as helpful as it is possible to be. Without debating the whole thing, I cannot delimit the confines imposed on me by the effects of almost any remedy one seeks to apply to something that we wish to remedy. I shall be asking whether he feels that what I propose is good enough to let me struggle with it until the next stage. If that is sufficient to relieve the noble Lord's anxiety, I will proceed. If it is not, I think, with your Lordships' leave, I can always reply to any specific points later.
May I say that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has joined the long and distinguished succession of people who have attempted to find a satisfactory means of limiting the powers at present at large in Clause 11 by some alteration to the drafting of the statute itself. In fact, his amendment provides an excellent demonstration of the difficulties which we have all encountered in the attempt. He seeks to embody in the Bill the assurance that we have sought to give by circular about the use of the powers against suspected international terrorists. I will deal first with that aspect and then say a little about why we are also resisting the extension of the powers to acts of domestic terrorism, which this amendment would involve.
As I explained, the circular which we propose would restrict the application of the powers to cases in which there is some prospect of a charge before United Kingdom courts or of the person being deported. There are two main categories of offences which have extra-territorial aspects and which may involve acts which constitute terrorism as defined in Clause 14(1). The first category is created by a series of United Kingdom statutes, which implement international conventions by creating extra-territorial jurisdiction for certain terrorism-related offences. There are seven of these, and not four as I believe I may have suggested during the Committee stage. They are: the Hijacking Act 1971; the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973; the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1973; the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978; the Taking of Hostages Act 1982; the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983 and the Tokyo Convention Act 1967 (which relates to piracy on the high seas).
The second category contains offences under United Kingdom law which operate extra-territorially in relation to certain classes of people. The most usual connection which makes people liable here for
388
offences committed outside the United Kingdom is the possession of British citizenship. Offences in this category which may be related to terrorism are: murder, acts involving explosives liable to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland, perjury and offences under the Official Secrets Act and the Foreign Enlistment Act. Treasonable activities are punishable as regards all persons owing an allegiance to the Crown.
As your Lordships will recognise, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to narrow the applicability of the Bill beyond what we are seeking to achieve. Of the offences I have just referred to, only piracy and hijacking would still be within their scope. Murder, explosives offences and assassination—to name but a few—would be excluded, and the possibility of arrest in cases where there is a prospect of deportation would be totally excluded.
I should now like to turn to the other element of this amendment, which would apply the powers of arrest and detention to domestic terrorism, which is what is meant by the words following "description" in line 33. During his review of the operation of the legislation, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, considered whether, in view of the increasing threat in Great Britain from terrorism totally unconnected with Northern Ireland, the powers should be made available for use against international terrorists. He concluded that they should.
In making his recommendation in paragraph 77, he said that he had considered but rejected the idea that the powers should also be available for use against groups whose terrorist activity related to purely domestic matters, other than those connected with Northern Ireland. My noble friend's assessment was that nothing in the past history or likely future activity of terrorist groups indigenous to Great Britain persuaded him that the use of such exeptional powers against them would be necessary. The Government accepted this view, which is reflected in the drafting of Clause 12(3) (b); but of course we would be ready to reconsider it and come back to Parliament should the situation change.
I have tried to show why both elements of this amendment—the restriction on acts of international terrorism and the extension to acts of domestic terrorism—are not acceptable. I think I have probably now fulfilled what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked of me.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, acting in loco parentis, I seem to have fostered rather a deviant child, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amedment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 10, line 33, after ("description") insert ("committed in the United Kingdom")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember the interesting debate which took place largely upon the lines mentioned by the noble Lord the Minister during the debate on the last amendment concerning the restriction of offences covered by this

389
clause to ones committed in the United Kingdom. I put down this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend because at the time we felt that it was the proper amendment to propose. Since then we have seen Amendment No. 5, to which we have also subscribed our names. We take the view that this amendment, which appears first in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is one that in the circumstances, having regard to the debate, is rather more worthy of support than Amendment No. 4 at this stage. On this basis therefore I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
4.56 p.m.
Lord Shackleton Lord Shackleton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 36, at end insert—
(" (3A) The power of arrest conferred by subsection (1)(b) above in respect of an act of terrorism referred to in subsection (3) (b) above shall not be exercisable unless the Secretary of State has, by order made by statutory instrument, provided for a Code of Practice comprising such directions as appear to him to be appropriate for the guidance of constables in their use of the powers contained in this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment will commend itself to all your Lordships. I should like to repeat again that I have consistently supported the Bill and have spoken in favour of the Second Reading. Certainly I very much welcomed the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, except for Clause 11, which we have now disposed of. I should like to repeat to your Lordships what in fact the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, did not intend, so far as one can tell from his recommendations. Unfortunately he is in some distant part (which may be Australia or Siam) and therefore I have not been able to check that specific point and to discover what he had in mind. But this extension of the powers under Clause 12 seems to be without Lord Jellicoe's recommendation, and I think that the noble Lord agreed with that.
On several occasions the Government have said that this is narrowing the purposes of the Bill. The noble Earl, has stated as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said—and it was repeated in the exhaustive debates in the other place—that this power has always existed in the legislation, and they are now trying to define the limit more closely and more narrowly. If I may say so, this is very misleading. In another place the Minister of State said at col. 298 on 1st December 1983:
"The then Labour Government made it clear by guidance that the powers should not be used against other than Northern Irish terrorism."
I went back to the originators of that Act, and it was quite clear to me that it was not intended to be so used. I therefore consulted my own report on the 1976 Act which I made to the Government of the day, and found there was no mention of this power. It may be thought that I was rather remiss not to have referred to it, but I was assured at the time that it would be quite inappropriate to use this particular section other than in relation to Northern Ireland, without its being explicitly covered in the legislation. It is said that it was included deliberately, but there is no evidence that the Government intended ever to use that power: nor is there any evidence on the part of the Conservative Government that they intended to do so.
It is important to get this straight, because the other place has been misled on this. I am quite certain that this is not an argument that should be used. It would be quite inappropriate to use these powers without further legislation to relate them to other acts of terrorism, as the Government have now done.
I shall not repeat all the arguments which we advanced at the Committee stage. The Government were sympathetic to the argument that it was quite inappropriate to extend it, except in a very limited way, and a very firm statement was made by a Minister in another place who said:
"We will give guidance to the police to ensure that the powers in clause 12 are not used for acts of terrorism unconnected with the affairs of Northern Ireland unless there is some prospect that a charge will be made before a United Kingdom court, or the persons are to be deported under the Immigration Act 1971. For example, the position of members of South African nationalist movements living here will remain as it is now, after the Bill is enacted."—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 1/12/83; col. 298].
I am not quite clear what is meant by "remain as it is now", because there is a certain suspicion about what is now being done. But it is quite clear, from talking to the Minister and hearing his speech, that he is anxious to limit these powers and is prepared to do so by giving guidance to the police.
In his report, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that he was not contemplating a further extension to other terrorists outside, and I do not think we need to argue about that. I think there is no disagreement that there are some countries, whether it be Iran or other parts of the world, where it would be quite wrong to apply these powers if people took refuge in this country. Therefore, I am gratified that the Government should have recognised this difficulty. The problem has now arisen that they cannot find a suitable form of words to put into the Bill. Despite manful efforts—and I fully accept that they have tried—they have been unable to find a suitable form of words, for some of the reasons which the noble Lord gave when he dealt with the earlier amendment.
In order to get over this difficulty, I have proposed Amendment No. 5, which should be taken with Amendment No. 9.
Amendment No. 9: Page 13, line 22, at end insert—
("() No order under section 12(3A) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
This requires the Government by statutory instrument to publish a code; in effect, giving guidance to the police. Something of an assurance was given in another place that the circular would be made available, but we have heard no more of that. But the advantage is that it would then have statutory force. Whereas I fully accept the sincerity of the Government in this matter, I cannot speak for future Governments of any political hue. I wish to keep this on a non-party basis, although I might have views about where the threat might come from. Therefore, I hope that establishing a measure of parliamentary control over what is, admittedly, a difficult area is something that might commend itself to the Government.
Furthermore, it is fairly flexible. If they find that the code is unsatisfactory, all they need to do is issue a new order which would then have to come before Parliament. So, at least, Parliament would know what

391
were the instructions. It seems to me that this should make us all happy. It should make the Government happy, notwithstanding the fact that I understand that they have certain difficulties even in drafting the guidance. But this is the guidance which apparently is to be given to the police, and I find it impossible to believe that something which is too complicated to be put before your Lordships is perfectly all right to give to a policeman. I know that they are very intelligent, but between us we ought all to be able to understand it. This seems to be a proper constitutional approach to a difficult area.
I repeat again that the issue which we are discussing, the extension to terrorism outside the United Kingdom, is not one on which Lord Jellicoe made a recommendation. It has been made clear by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others that we see the difficulties and this seems to be an appropriate way to deal with the matter. I hope very much that we shall have a good response from the Government. If they do not like Amendment No. 9 which calls for affirmative resolution, because they say it might be too slow, then we can always look at the possibility of the negative procedure. But, at any rate, I hope that this amendment will now be acceptable.
It has strong support. I have had conversations with noble Lords in all parts of the House, who are inclined to see the force of what we are doing and that it will help the Government. I have the benefit of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and my noble friend Lord Mishcon, and I do not doubt that I could have got other support, including even support from Northern Irish noble Lords, because it is worth noting that the Member for Down, South, Mr. Enoch Powell, was also opposed to these provisions. I am now giving the Government the best of all possible worlds and I look hopefully to the Minister. My Lords, I beg to move.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wonder whether I may rise to support what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said about these amendments, and I should like to welcome the words of the Minister when he said—I think it was about these amendments and some more amendments to come—that he hoped he would be able to be as helpful as it is possible to be. I can scarcely recollect more encouraging words than that in advance of the consideration of amendments.
I should like—because this is the first occasion that I am speaking on the Report stage—to say what underlies my support for this amendment and the reason why I am moving subsequent amendments. They all have this in common. As I made clear on Second Reading, I support the Bill subject to stringent safeguards. These safeguards must be parliamentary because, to use a shorthand, the judicature is, to all intents and purposes, rendered inoperable in respect of this legislation for a grave emergency. I briefly expatiated on that in Committee and to save time on Report I shall not do so now unless asked to. So that is the first consideration.
The second consideration is that I think the Government are to be greatly congratulated on the sensitivity with which they have handled this
392
legislation. First, the Jellicoe Report is notably liberal. They have followed it very largely, if not to the letter. In particular, there is a five-year term to this emergency legislation and it is to be renewable annually by affirmative instrument. Given the Government's liberal attitude, I should like to make just one political comment—and I know that a Cross-Bencher is naïve in estimating what are the motives of those who have allegiance to political parties. But I should like to recall, with regret, that the official Opposition voted against this legislation in another place and thus put an end to the bipartisan character of it, which has existed since at least 1974.
That does present a new situation and makes it incumbent upon the Government to go even further than they have, in the light of this new development, to reassure the Opposition and to try to restore bipartisanship so far as it is possible. In this connection, I was extremely glad to read the words of the Lord Privy Seal reported in The Times earlier this week—not about this legislation in particular but about Government measures in general.
The case for this amendment was admirably stated by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He put his finger on a point of crucial importance. As he rightly said, here is a new power which has not hitherto been contained in this emergency legislation. It is a new power taken by the Government which both Houses, I believe, concede to be necessary—and it is necessary in view of the growth of international terrorism. But Parliament should not be content to give the Government a blank cheque.
The powers of arrest and detention in Clause 12 are formidable. If those relating to acts of terrorism under subsection (3)(b) are not to be subject to some code of practice to be laid before Parliament, then there is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government and Parliament should insist that such a code of practice be laid. Whether or not it should be by positive resolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, is surely a matter for negotiation.
As for the precise wording, I agree that the amendment may be defective. As the noble Lord has said, a number of Members of both Houses, as well as the Government, have had a shot at this. As so often, only the Bill team and the parliamentary draftsmen can correctly draft an amendment so as to fit the framework of the Bill and conform to accepted conventions and standards. The principle remains that the Government owe Parliament the duty of formulating for its consideration a code of practice for the guidance of constables in the exercise of these new powers.
It may be inappropriate, as in this draft, for the Secretary of State to give directions—I do not know. It may be preferable for the Secretary of State merely to provide guidance to constables in the code of practice. That is a detail of drafting which can be put right, and an amendment in proper form could be tabled at Third Reading.
All that is asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and myself—and I hope the same goes for the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Mishcon—is that at this stage the Government will indicate their

393
willingness to concede the principle behind the amendments. If they will do that, it will go a long way towards reassuring those who favour the Bill as well as those who do not favour the Bill. For that reason, I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not at all surprised that a number of your Lordships have tabled or re-tabled amendments addressed to the powers against international terrorism contained in Clause 12. The change in this area is undoubtedly the most significant in the Bill. Indeed, it is the only one in which the powers have been, in practice, extended rather than restricted. I am glad, too, that it is not being objected to in principle that the powers should be available for use against suspected international terrorists.
I explained to your Lordships in Committee why the Government feel so strongly that the powers of arrest and detention should be applied not only in respect of acts of international terrorism committed in the United Kingdom but also to those committed elsewhere—subject, of course, to the assurance given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that he will issue guidance to the police restricting the use of the powers in international cases to those in which there was some prospect of the person concerned being charged before a United Kingdom court or of his being deported under the powers in the Immigration Act 1971. I pause to apologise to anybody reading Hansard. I had not realised that I had permitted myself a sentence of about nine lines in length without punctuation.
I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to appear carping about the details of an amendment whose heart is so clearly in the right place. I do not propose to say more on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, concerning the disingenuity (if that is the right term) of my having said that this was a restriction of something which had always been at large. I do not want to take issue. If I overstated the case, then I regret it. We have so much in common that I would have no advantage in, nor desire to, mislead the House. Even if I had the desire I would not do so, and it would not do me any good, anyway.
I will touch only briefly on two elements which make for difficulty in practice, because there are two principles implicit here. Having given a power to the police, there is a difficulty in then saying, in effect, that the power is not to be used until Parliament has given further consideration to how it should be restricted, in that the power is granted by Parliament originally. The second difficulty is that for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to give "directions" to the police as proposed is not in keeping with established relationships between him and the police, which are of both delicacy and importance.
I hope we are now clear on the assurance I have already given the House as to how the provisions in this clause will be used. The means by which in the past that assurance has been given—and, if we do not succeed in other attempts at this and the next stage, the means by which it will in future be delivered—is a circular of guidance. I will pause to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that if we are reduced to
394
a circular of guidance it will of course be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, whereas hitherto it has been a confidential document.
However, your Lordships are parliamentarians and, understandably, do not like the will of Parliament as expressed in statute to be curtailed, even knowingly, by administrative means unless there is no alternative. That is a view which Her Majesty's Government entirely share. As I said in Committee, a great deal of intellectual work has already been expended in trying to get the substance of our assurance on the face of the Bill. In this we have been entirely without success because of the difficulties implicit in statutory definition. It was at that point in the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, came helpfully forward with the idea that what could not be accommodated in statute might prove more tractable if dealt with in a statutory instrument. If it could be, it would still have the great merit of providing a parliamentary way of curtailing powers granted by Parliament—as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has pointed out.
We see the attractions of such a solution. Whether it could easily be achieved is, I fear, doubtful, and I would not wish to mislead your Lordships on that. I am prepared to undertake categorically that we will between now and Third Reading make every possible effort to achieve by this means the incorporation of our assurance in material agreed by Parliament. In so doing, we shall have to consider the consequences of what is proposed and, in particular, whether it has unlooked for and damaging effects as well as those intended. I can tell your Lordships that we shall do our honest best and that I shall keep the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, posted on the results. I hope he will give us the chance to do that.
Perhaps I do not need a peroration, but my appeal to the noble Lord is that we are at one with him in what he seeks to do. I am glad he recognises the sincerity we have applied in trying to solve the question our way, on the face of the Bill. We are now with equal, and I might even say with more urgent, vigour trying to see if we can achieve that by an order in the way the noble Lord is suggesting. That is more difficult than it looks on the face of it hut we shall do our level best to achieve that by Third Reading.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, perhaps I may make one very obvious remark. I am sure the Government will wish to bear in mind that it is helpful to somebody who is charged with an offence to be able to say in court, "That is contrary to the terms of the statutory instrument". He has no defence whatever if he can say only that it is contrary to some circular.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I will make only one intervention because I believe the House will be much more keen to hear what my noble friend Lord Shackleton has to say. In the consideration of this matter, and as I said to the House that I was not moving Amendment No. 4 on behalf of my noble friends because I thought this amendment was preferable and the Opposition agreed with that view, I would merely like to make a comment on the two points made by the noble Lord the Minister. The first is that the Government saw a difficulty, if I understand him,

395
in providing here for an arrestable offence and saying that that arrestable offence created by an Act could not be exercised practically, so far as the police were concerned, until a statutory instrument had set out a code of practice. I would appreciate the normal difficulty of that arising in general law but I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will appreciate that the whole of the debate on this matter has been, as from Second Reading and on all sides of the House, the completely exceptional nature of the offences created under this Bill and the completely exceptional nature of the circumstances with which we have to deal.
The noble Lord the Minister, as I understood it, also found a difficulty in regard to dealing with the police in giving directions. He said that this was usually a matter of guidance. I want to make it clear that one of the reasons we thought this was such a good amendment was that although there are directions provided for under the statutory instrument, the directions are meant to be by way of guidance and are so described in this amendment. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will bear those points in mind. As my noble friend Lord Shackleton is in charge of this amendment, it is not for me to say anything more on behalf of my noble friends except that we are behind him in this amendment and leave it to him to decide what he should do, having heard the Minister.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister who has clearly responded to appeals to solve a problem which worries us all, I am sure, irrespective of party. I am grateful to those who have supported me in this amendment: my noble friend Lord Misheon, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I am grateful also that the Government are supporting me in this amendment subject to being able to achieve what we want to achieve.
I should just like to emphasise—because I may have misunderstood what the noble Lord said—that there need be no delay in producing the necessary order. I do not know whether the Government have already prepared their guidance and that they have issued it and it is locked up in police stations ready to be made effective, but at the moment it would be inappropriate, until the Bill becomes an Act and comes into force, for this power to be used; if it is possible to draft the code in a form that is acceptable. I am grateful for the assurance that the instructions will be made available in the Library. Although I am sure there is some mysterious drafting difficulty which is beyond the comprehension of noble Lords like myself, I believe that the intention of the noble Lord is very satisfactory.
In the light of that, I think it would be the wish of your Lordships that I do not pursue this amendment at the present time. There are some other aspects of the matter which I had thought of dealing with; but since the matter will come up on Third Reading one way or another—either by an amendment from the Government or further amendment from your Lordships—I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 39, at end insert ("where the initial arrest is lawful,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the hour was late. It was a quarter to nine in the evening when I moved this amendment and the noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to answer me. I ventured to say that I had not made myself very clear to the noble Lord and he replied with his usual courtesy in the following terms:
"I am obliged to the noble Lord. I find that as the evening wears on, I need more and more frequently to be led by the hand through the thickets of argument. It is certainly not the intention of the Bill to create the suspicion that the Secretary of State might render something lawful that had been unlawful. I am advised that it does not. However, I shall read the noble Lord's illumination of his argument with care. If I find that it does illuminate it, obviously we shall, between us, have to find a remedy."—[Official Report, 23/2/84: col. 930.]
I must frankly tell your Lordships that I did not have the pleasure of hearing from the noble Lord the Minister in the meantime. I do not know whether to infer from that that on reading my argument he found no illumination at all and therefore no need to communicate with me; but I am sure he will explain in due course.
The point of this amendment is very simple. When a Secretary of State decides in his discretion that a period of detention ought to be extended there is not the slightest hope—I think I can say this in the presence of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Simon of Glaisdale—of anyone so detained coming before the court successfully and saying that in his view the Secretary of State should not extend that detention. So, habeas corpus in those circumstances, if I may use a colloquialism, is a non-runner.
What we are trying to make clear in this exceptional piece of legislation is that if the original arrest is unlawful and the Secretary of State purports to extend the detention period even though it be unlawful then it is possible and clearly open to someone so detained to go before the court and say, "I am not arguing that the discretion of the Secretary of State was wrongly exercised because he was going upon matters which he should not have considered. My argument is that the extension is unlawful because the original arrest was unlawful." That may be a good argument at common law without the necessity of a statute but I am perfectly sure that your Lordships would want it written on the statute book even if it was otiose because it is always going to be argued before our courts, on behalf of the Crown or the Secretary of State, that this is very unusual legislation and that the courts ought not necessarily to go on ordinary principles of law by virtue of the fact that the Government are providing in this statute for exceptional cases and for exceptional powers. That is the reason, and the sole reason, for the amendment. I hope your Lordships—and indeed the noble Lord the Minister—will find it acceptable.
Lord Denning: My Lords, this is another opening for the lawyers to make trouble. I do not agree with this amendment at all. If the words:
"where the initial arrest is lawful",
were put in, we should not know where we stood. It is simply confusing the matter. If a person is arrested lawfully under the clause and detained for 48 hours, then of course in a proper case it can be extended further. The extra words are quite unnecessary and would lead to confusion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have to say that after what the noble and learned Lord has said almost anything I can say would be otiose also. It is clearly wrong to write otiose words either onto the statute book or in Hansard. With all respect, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that if the arrest is unlawful then the Secretary of State has no power to order the extension. There is nothing that we can add to improve on that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I tremble as I come to the Dispatch Box, the thunder claps having sounded and the lightning having come across your Lordships' House, as it does when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in any matter of law delivers a judgment—but sometimes of course your Lordships' House has seen fit to combat that thunder and that lightning and has reversed the noble and learned Lord's judgment in a court below.
I do not want to waste the time of the House. With great respect, the point is still a valid one in the sense that it is not clear upon the face of the Bill that an originally unlawful arrest cannot be extended by the Secretary of State without a challenge. The only answer to me is that it ought to be obvious to any lawyer. If I may say so, it was not obvious to the Law Society. It is not just a question of a humble member of that society thinking up this amendment. The Law Society has expressed its concern in regard to this clause and the wording of it, and I know has communicated that concern to the noble Lord the Minister.
However, I do not think I can usefully carry my argument very much further because this House, having heard the noble and learned Lord, is likely to take a view that if it has to choose between two lawyers it is safer if it chooses the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. In those circumstances, I merely sit down.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of A binger): My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Mishcon: No, my Lords. I said that I merely sat down.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 13 [Control of entry and procedure for removal]:
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
5.33 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 33, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the second of the amendments which I am moving at this stage of the Bill to improve parliamentary control. I am joined in this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I have to say that in Committee, although it was a thin House and late at night, this amendment or something like it had considerable support, not least I
398
am happy and proud to say from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
I should explain the purposes of these amendments, which go together. They are Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 15.
Amendment No. 11: Page 13, line 33, at end insert—
("() in the case of an order under section 17 below a Report has been laid before Parliament under section (Report by Commission) below at least one month before the draft of the order in paragraph (a) above is laid before each House of Parliament; or").
Amendment No. 15: After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Report by Commission
. The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commission of three members of either House of Parliament who are Privy Councillors whose duty it shall be to monitor the operation of this Act and to report annually to both Houses of Parliament upon its working and effect.").
Together their purpose is threefold: first,
"The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commission of three members of either House … who are Privy Councillors";
secondly, the duty of the three parliamentarians who are Privy Counsellors,
"shall be to monitor the operation of this Act";
thirdly, the commission of three is,
"to report annually to both Houses of Parliament upon its working and effect".
The amendments to Clause 14 stipulate that this report should be laid before Parliament at least one month before the annual orders for the continuation of this legislation are laid. May I examine each of these three parts of this group of amendments separately?
Under the first heading I have deliberately used the word "Commission" rather than the word "committee", although "committee" is the natural word to use in the parliamentary context. I think perhaps everyone who has thought about this agrees that a parliamentary committee is not the right body for this task for obvious reasons. For example, in the first instance a committee would have to be selected, which in itself poses difficulties. Secondly, it would have to sit in camera. Thirdly, it might be denied access to classified information that would be absolutely necessary for its successful function. I have concluded that the body should be a commission, and that suggests that it should be a prerogative body—that is, one appointed by the Crown.
Here I must confess that I find myself in somewhat of a dilemma. Is it constitutionally appropriate for Parliament to insist upon the appointment of a prerogative body by statute? If it is appropriate, then no doubt its terms of reference should be set out in that statute; but that is exceedingly difficult to do without, so to speak, inside information to which I do not have access. However, I am convinced that the principle is sound and that there should be a commission. Ideally it should consist of three parliamentarians—and not judges. I say that with due deference to the noble and learned Lords sitting on the Cross-Benches. As I have indicated on an earlier amendment, the judicature has probably been rendered largely inoperative under this legislation. In my view therefore the commission should consist of Privy Counsellors so that they can have access to classified information; and there should be three so that as much all-party confidence is generated as possible.
Secondly, I should like to say a brief word about functions. I have used the word "monitor"—
"monitor the operation of this Act and to report…upon its working and effect".
Again I must confess to some difficulty in drafting. I am hampered by lack of experience of the security services, and so on; so I and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have opted for the word "monitor", which is a catch-all word. I think it well expresses the kind of function that would give public confidence. I have deliberately eschewed any suggestion that the commission should in any way act as an appeal body. There can be no appeal in any meaningful sense from the kind of executive actions and decisions that are made under this legislation.
What I wish to suggest by the word "monitor" is that the commission should have access to classified information but not—most certainly not—to individual cases; secondly, that the commission should have access to the Secretary of State and I hope the heads of the security services, and when they confer with the Secretary of State they can talk on Privy Council terms in absolute confidentiality. This, I should have thought, would be welcome to the Secretary of State, who has to take these hard decisions on his own in isolation, though of course on carefully submitted advice.
I hope that the noble Lord's encouraging remarks extend to this amendment as well as to the previous one. If the Government will consider this, I should like them also to consider seriously the proposal that the commission should be adequately supported—no vast infrastructure; I am not recommending that—for instance, by a senior counsel, someone trained by his profession to elicit and ascertain facts for the consideration of the commission.
Thirdly, there is the requirement for the commission to report annually in good time for the debates on the renewal orders. Surely that needs little elaboration. There is no question but that an annual report by three respected parliamentarians would not only generate confidence and allay fears but would lead to better-informed debates in both Houses of Parliament.
At present, all we have to go on are the quarterly statistics and any interpretation which the Minister might put on those statistics when he moves the order for approval. So unquestionably a presentation of the statistics covered by a report from an independent and respected body, well in advance of the annual debates, would lead to a better-informed and more sober annual assessment of this legislation and of the causes which give rise to it. I would hope that more time than has hitherto been allowed in another place would be devoted in future to these annual reviews, and in this House too, for there was an implied rebuke in the Jellicoe Report which both Houses should heed. This is what he said:
"The renewal debates have not, on the whole, received the Parliamentary time which they merit."
When I mentioned this in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, fully acknowledged that this was his experience from another place, and he gave as his reason for this that Members of that House—and indeed of this—do not attend to talk of this subject
400
because it is so horrific, and in effect what he was saying is that human kind cannot bear very much reality. He knows too much of it himself, and I think we should respect what he says. I think for all of those reasons I have said enough to convince the House of the case for accepting at least the principle behind these amendments, and I therefore beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. We must remember that this Bill is dealing with two conflicting interests: the freedom of the individual on the one hand, and the national security on the other hand. They are in conflict. It is only in times of great emergency that the Secretary of State is given power to interfere with the freedom of the individual—in this case by exclusion orders, detention and the rest.
The Secretary of State is only to be given that power to interfere with the freedom of the individual by Parliament. It is Parliament which is giving this power to the Secretary of State in this Bill, in this statute. If the Secretary of State is to be given such power by Parliament, surely Parliament should be able, in appropriate circumstances, to consider whether or not it should be extended. Better let it be considered every year, and better let Parliament be properly instructed whether these powers should be extended, and so on. How can Parliament do it unless it has a report of how these powers are being exercised and dealt with by the Secretary of State?
The whole object of this amendment, as I understand it, is to have a commission. I had, at one time, a good deal to do with inquiring into security matters. I should have thought a commission was extremely good. My noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton said something about not having judges; but some of us Privy Counsellors who are retired could qualify. But at all events they should have suitable Privy Counsellors who will be able to inquire, not into actual details of individual cases but into how the Secretary of State is exercising his powers in this regard. That can only be done if they are monitored and a report is made to Parliament from time to time so that we can see that these exceptional powers have been well exercised. I would support the amendment.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am delighted to see that normal service has now been resumed and that I am able enthusiastically to support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said. It is clear that vast powers are being given at the potential expense of the individual. It is clear that those powers, for the most part, cannot, by their nature, be subject to judicial review. I think everyone is agreed that it is clear that Parliament must therefore review the operation of those powers on an annual basis. So far, there has been no dispute between anybody in your Lordships' House. The real question is how is Parliament to get the raw material from which it can make accurate judgments every year as to which powers, or whether all the powers or none of the powers, should in fact be renewed.
I do not think it is sufficient for the noble Lord the Minister to indicate, as he did at Committee stage, that

401
full statistical reports will be made available to Members of Parliament before these reviews take place. It is not really the statistics that are required, although they are very important. What is required is a review available to Members of Parliament as to the spirit in which the Act is being operated. A great deal is going to depend on that.
How are exclusion orders in fact being carried out? Is there being undue hardship in marginal cases? What is happening under Clause 11? What sort of people are being prosecuted, and why? Indeed, as we have discovered before, it is high time that there was some information about the exercise of that power in Northern Ireland. Who are being detained at ports? Why are they being detained? Is it really only because they have got long hair—in which case I should regard myself as tolerably safe. Are the conditions at the ports in which people are being detained satisfactory? What is happening under Clause 12 where it looks as though there may be either a statutory instrument containing a code of practice or a circular of guidance?
What both Houses will want to know is: in what spirit is that code of practice or the guidance circular being complied with? That is not going to emerge from a statistical survey that will simply tell us how many people have or have not been prosecuted in the course of the year.
Finally, there is the question of detention. We want to know not merely how many people have been detained and how many people have been charged as a result; we want to be satisfied that the conditions in which they have been detained have been such as the House would find acceptable. Those are the sorts of matters that would lead me to believe that the type of statistical review produced by a government department simply will not suffice. That is the raw material, but it needs clothing. The only way it can be clothed I believe is by some form of independent commission of people of the calibre set out in Amendment No. 15, in Lord Henderson's amendment, and I hope it will commend itself to the Government and to your Lordships' House.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I had thought my name was going down in support of this amendment but I see the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is back in his place there. Perhaps that is just as well because I have some reservations about it. I should like to explain them to the House, although at the end of the day I hope that the Minister will seek to meet, in some effective way, what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has asked for.
First, let me relieve the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. The reason why the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has suggested that the commission should not include judges—and I do not think that he quite made this absolutely clear—is that it is extremely important that it should not in any way be thought to be a judicial procedure. This has been one of the problems all the way through the discussions. Indeed, during my review it was suggested that when people exercised their right of appeal against an exclusion order the matter should go to a judge. It is important that it is not a judicial procedure; nor will this particular commission be a judicial procedure.
402
It may be that a retired judge—and now some judges are compelled to retire earlier than others—might be appropriate. The Privy Counsellor does not necessarily have to be a parliamentarian. Although Privy Counsellors in your Lordships' House do not leave Parliament, Privy Counsellors in another place do sometimes inadvertently leave Parliament, or even retire from it. Therefore, I would widen the proposal to that extent.
My concern is that if the members of the commission are to do their job properly, they will have a great deal of work to do. Having had the advantage, or disadvantage, of carrying out the earlier inquiry—previous to the inquiry of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; and I am sure that he would agree with me—I know that to review the operation of the legislation (which is what the noble Earl and then I myself were called upon to do) is a very big task. I think the problem will be how the procedure can be limited, and yet remain effective. I would defend the value of the statistics. Indeed, one of my earlier recommendations was concerned with the absence of statistics. But even the statistics alone will need a great deal of examination. There will, for instance, be the statistics on the length of time that people are held at the ports.
I think it likely that, whether it consists of three members or fewer, the commission will have to undertake a degree of sampling and will need to look at particular areas. I very much take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, made about the conditions of detention. This is an area on which I commented adversely, and an area in which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that there had been virtually no improvement. I can only say that if one was detained in a cell at Stranraer, it would not be very long before one was in a state of acute nervous uncertainty; it is a most uncomfortable place. In fact, people are not detained there for long; I think that they are shoved off to Dumfries, or somewhere like that. Nonetheless, I would hope that there would be some supervision of that.
I hope that, despite my concern about the size of the task, the Government will find a way to meet this point if, as my noble friend has made clear, the objective is to make the legislation, if not more acceptable then likely to relieve some of the anxieties; and the Government are very anxious to do that. For that reason I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and I hope that the Government will go some way to meet this proposal.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I hope that there will be very many more occasions when I shall find myself in such total agreement with the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his support of the amendment. As has been said on a number of occasions by a succession of Secretaries of State at the Home Office, this is the most draconian legislation that has been put on the statute book—for understandable reasons. As has been said, it can be used the wrong way; it can mean a very serious invasion into all the rights of all the citizens of this country—not only Irish people, but English, Scots and Welsh people, too. In those circumstances, I think that everyone in the whole country, both inside and outside

403
of these Houses of Parliament, would welcome this further safeguard.
I see a little difficulty. How do we arrive at a membership of three? Could there be four or five members on the commission? Coming from Northern Ireland, and having represented a Northern Ireland constituency, I am certain that within Northern Ireland there will be people who will say that there should be a Northern Ireland voice on the commission, if it is to be set up. If that view were acceded to, we should find that Northern Ireland Privy Counsellors were all connected with only one side of the religious and political community of Northern Ireland. So that in itself might cause some slight friction. However, even at the risk of that happening—whether or not there was a Northern Ireland person on the commission, and whoever were the members of the commission—I believe that it would be regarded as a very big step in stifling many of the criticisms which are made against this legislation.
I am quite certain that many of your Lordships will have read in the Library the recent annual report of the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. That body has some very harsh things to say about emergency legislation in Northern Ireland. It was set up by the first Conservative Government which came to power after direct rule was introduced in the 'seventies, and it is indeed appointed by the Government. I think the Minister would agree that the personnel who at present comprise the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Corn mission are (as were their predecessors) people of some quality; otherwise, they would never have been appointed. If those people express reservations about the operation of either the prevention of terrorism legislation or the emergency powers legislation, I think that those reservations should be given some consideration.
If a commission such as is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is set up—and I am totally in support of his proposal—then perhaps in the course of the year, while it is in the process of drawing up its own report, it could have discussions with the Standing Advisory Commission. The members of the commission would be there on the spot to monitor cases of the type in which undoubtedly people believe there has been an infringement of human rights. I believe that this is a very reasonable amendment and I sincerely hope that the Minister will find himself able to accept it. I am quite certain that if he can do so it will do a great deal to remove much of the odium that is attached to this particular emergency legislation.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I supported this amendment at the Committee stage and I want to do so again this evening. I do so mainly for two reasons. The operation of this legislation and its continuance or otherwise has a considerable impact on community relations in not only Northern Ireland but also Britain. For that reason we need to have a properly informed parliamentary review of it annually, and the amendment is a most important proposal for getting that informed review.
Secondly, as we have frequently heard, this legislation has had two reviews. The related and
404
cognate Act in Northern Ireland (the Emergency Provisions Act) has already had one review and a second review is at present in process. I suspect that there have been delays in starting the reviews because it is understandably difficult to find a suitable person free at the moment when it is desired to have a review. He is then appointed, and he finds it a very difficult, complex and delicate task to carry out his review, and so we are unable to have results at all frequently. I believe that that situation would be greatly improved by having a standing and permanent commission.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, very briefly, from these Benches, we support the principle embodied in the amendment. We have seen, time after time, that the exercise of the extensive powers that are conferred upon the Secretary of State depend upon his subjective decision. The Secretary of State is not answerable to the courts for the way in which he exercises the powers, so that the courts cannot inquire into his mind. He is answerable to Parliament. It is right and proper that Parliament should be equipped to review the way in which he has exercised the extensive powers conferred upon him by the Bill. Therefore, from these Benches, we support the principle embodied in the amendment.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have argued persuasively and eloquently both this evening and at Committee stage that it would assist both Houses of Parliament if, each year, when they came to consider a continuation order, they had access to a report about the working of the Act in the past year on the basis of which to consider the case for continuation. There are inevitably concerns in this situation about sensitive security information. We also have to bear in mind that the Act places direct responsibilities, notably in respect of extension and exclusion orders, upon the Secretary of State. Each holder of that office, let us not forget, is personally answerable to Parliament for the way that he exercises those powers. Those factors were reflected in the arguments that I used in the past to resist amendments on this point.
I am bound to say that I was also concerned that amendments on this subject did not spell out the purposes of the commission. I strongly suspect that those putting forward the amendments have not wanted to do so. They did not want to limit the role of the proposed commission to aspects of the Act specified in advance, quite understandably, but wanted the commission to adapt its role to the circumstances that arose and changed during the life of the Act. I understand that concern and, if I have understood it aright, a degree of informality and a lack of constraint on the role of such a commission might be a positive advantage.
Before I come to what I propose in response to these amendments, I should, I think, remind your Lordships of an existing safeguard. The Bill already includes a provision ensuring that the Act will lapse unless continued year by year by a continuation order, and will last for up to a maximum of only five years. That order provides the main opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny of the need to continue these exceptional powers. The points that I have to make on

405
these amendments are addressed to the effectiveness of that scrutiny. They will, I believe, help to improve it. In that way, they will help to reinforce the confidence of the House and the country in the care given to these exceptional provisions which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, rightly seeks.
I ought, I suppose, also to remind your Lordships of an undertaking that I gave in Committee to which we shall return, I do not doubt, on a later amendment, as to the timely nature of the debates on that renewal. That was my first undertaking. My second undertaking is a new one. There was a general feeling, expressed particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that Parliament would value an independent scrutiny of the operation of the Act once a year to inform our consideration of continuation orders. He has summarised the objectives in his amendments and I have already explained briefly that his amendments would, in the Government's view, be insufficiently precise in defining the role of the proposed commission. But that role might in any case need to be adapted to changing circumstances. Rigidity would be a disadvantage.
The Government are concerned about the scale of the recent proposal. To have three commissioners looks very much like some sort of tribunal. That is not, I think, what anyone had in mind. I shall say more about that aspect in a moment. It widens the number of people having access to sensitive security information. That is not a problem in the sense that those concerned could not be trusted, but we should all regret if, on the margin, people whose safety might be threatened—police informers, for example—believed, however mistakenly, that their information risked disclosure.
For these reasons and those adduced ably by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, our conclusion was that it would be right to undertake to appoint a single person for this task. He would have to be a person whose reputation would lend authority to his conclusions, because some of the information which led him to his conclusions would not be published. To give him the widest possible role and to allow him to adopt whatever procedure seemed to him convenient, his appointment would rest upon this undertaking to the House. I would propose that it should not be set out in amendments to the Bill and, if noble Lords supporting these amendments were to accept the Government's firm undertaking on this point, I hope that they would feel able to withdraw the amendments.
Without attempting to curtail his role, I shall describe what he would do and how he might do it. First, he would not be an appellate authority. It would not be his task to say that the extension of the detention of Mr. Smith was wrong but that of Mr. Jones was right. It would be his task to look at the use made of the powers under the Act. To consider, for example, whether he saw emerging any change in the pattern of their use which required to be drawn to the attention of Parliament. To enable him to see such a pattern and to contain his workload, we envisage that he should carry out his work in a concentrated period once a year to provide a snapshot of the use made of the powers.
406
To pursue his lines of inquiry he would, as necessary, have access to relevant papers, including those relating to exclusions and extensions, although in the latter case, as I have emphasised, his task would not be to judge individual cases but to examine the overall use made of the powers. He would have access to ministerial correspondence related to complaints about, or recommendations for, improvements in the working of the Act. He should have any opportunity he requires for discussions with officials as well as Ministers about any question he might have relating to this material or the statistics recording the use made of the Act. It would be up to him to ask for any reasonable administrative help, and the Government undertake to see that reasonable needs are met.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that he should have access to any reasonable administrative support, would that extend to someone outside the department—for instance, a counsel learned in the law, a senior counsel, as I suggested?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am engaged in giving an undertaking to Parliament in wording that has been very carefully thought about. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I would rather not elaborate, although he may wish to ask me a question afterwards or it may arise in some other way. With your Lordships' indulgence I shall contine—
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if I may intervene, although I have no right to speak because I have already spoken on this matter, I should like to say that a member of the department would, in my judgment, be a very suitable person. Having had the experience, like the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, of being served by members of the department, one had complete independence and complete integrity.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. It would be important that his report should be published—and published in good time before the House considered a continuation order. We would expect that he would need to consult fully with the Secretaries of State concerned before preparing his report. His report might, for example, take the form of a published exchange of correspondence between him and the Home Secretary but covering, of course, the interests of all three Secretaries of State concerned. If he chose to do so, points of security sensitivity could be covered in unpublished correspondence, although, given that his report would not be reviewing or identifying individual cases, I would expect that this precaution should not often be necessary.
Your Lordships are bound to ask who this great man should be. I shall not be able to answer that question this evening, as I am sure your Lordships will understand. But I have emphasised that his task would not be a judicial or an appellate one and I do not therefore expect that he would be a judge. We shall take our consideration of this matter forward urgently if the undertaking finds favour with your Lordships. Given the nature of the task, the important consideration is his public standing as a person who will command confidence not only in Parliament but in the country.

407
This proposal has been the subject of much careful thought. It constitutes the offer of a binding undertaking of no little importance. It will provide the extra dimension of reassurance that so many of your Lordships are looking for. It represents, I believe, the most that can be done in practicable terms and it is put forward in the most practicable way. I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships and to the noble Lords whose amendment we are discussing, and that they will be prepared to accept it in place of them.
Lord Wigoder: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether this individual would have access to detainees?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would rather not answer that question without notice. I do see the relevance of what the noble Lord asks. I am well aware of the dangers of leaping to conclusions that seem to be obvious, and I think I must merely take that question on board.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to welcome the suggestion and say that the Minister has followed a good precedent because there was something very like it some 20 years ago when the Profumo inquiry was held. It was very like it except that a judge conducted the inquiry on that occasion.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was asking the leave of the House when he spoke again, but he is always welcome—
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, it is not possible for the House to give leave other than to the mover, who may wish to speak again, or to the noble Lord the Minister.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I recognise that but out of courtesy I gave way and let the noble and learned Lord continue.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may say so, whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, speaks in order or whether he does not, his voice is always welcome.
From these Benches I would certainly wish to welcome what the noble Lord the Minister has announced to this House tonight. Again, it is not for me to say whether the movers of this resolution are or are not content with what has been said because my name is not attached to this Motion, although my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has already said we support the principle. Certainly, from these Benches we welcome very much what the noble Lord the Minister has said.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, for that very handsome undertaking by the Minister, which I feel sure is welcomed by all sides of the House—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the Opposition, have each indicated that it is satisfactory so far as they are concerned, and I gather from nods on the Liberal Benches that it is acceptable
408
to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder; and also to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—I offer the Minister my thanks. His undertaking will be widely welcomed and give great reassurance not only in Parliament but throughout the country. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
6.13 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move No. 12. This is a probing amendment. I think that in order to indicate to the House what it is that I wish to probe the Government about I need to read subsection (10) of Clause 14. Subsection (10) says:
"No order under section 1 above"—
that is about the proscription of organizations—
"or under section 17 below"—
that is about duration, expiry and revival—
"shall be made unless—(a) a draft of the order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament"—
I do not object to that at all—
"or (b)"
and these are the words in question—
"it is declared in the order that it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency it is necessary to make the order without a draft having been so approved".
I can understand the necessity for paragraph (b)—which I have just read out—in the case of Section 1 orders which relate to the proscription of organisations, but I cannot myself—though I have tried hard—envisage the circumstances in which paragraph (b) may be necessarily invoked in respect of Section 17 orders;—that is the annual renewal, revival or duration orders. I confess I would have missed this point altogether had not the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in Committee gone out of his way to say—and this was an earlier, and a very welcome, undertaking:
"I am, therefore, prepared to undertake that on any occasion when we lay an order to renew this piece of legislation, we shall do so in ample time for your Lordships to be able to debate it at a date which will permit the Government, if they are moved to do so by the debate, to withdraw the order and to replace it with another drawn in the different terms in which your Lordships have persuaded them to draw it."—[Official Report, 23/2/84; col. 945.]
That was another very handsome undertaking given by the noble Lord the Minister, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for that. But if that undertaking is to have any validity, it surely must mean that the Government would never invoke paragraph (b) of subsection (10) of Clause 14, which is the subject of this probing amendment.
So I am asking the Government to consider excluding the operation of paragraph (b) from Section 17 orders. If, on the other hand, they will not agree to do that, the House is at least owed an explanation of the circumstances in which paragraph (b) might be invoked in respect of Section 17 orders. I await the answer of the Minister with interest. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for enabling me

409
to provide the explanation which, as he rightly says, I owe to the House. The procedure to which this amendment is addressed—known as the urgency procedure—enables an order, which under normal circumstances would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and which would not come into force until approved by both Houses, to be made immediately if the Secretary of State declares that this is necessary by reason of urgency. In such cases the order still has to be approved by your Lordships' House, and by another place, either within 40 days of being made or, if Parliament were not sitting at the time, within 40 days of its return. I can think of a number of circumstances in which this procedure might indeed need to be invoked.
An order under Section 1 proscribing in Great Britain an organisation concerned with Northern Ireland terrorism might be urgently needed during the Summer Recess if a previously unknown or apparently harmless group mounted a concerted bombing attack on the mainland. If such a campaign began in August, I am sure it would be wrong for the making of an order to he delayed until October. Similarly, if a general election were unexpectedly called when renewal was imminent, and a renewal order could not be debated before Parliament was prorogued the Secretary of State would have to make an order under this procedure.
I ought, I think, to have referred to that when I was giving the undertaking. There are circumstances, which one can imagine, when in fact it would be impracticable or impossible to honour the undertaking because one was overtaken by a dissolution. It would be a very unhappy coincidence of dates if that were to happen, but I ought nonetheless to have foreseen it and I regret that I did not. In either case that I have mentioned the order would cease to have effect unless both Houses had approved it within 40 days of their return. So it would be perfectly simple to remedy the matter thereafter.
I recognise that this amendment reflects the noble Lord's very understandable concern that Parliament should be closely involved with every aspect of this legislation; legislation which we are all only too well aware contains provisions which in other circumstances we would regard as objectionable. But the urgency procedure has two safeguards built into it. The Secretary of State must be satisfied of the urgent need for an order, and Parliament must approve that order if its life is to be of a useful length at all.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I think that my noble friend has conceded the point on Clause 1—the clause which relates to proscription. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give any other examples apart from an election. Again, I think that this is slightly undesirable. It is a very wide, blanket power. In effect, the Act can be, as it were, re-enacted by order if Parliament is not sitting. Normally, as the noble Lord knows, at the time of a general election there is a quick rush of legislation through Parliament. Your Lordships have to work particularly hard, and I do not doubt that Parliament would approve it or, equally, might not wish to do so, whereupon the Minister would wait until Parliament had been dissolved. It is
410
obviously a safe precaution. There may be many other examples. I do not know whether the noble Lord can give those examples. My inclination—if my noble friend does not wish to take the matter to a Division tonight—is for my noble friend to reserve his ammunition and perhaps ask the Government if they can give some further information, perhaps in the course of this debate, if the noble Lord's active friend can supply him with some additional answers.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the activity and nobility of my friend is never in question and, as always, it has proved effective. I am not sure how many examples I can, under those circumstances, produce, but I can produce one. For instance, if part of the Act had been allowed to lapse and then it was urgently needed—owing to a change back to former circumstances—I understand that to reactivate that part of the Act this procedure would be required. I wish to reassure your Lordships that there are no sinister intentions; your Lordships will wish to reassure me that you do not impute any to me, but that my successors may be lesser men; and so we go on. I hope that I have at least explained to your Lordships why there is a need for a provision of this sort.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, suggests that maybe it goes wider than necessary. I dare say, given a little more time, I might be able to produce other reasons as to why a certain degree of width is needed—
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it is not the noble Lord we are worried about; we are worried about his successors.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was waiting for that piece of flattery, and I am grateful for it. But I am afraid I can say no more at this stage.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his explanation, and I should very much like to consider it. My instant reaction is that it is moderately—but only moderately—satisfactory. I wonder whether, somehow or other, between now and Third Reading it might be possible for the noble Lord to consider whether this paragraph might be more restricted. Of course, I have conceded that it is necessary in respect of Clause 1 orders; but if it were possible between now and Third Reading to restrict it to the very few cases where it would be impossible or impracticable to lay a renewal order for the reactivation of a part which had been allowed to lapse, it would certainly give me some reassurance. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to give an indication.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if your Lordships would be kind enough to allow me to speak more than I should at this stage, I should like to say that, of course, between stages I always consider what noble Lords have said, anyway. I would remind the noble Lord that before Third Reading there is some very urgent work to be done by the same people as will be considering this matter as regards a form of statutory instrument, and so on, to which we would probably attach slightly more importance than we would to this. We will look

411
at it again, but not to the extent that it might prejudice that work.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Duration, expiry and revival of certain provisions]:
6.24 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 14, line 23, leave out ("an order") and insert ("orders")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for getting to my feet once again, but I think that it would be the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and probably the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that I move Amendment No. 13 and speak also to Amendment No. 14:
Amendment No. 14: Page 14, line 37, at end insert—
("() There shall be two such orders affecting the provisions of Parts I, III, IV and V and of Part II of this Act respectively.")
In Committee, which lasted some four and a half hours, a substantial amount of time was taken up by the discussion of Part II, exclusion orders. That discussion was initiated by the Opposition Front Bench. The Committee did, indeed, crawl over the exclusion order provisions. At the end of the day, rather late at night and with only a handful present, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, moved an amendment to the effect that there should be five separate orders for approval annually for each Part of the Act. My amendment was slightly less ambitious, and this is the one that I am repeating today. It is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has attached his name. It provides for separate orders for the continuance of Part II, on the one hand, and the remainder of the Act, on the other hand. I know that the drafting is defective, but it does have the merit of simplicity. If the principle is accepted, it should be possible to draft a suitable amendment to be moved on Third Reading, modelled on the wording of Clause 17(2).
In Committee the Minister did not like either my amendment or the amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder. However, he preferred mine if only because it had the effect of merely doubling the time taken in the House of Commons on the annual orders; whereas the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would have quintupled that amount of time.
The essence of the case for singling out exclusion orders for special treatment annually is to be found in the Jellicoe Report itself, in chapters 8 and 9. As I said on Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was particularly cautious about Part II, and in chapter 9 of his report he revealed especially his great concern for civil liberty. He opened the chapter with a very remarkable set of words. In order to save time during this Report stage, I shall not read out those words. They are already written into the record because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, himself read them out carefully and slowly. Therefore, I should like to take them as read. However, they were very careful words,
412
and they are enough in themselves to justify, in my view, a separate annual order for Part II.
But in addition the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, went on the say in paragraph 178:
"I believe the need for it"—
that is, the exclusion order—
"to have declined markedly"
since the mid-1970s. That is dramatically supported by the statistical tables. That, in turn, led the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to recommend:
"that the possibility of abolishing it"—
that is, the Part II exclusion order—
"should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers".
Again I suggest to the House that that is a powerful argument for a separate affirmative resolution for exclusion orders. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said:
"In sum, I believe that it should be one of the first powers in the Act to be repealed; but that the time for this is not yet".
As I said in Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, most fairly set out at length the case against exclusion orders, although he came down in favour of them. In his visits to Northern Ireland he was impressed by the unanimity of view. This is what he said:
"Every political party from which I can receive oral evidence—and these included both Unionist and Republican parties—expressed the view that the power to exclude had been used so as to turn Northern Ireland into a 'terrorist dustbin' ".
Moreover,
"it can have severe effects not only on the excluded person and his family, but also on the population of Northern Ireland".
In paragraph 185 he agreed that exclusion can cause financial hardship and emotional suffering to the family of the excluded person. He said, rightly:
"Exclusion is not a punishment, in the sense that this is not the intention with which it is imposed. But in such cases it can have the effect on the subject and his family of a punishment of very considerable severity".
So I hope that no one will argue that exclusion is not effectively a punishment. Indeed, exclusion is only a euphemism for "banishment", which is a word which sends a shiver up the spine.
I have two more arguments for singling out exclusion orders for special treatment and they are both derived from the Jellicoe Report: first, the need for Parliament to scrutinise especially the operation of the new three-year rule. This is what Lord Jellicoe said:
"It is an administrative question how fast this can be achieved; but I would hope that within a year of introducing 'three-year' exclusion, no 'old' exclusion orders more than three years old would remain in force".
This wants watching by Parliament—and I suggest it wants annual watching by Parliament.
Secondly, Lord Jellicoe says—and this is early on in his report:
"it seems plain that exceptional legislation will be—at best—ineffective if it is operated against the will of the public. The most important assistance which the police can have in the fight against terrorism is not special powers but the support of the public. It is vital that such powers do not unnecessarily alienate—either in their essence or in their operation—any section of the law-abiding population in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland".

413
Those are wise words. Recalling the unanimous opposition of all political parties to exclusion in Northern Ireland, I maintain that the case for a separate affirmative instrument for exclusion is made so that public opinion can be annually expressed and judgment made in Parliament as to the necessity for its continuance.
Having said that, I must say in all fairness to the noble Lord the Minister that the Government's handsome undertaking in regard to the appointment of a single commissioner, for which I think the whole House is deeply grateful, has made the case for separate orders for exclusion slightly less imperative than it was. I put it no higher than that. Nonetheless, it remains a formidable case, and therefore I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I do not think that it is necessary to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said about the importance of exclusion orders; nor about the desirability that, on annual review, Parliament should have the power to come to a separate decision on Part II exclusion orders from its decision as to renewing the rest of the Act. I do not think it is necessary to add anything to what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said, first, because of the way in which he put the matter, and, secondly, because it seemed to me that at the Committee stage the noble Lord the Minister very graciously conceded that it was desirable on renewal in an appropriate case for the Houses of Parliament to have the opportunity to come to separate decisions on separate parts of the Act. The only matter that divided us at the Committee stage was the question of what is the best machinery for achieving this desirable end.
The machinery proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is simple in the extreme. It is that instead of having one order to renew the whole Act, which has to be dealt with en bloc, there should be two separate orders, one to deal with Part II exclusion orders, and the other to deal with the rest of the Act. That seems to be extremely simple and extremely effective. The only criticism that could be offered was not a very compelling one; it was that in some odd way if we debate Part II in one debate and the rest of the Act in another debate, our debates will last twice as long as if we debated the whole Act, including Part II, at the one time. I think that there is a logical fallacy about that and I must confess that I do not find it very persuasive or attractive as an argument.
On the contrary, having a separate debate on Part II from the debate on the rest of the Act might very well serve to concentrate people's minds and prevent the debate from wandering over a very wide area. Therefore, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, which I am very happy to support, would achieve the end which everybody wants to see achieved with the minimum of difficulty.
As I understand it, the alternative proposal which the Government put forward in Committee was an undertaking that the order to renew the whole Act would be laid well in advance of the necessary time, so that the Government could test the temperature of the debate in the two Houses of Parliament. If it appeared that there was feeling that particular parts of the Act
414
should not be renewed, then the Government would withdraw the order that they had laid and proceed to modify it, and re-lay it as a different order, excluding from it such parts as it appeared the House did not want to renew. By comparison with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that seems to me to be the most cumbersome of procedures. I find it difficult to understand how it can seriously be said that, on a matter of this importance, it is possible to take the temperature of the House without a vote and in the course of what may be a rambling debate on a very large number of sections of an Act which is being renewed.
I was almost driven to the conclusion last time that the Government were resolved to resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and instead to promote their own undertaking out of a sort of determination in no circumstances to have a single word of this Bill amended in Committee in your Lordships' House. I do not believe that that is so, but I ask the noble Lord the Minister to agree, as I am sure he will today, that it is still desirable, as it was at the Committee stage, that the machinery should exist for a separate consideration of Part II of this Bill, and that in those circumstances the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is a very much more practicable one than the one to which he resorted last time.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I made clear during our debate on similar amendments in Committee, I entirely understand and sympathise with the feeling of frustration that your Lordships may suffer when the only options open to your Lordships are to agree or to negative an order in toto. It was this feeling which led me to offer an undertaking that the draft renewal order would, in normal circumstances, be laid before your Lordships in ample time for debate at a date which would permit the Government to withdraw the order and amend it to take account of the views expressed, if they were moved to do so. The amended version would then be considered in another place and by your Lordships in the usual way.
I have discussed the views expressed by your Lordships in Committee with my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary, and I can assure your Lordships that he too fully sympathises with the motives which have led the noble Lords to table this amendment, and indeed to re-table it. He has given this firm assurance. First, that unless in the particular circumstances there are overriding reasons against so doing—and we have just discussed a couple—your Lordships will always be given an opportunity to consider the draft order at least one month before the date of renewal; and, secondly, that he will consider very seriously how many points made in the debate might be incorporated in a revised order.
I mentioned the words:
"Unless in particular circumstances there are overriding reasons against so doing"—
not as a sinister escape hatch, but for the reasons which I gave in an earlier exchange on the previous amendment. That undertaking is as far as the Government can go towards meeting the spirit of the amendment because there is a very real technical difficulty with the amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I try to explain it.

415
The separate parts of the Bill are to some extent interdependent. As with other legislation, the parts are there only for administrative convenience, and reflect convenient divisions within the Bill. But it would be wrong to conclude that these divisions represent independent and unrelated provisions. If this amendment were accepted the Government of the day could find itself in a situation in which, having decided after careful consideration that the whole of the Act should be renewed, one House rejected one of the orders, say, that relating to Parts I, III, IV and V, but not that relating to Part II. But the result would be that Part II could not be given full effect without other parts of the Bill being in force as well. It might also happen that one House would reject one order and the other House the other. I am sure your Lordships can imagine the constitutional chaos that this would cause.
I am not of course saying to your Lordships that the Bill is an indivisible whole—if it were, the provision in Clause 17(2) for "all or any" of its provisions to be renewed would be inoperable—but I am saying that it cannot be divided on a rigid basis, sliced down a straight line through the statute at a particular point.
The provision in Clause 17(2) is a flexible one, which enables a Home Secretary to decide, in the light of the circumstances at the time, whether he wishes to renew each provision of the Act or whether one or more can be allowed to lapse. This decision can be made on a section by section basis, or even subsection by subsection; and I can assure your Lordships that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that every section will be renewed. We will consider very seriously, year by year, whether each measure is still justified by the climate of the day, and it will still be open to your Lordships, and to the Members of another place, to challenge that decision by rejecting the renewal order, so forcing the Government to bring before you one which reflects your wishes.
Your Lordships have undertakings that except under circumstances that make it impossible, your Lordships will have an ample opportunity to debate the Act. Your Lordships have an undertaking that the Secretary of State will consider with great care which points from such a debate might be included in a revised order. Your Lordships have an undertaking that the debate will be conducted in the light of the report of the person we shall proceed to appoint following our debate on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. The noble Lord was kind enough to say what I had intended to point out to your Lordships, that that cast a different light on the need for supervision in the way that is now proposed. I hope that your Lordships, with those three substantial undertakings, will feel that you have done your job as constitutional watchdogs for the liberties of the private citizen and will be content without this further device.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, surely these undertakings are not substantial at all. The fact is that the House can debate the Act, but we knew that anyway. There is nothing new in that. The assurances given that the points made in the debate will be considered by the Government, and possibly some of them might end up in changes in the Act, may be. But
416
there is nothing new in that. Surely that happens in any debate anyway. That is not an assurance of any value.
I am not at all convinced by that part of the Minister's argument. He is merely telling us what we already knew. I think that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has substantial strength in it and the Government should think a good deal harder before they try to fob us off with assurances which are not assurances at all.
Lord Elton: My Lords, by your Lordships' leave, I do not think that these are flimsy or insubstantial undertakings at all. They have been made after grave discussion among the very large number of people concerned. They have been given in crystal clear terms which cannot be retreated from and which I have stuck closely to in the earlier debates, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, may have observed. They do constitute putting in your Lordships' hands the influence which your Lordships properly seek. I do not think that I can go further. I am in danger of embarking on an impassioned Committee stage appeal to the House, sitting down on interruption and leaping up and speaking by leave many times, but I think you will find on reading Hansard that I have said what seems to me enough to convince your Lordships of the justice of our position.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, though I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I take a different view about the value of the Minister's undertakings, to which I attach very considerable importance. There are three strands. There is the undertaking which the noble Lord gave in Committee. There is the undertaking which the noble Lord the Minister gave on an earlier amendment about the commissioner. I think that is by far the most important of all the undertakings—as far as I can see that commissioner will be able if he thinks fit in his annual report, to say, for example, that in his opinion (after he has carefully examined all the evidence) the exclusion orders should lapse. Parliament will have had the guidance of that commissioner's report. With great respect Lord Howie of Troon I think this is a considerable undertaking for which we should be extremely grateful.
Thirdly, the noble Minister's undertaking in Committee has been reinforced again just now by an undertaking he has given on behalf of the Secretary of State. For these three reasons I should be prepared to withdraw the amendment, though not for the real technical objections. I do not regard them as having any validity at all. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that exclusion orders should be one of the first powers in the Act to be repealed. I feel quite sure that there is machinery in Section 17 to be able to repeal the exclusion order machinery. If there is not, I shall be extremely disturbed. If the Act can be unpicked so that exclusion orders can be repealed, it must be possible to contrive an order for approval which could apply solely to exclusion orders. But that is only by the way. I have accepted and I hope the House will have accepted these substantial assurances, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Supplemental Provisions for Sections 1 to 13]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 20, line 36, at end insert—
("(4) Where a person is so detained, the constable shall, as soon as is practicable, make a written record of the time of the arrest and of the grounds for the arrest, a copy of which shall be given to the person detained.
(5) The Secretary of State shall include in the published statistics the total number of arrests under this paragraph and the time periods for which they were detained.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we canvassed support for this amendment late in the day in Committee stage. This amendment refers to the detention under Clauses 12 and 13. In reply to the first part of the amendment, the Minister referred to the draft code of practice in the course of preparation under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. But that is no more than a draft code and, to repeat a point made earlier, the legislation has not been enacted.
These powers are so exceptional that we consider that the requirements of the first part of the amendment ought to be embodied in legislation. Similarly, on the second part of the amendment, when replying in Committee the Minister drew the Committee's attention to the fact that there is no requirement in the Bill to publish statistics. But if the Bill were to contain that requirement, that would be one means of ensuring that we were achieving the object of the first part of the amendment.
I remind the House that this amendment is based on paragraph 145 of the Jellicoe Report where the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, drew our attention to the inadequacy of the statistics. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, may I take the opportunity to ask the Minister whether he could respond in some way to the letter sent to him by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights dated 29th February? The letter dealt with port powers, which is not precisely the subject of the amendment but I think it is analogous. I wonder if he could be helpful on that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, at this late stage and with another Bill waiting behind I think that I must stick to the amendment on the Marshalled List, if the noble Lord will forgive me, and reply to the letter in the normal way.
Clause 12 gives a constable the power to arrest without warrant, and detain for up to 48 hours, a person whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of involvement in terrorism; that is to say, the ground of such an arrest is reasonable suspicion. The power to detain conferred in the supplemental order is a part of the system of port controls set up to control travel between Great Britain and the island of Ireland. Clause 13, under which the supplemental order is made, gives the Secretary of State power to provide for the examination of people arriving in, or leaving, Great Britain or Northern Ireland to determine whether they appear to be, or to have been, involved in terrorism.
Accordingly, the power to detain at the port currently embodied in Article 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) Order enables an examining officer to detain a person
418
pending his examination, or pending further examination.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe recommended that the power to examine and detain should be lost after 12 hours unless the examining officer by then has formed a reasonable suspicion of involvement, and this change will be implemented in the new supplemental order. That does not affect the technical distinction between arrest and detention. There is a power to arrest in the supplemental order, in Article 11, but it is appropriate only in cases where a person liable to examination has evaded the control point and left the port area. In such a case, he may be arrested and brought back to be examined.
The first new sub-paragraph proposed in this amendment introduces a requirement designed, I think, to apply both to arrests under Clause 12 and to detentions under the supplemental order. I hope that my somewhat long-winded explanation will have made it clear that the references to arrests in the subparagraph have the effect of making it more appropriate to arrests under Clause 12 and arrests under Article 11, if any. As I said in Committee, in respect of Clause 12 the arrangements set out in the draft code of practice on the detention and treatment of suspects issued in conjunction with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill will go most of the way towards meeting the spirit of the amendment.
Paragraph 2.1 of the code deals with the duties of a custodial officer at a police station in respect of a person who has been arrested but not yet charged. This requires him to inform the person detained of the grounds for detention and to record those grounds and the time when detention commences. There is no immediate requirement for the arrested person to be given a copy of the grounds for his detention but paragraph 2.3 of the draft code provides that at the time of his release, or at any time within the next 12 months, he or his legal adviser shall, on request, be given a copy of the custody record on which these grounds are entered. I realise that that does not go absolutely as far as the noble Lord proposes, but I believe that it meets the spirit of this part of their amendment as far as arrests under Clause 12 are concerned.
I also explained that certain detentions under the supplemental order—that is, those where the detainee is not detained by the police but by an immigration officer—would not come within the purview of the draft code of practice which relates only to persons in police custody. I can only repeat the undertaking which I have already given that we will consider ways of bringing the information given to persons detained under it into line with that of persons detained in police custody.
I turn now briefly to the second part of the amendment, subparagraph (5). This would require the Secretary of State to include in the published statistics the total number of arrests under paragraph 5 and the length of time for which the persons were detained. I take it that in tabling the amendment the noble Lord was concerned to have statistics relating to both arrests and detentions. I assume also that he has seen Tables 1 and 6 of the Quarterly Statistical Bulletin published by the Home Office which contain respectively the total number of persons detained under the legislation

419
at ports or elsewhere and, for persons who are not subsequently charged or excluded, the length of time for which they were detained. In future, the bulletin will, in accordance with Lord Jellicoe's recommendation No. 32, also include details of the number of people examined at ports for longer than one hour and whether or not they were formally detained—and I think that this is a point on which the noble Lord was expressing concern.
As I said in Committee, I would be happy to consider the possibility of providing any further information requested by noble Lords in the statistical tables, but it would not be appropriate to insert a reference to the public statistics in the Bill proposed, as I said earlier. I have given two undertakings in connection with these amendments; to consider introducing a form of custody records for detainees under the supplemental order, and to consider the possibility of providing any statistics beyond those already published which noble Lords may request. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel content.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, in the light of the undertakings which the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that the consideration of the Housing and Building Control Bill be adjourned until after consideration of the Merchant Shipping Bill.
Moved, That consideration of the Housing and Building Control Bill be adjourned until after consideration of the Merchant Shipping Bill—(Lord Denham.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, there is the matter of the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1984.
Lord Denham: My Lords, as the Merchant Shipping Bill comes after that, the Committee stage of the Housing and Building Control Bill will come after both. I must confess to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip that I myself spotted that point and nearly had the same reaction.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before we start the consideration of the regulations, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Chief Whip could give an indication that we will not re-commence the Committee stage of the Housing and Building Control Bill before 7.45 p.m.?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am very happy to give that indication.

Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limits) Regulations 1984
6.58 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 8th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 8th February be approved. I should like to start by saying a few words about the scope of the regulations. Broadly, they apply to all vehicles heavier than the private car or motorcycle. They apply mainly to commercial vehicles. They also apply to private cars and motorcycles when these vehicles are towing trailers or, in the case of cars, caravans. They do not apply to solo motor cars and solo motorcycles. Nor do they affect the normal road speed limits, such as the motorway 70 mph limit, the national 60 mph limit, or the 30, 40 or 50 mph road speed limits found, for example, in built-up areas. Whenever a lower road speed limit exists, this always takes precedence over any higher vehicle speed limit which may be found in the regulations currently before the House.
The history of vehicle speed limits goes back a long way—right back to 1861. The present limits go back, in the main, to 1967. The framework of the present rules is set out in Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. Schedule 5 was amended by statutory instrument in 1971, in 1973 and finally, in 1981, when new limits for works trucks and industrial tractors were introduced.
The regulations now before the House replace Schedule 5 and its amendments by a new set of rules and limits which are not only easier to understand and, hence, enforce, but also are more relevant to today's road conditions and to modern vehicle construction standards.
Speed limits must be realistic. If they are not realistic, the majority of drivers break them. Enforcement is not then practicable, and the effect is to bring the limits and the law into disrepute. I shall deal in a moment with the level of the new limits, but first I think it is perhaps worth pointing out that, for the vast majority of vehicles, the new dual carriageway limits represent the only change brought about by these regulations. The need for new dual carriageway limits is, I think, clear and well accepted. Since the last substantial revision of vehicle speed limits, the amount of high-quality dual carriageway in this country, especially bypasses, has grown considerably. The figure is now something over 3,000 miles.
The other main feature of the new regulations is their form of presentation. They are now clearer in their meaning to drivers, operators and police alike. This will help drivers to comply with the law and the police to enforce it. The regulations follow very much the form of those circulated for comment last August. They were generally well received, with over 80 separate organisations responding to the consultation. As a result of these comments, we have made one or two changes, which I can best deal with by going through the regulations.
The regulations fall into three main parts. Part I covers most vehicles, in that it deals with vehicles or combinations of vehicles fully fitted with pneumatic tyres. Part II deals with vehicles which have a mixture of tyres, including solid rubber or steel, and Part III with track-laying vehicles. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I concentrate this evening on Part I only. Parts II and III are, in fact, more widely understood and, so far as I am aware, are not contentious.
The new limits for coaches are set out in Item I. The limits are 70 mph for motorways, as at present, 60 mph on dual carriageways, which is a new limit generally supported in the consultation, and 50 mph on other roads, as at present. At this point it would perhaps he helpful for me to say something about the 70 mph motorway limit for coaches. We have made clear our concern at coaches exceeding this limit on numerous occasions over the past few months. We have also witnessed, and indeed have criticised, the generally aggressive behaviour of some coach drivers on our motorways. It was quite clear from the number of representations made during the consultation—many unsolicited from members of the public—that the concern is widely shared.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State and officials in the department have spoken to both the police and the operators. Two things, I think, are clear. First, however clouded the arguments have become, there is no evidence that the 70 mph limit is unsafe in normal motorway conditions. Secondly, there is general agreement among all those involved that there is a need for greater compliance with the law.
It was against this background that we were grateful to the Bus and Coach Council for their suggestion of a code of conduct providing for the voluntary use of tachographs on services using motorway and dual carriageway roads, and the monitoring of tachograph discs by management to improve speed limit compliance. I think it is important for the industry to put its own house in order so far as possible, and for us to avoid placing unnecessary legislative or bureaucratic burdens on operators. The code will be ready for the 1984 coaching season, and I believe that, with goodwill, the code should solve the speeding problem. But we shall be looking closely at the situation over the summer months, and we shall not hesitate to take further action if events prove this to be necessary.
I should now like to turn to the speed limits for cars towing caravans or trailers. This has proved to be something of a contentious area, due largely, I think, to a misunderstanding of both the present rules and the new regulations. I am sorry to say that this misunderstanding is shared by some of the specialists in the field, so I hope the House will bear with me if I go into some details.
Apart from certain specialised long-wheelbase caravans or trailers, the speed limit for private cars towing caravans or trailers is at present either 40 mph or, if certain weight-ratio rules are met, 50 mph. These limits apply on all roads. The rules governing weight-ratio are that if a trailer or caravan has brakes its weight must not exceed the weight of the towing vehicle. If the trailer or caravan is unbraked, its weight must not exceed 60 per cent. of that of the towing vehicle. If the combination satisfies these requirements, it must then display a "50" plate to prescribed dimensions. If the combination does not satisfy these requirements, it can still go on the road but can go no faster than 40 mph.
I think it will already be apparent that the present rules are difficult to follow and hence to enforce. In practice, it is likely that 50 mph is widely regarded as the limit for all combinations. My department's
422
proposals last August were, accordingly, that the weight-ratio rules should be abolished and that uniform limits whould apply to all combinations. These were proposed as 60 mph for motorways, to allow for improved vehicle performance since 1973, and 50 mph for all other roads.
Although the proposals were generally welcomed, some organisations expressed concern about safety, especially of the 60 mph limit proposed for motorways. In the light of these representations it was decided to withdraw the 60 mph proposal in favour of a 50 mph limit for all roads. At the same time, we decided to proceed with the abolition of the weight-ratio rules.
I should now like to move on to the limits for goods vehicles, where the first change, arising out of the consultation, is the removal from the scope of the regulations of solo car-derived vans. At present, these light vans are allowed to do 70 mph on motorways but are restricted to 50 mph on other roads. There are no technical or safety reasons why these vehicles should not be treated in exactly the same way as the passenger cars from which they are derived, or in the same way as estate cars. The regulations now provide for this. Items 3 and 4 of Part I of the regulations provide for car-derived vans also to be treated as cars when they are towing trailers or caravans.
For goods vehicles generally, the main change is the introduction of a new speed limit of 50 mph for heavy lorries travelling on dual carriageways. I should make it clear—and, indeed, underline—that the current lorry limits of 60 mph on motorways and 40 mph on single carriageway roads remain unaltered. An associated change in the rules is the harmonisation of the speed limits for articulated goods vehicles and draw-bar trailer outfits. The regulations therefore provide for all heavier vehicles to be restricted to the same limits: 60 mph on motorways, 50 mph on dual carriageways and 40 mph elsewhere.
We have also removed an anomaly in the dividing line between light and heavy vehicles. The regulations therefore provide for a uniform cut-off point for all roads. This is set at 7·5 tonnes maximum laden weight. This is the generally accepted equivalent of the current 3,050 kg. unladen weight cut-off point—what, a few years ago, was known as the 3 tons limit. It is also the weight at which reflective rear markings become obligatory, thus enabling ready identification and easier enforcement. Following the changes, therefore, the pattern of speed limits for light goods vehicles will be 70 mph on motorways, 60 mph on dual carriageways and 50 mph elsewhere. Heavier vehicles over 7·5 tonnes laden will have limits of 60 mph, 50 mph and 40 mph respectively.
That, in essence, is what the regulations contain. Obviously, I should be very pleased to answer those questions which any noble Lord would like to ask of me. It might be useful if I say at this stage that throughout all the consultations we have been guided to a great extent by the industries concerned and, indeed, by the police. The Association of Chief Police Officers gave evidence to the Commons Select Committee on Transport relating to speed limits, and I shall quote from it if I may. They said:

423
"Speed limits in this country are in a mess. There are too many totally unrealistic speed limits and too many speed limits being imposed for the wrong reasons. It is the view of many chief constables and of the ACPO traffic committee that local authorities have not taken a sufficiently responsible attitude to the published criteria. Additionally, some speed limits remain for historic reasons when they have been overtaken by other factors".
The "other factors" referred to are the improvements in the last few years in roads and, indeed, in vehicles. They continued:
"The proliferation of unnecessary and unenforceable speed limits are not only an unacceptable burden on police resources; they also bring other perfectly proper speed limits into disrepute. There is a strong case for a total reappraisal of all speed limits to make them more understandable and acceptable to the community at large and. therefore, more likely to be obeyed and enforced."
We believe that these regulations do just that. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 8th February be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
7.13 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for explaining this order. While I agree that the tables are perfectly clear, the explanatory note to the order does not tell us the present and future limits for different vehicles. I found the appendix to the department's press notice issued on 8th February particularly helpful in this respect, because it set out in simple form the present limits and the new limits to which they are changing.
I was also much helped by the national speed survey of 1983, which was published only on 28th February. Was that speed survey available to the 80-odd organisations which responded to the consultation? They were circulated on 12th August but, as I said, the speed survey was not published until 28th February, unless special copies were made available to them.
I found the national speed survey report very interesting and I shall refer to one or two points. The Minister has stated—as, I gather, did his Secretary of State in the other place last night, although we have not seen that Hansard—that most drivers break speed limits if they are not realistic. He also said that in such circumstances enforcement ceases to be a practical possibility and that the new proposals should make the task much easier.
I should have thought that there were other factors to be considered, such as energy consumption, economic factors—that is, the additional time taken by slower vehicles—driving conditions, the condition of coaches and lorries and environmental and safety considerations, if we increase speeds. None of these factors has been mentioned. The only two points we have heard about are, first, that if speed limits are unrealistic drivers will break them; and, secondly, that limits can be enforced if they are more realistic.
I want to deal with the main categories. First, may I deal with cars drawing caravans and trailers? The Minister said that in certain conditions there will still be a 40 mph limit for some cars drawing caravans and trailers. But when I look at the appendix to the Department of Transport's press notice, I cannot see any reference at all to them. I can find a reference only to private cars towing caravans or trailers on dual
424
carriageways, which are at present restricted to 40 to 50 mph. In future, they will all be able to do 50 mph, and on other roads, where they are at present restricted to 40 to 50 mph, they will be allowed to do 50 mph. Perhaps I am not reading the order correctly, but I should like the Minister to say whether there will still be a 40 mph limit for certain types of caravans or trailers.
All noble Lords who travel by road will know the problems when they have in front of them a caravan which is moving from left to right across the road. I get as far away from caravans as possible. Except for those categories about which I have asked the noble Lord, they will all have a 50 mph limit, irrespective of any other considerations. I hope it will not be said that because they are slow they are difficult to pass, because that is not the only factor. The other factor is the conditions under which vehicles are towed.
This is one case where it is not possible to use the argument that there is a general exceeding of the speed limit for towing caravans or trailers, because I find in the speed survey report that only 28 per cent.—I use the word "only", because it is descriptive—exceeded the present speed limit on dual carriageway roads. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of cars pulling caravans and trailers do not break the law on dual carriageway roads, according to the speed survey. It may be that the majority of them break the law on motorways, but they certainly do not on dual carriageways. The speed survey also showed that only 7 per cent. exceeded the speed limit on single carriageway roads, and yet we are now to have the speed limit for all cars towing caravans or trailers set at 50 mph. So there seems to be one category where the argument that drivers break an unrealistic speed limit does not apply.
As regards goods vehicles, we find, in effect, that all heavy goods vehicles over 7½ tonnes will have a maximum of 50 mph on dual carriageways—again, irrespective of types. The Minister made that quite clear. Solo vehicles, articulated lorries and drawbar lorries will all have the same speed limit on dual carriageways—and I would question whether that is wise—except for solo lorries up to 7½tonnes, which can travel at up to 60 mph on those roads. Lorries of all types under 7½tonnes will be able to travel at 50 mph on other roads. I would question whether even goods vehicles weighing under 7½ tonnes should all be eligible to travel at more than 50 miles per hour. Admittedly heavy goods vehicles over that weight will stay limited to 40 miles per hour.
It is argued, again in the national speed survey, that 56 per cent. of all HGVs exceed the present limit of 40 miles per hour on single carriageways. But it is not clear from the survey whether, in referring to HGVs, the survey is referring to vehicles weighing more than 7½ tonnes or vehicles weighing below that. That is a very important point. The survey also shows that on dual carriageways, 42 per cent. of HGVs exceed the 50 miles per hour limit which is to be the new limit. Therefore, to be logical, we should raise the limit above 50 miles per hour because already more than 42 per cent. of vehicles are breaking what is to be the new limit. When the argument for increasing limits is based solely on the fact that drivers already exceed the limit, that is, I suggest, an unwise argument.

425
We are now to have a limit of 38 tonnes for heavier lorries and the Government have made clear that prosecutions will not take place if the overloading of lorries is not more than 10 per cent. We are now to have what some people regard as excessive speed limits for lorries on some of our roads. I wonder whether all the facts I have mentioned have been taken into consideration.
Many noble Lords will have travelled on dual carriageways, motorways and other roads not only with lorries right behind them when they have been travelling at 70 miles per hour—when the best thing to do is to get out of the way of the lorries—but also with coaches right behind them. Coaches have overtaken me when I have been driving at 70 miles per hour. The survey shows that 23 per cent. of coaches and buses exceed 70 miles per hour, and a sizeable percentage exceed 80 miles per hour. On the dual carriageways, we are now to have a 60 miles per hour maximum because we are told in the speed survey that 60 per cent. exceed the present limit of 50 miles per hour. We are told that already 20 per cent. of buses and coaches exceed what is to be the new maximum speed limit. Again, one must question whether the speed limit for coaches and buses is not excessive.
What we do not know is what effect all these limits will have on express scheduled services. Will it mean a speeding up of drivers' conditions? Have the unions been consulted about the change? Incidentally, have the unions been consulted about the change for heavy goods vehicles? This is quite important.
The Minister spoke of "normal conditions"—and I believe he spoke of "normal motorway conditions". I noticed in the Guardian that the Minister of State, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, referred to "normal conditions" and stated that the new limits of 70 miles per hour on motorways, 60 miles per hour on dual carriageways, and 50 miles per hour on other roads would be safe. What does she mean, and what does the noble Lord mean, by "normal conditions"? These will be the maximum speed limits on those three types of roads.
I am pleased at the code of conduct that the Bus and Coach Council has introduced. It is a most reliable organisation, but surely the Government should not depend on just what an operators' council does. Surely there ought to be laws we can all accept because they represent the right thing to do.
To return to the Government's argument that speed limits must be realistic because otherwise drivers will break them, what is the position of private cars on motorways? The Government's own speed survey to which I have referred states that 40 per cent. of private cars already exceed the 70 miles per hour limit. Will it be not very long before the Government come back to us to increase that limit because the majority of drivers are breaking the law? Incidentally, more than 14 per cent. of private vehicles exceed 80 miles per hour. I find very little law enforcement in the case of private motorists driving at more than 80 miles per hour on motorways. I am the last person to want to see the harassment of drivers and private motorists, but if the Government decide that these new limits will make for simpler enforcement, what steps will be taken to ensure enforcement of the law? I am still having my
426
battle with the Home Office to try to achieve uniformity of police procedure regarding fixed penalties, which vary all over the country. I wonder what steps will be taken to ensure enforcement of these new limits.
Finally, will the Minister please say—and, again, this may be a lack of understanding on my part—what is the meaning of paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Note, which states that,
"Provisions relating to brakes of a motor tractor, heavy locomotive and light locomotive are discontinued"?
I have been critical of a number of points. We can do nothing about them as we do not vote against orders approved by another place, but I hope that the Minister's reply will be helpful to me and to other noble Lords.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, there is no doubt that motorists are now the new criminal classes in our country. There are more law breakers among motorists than among any other section of the community. Because there is such widespread disregard of the law of speeding on our roads, the Government are proposing a new kind of principle in law-making. They say that if enough people decline to comply with the law, we must change the law to comply with the wishes of the people. We are now adjusting speed limits to those which have been widely adopted by those driving different kinds of vehicles on our roads today.
The real trouble is that there is no enforcement on the scale needed to ensure compliance with the law. This applies right throughout the use of motor vehicles. The motorist is too numerous, too determined to have his own way and to subjugate other members of the community to his convenience and to his desires that one might say, "The motorist rules—OK?". There is not much that anyone can do about it.
I cannot help but be cynical about motoring laws and compliance with regulations affecting them. We try to control unlawful parking on our streets by appointing traffic wardens. They are widely abused by those whose names are taken because they have left their vehicles beyond the permitted time or in the wrong place. The truth is that, in the scenery of police and public relationships over the years, the police were heroes for as long as they were arresting the drunks, finding the burglars, and generally looking after the cruder aspects of law and order. But as soon as the middle classes as motorists came into conflict with the police, then the name of the police was mud. That is when altercations began between the public and the police.
From my own experience of introducing the breathalyser when I was in the Government years ago, I know that one of the major considerations was what the relationship would be between motorists and the police if motorists were asked to undergo that unwelcome test of their sobriety while being in charge of a car. I know that good government requires authority and the law to be harmonised with acceptance by the people. But there is such flagrant disregard of the law at the present time that it is very

427
difficult to have any respect for changes which will probably make no difference at all.
I cannot see that these regulations will make the slightest bit of difference. Mark you, I do not suggest for one moment that motorists are exceeding the speed limit because they like doing so. In many cases they are doing the speed they think the road and reasonable driving safety will permit. Drivers will go on doing that. It does not necessarily mean that they will drive faster still because the speed limits have been raised. Presumably we are under these regulations going to make more honest motorists than there were before. This, of course, is not unknown. We took the prostitutes off the streets and made their profession slightly more respectable. We took the betting slip runners off the streets and put them into betting shops, which made them a little more respectable. It is a well-known philosophy of law-making that you see what you can do to bring the law into harmony with people's behaviour and not the other way round.
I quite willingly forgo my supper to be able to make these few cynical remarks to your Lordships on these regulations. I could, I am afraid, wander widely on my feelings about much of what happens regarding motorists, but I spare your Lordships at this particular hour by not going any further than I have. My conclusion is that I view these new regulations with resignation, with cyncism, and with a feeling of, "Well, this is how the world is going to go round and we probably have to do it this way". But I suggest that with these new speed limits there should be more vigorous enforcement. That has become absolutely necessary. The enforcement of the law is so capricious at present that no one can have any real respect for it. One thinks oneself unlucky if caught.
I wonder sometimes whether the police go out to find some kind of quota of cases which they can take back with the least possible trouble. They go into the sideways and byways and pick up motorists there because they can do it without stopping the traffic on the major roads. The police cannot cope with it; the courts cannot cope with it; we do not want fines on the spot, and so we go on. I speak from the virtuous position of being a pedestrian. I am no longer a motorist. I ought to admit that, in order to put my remarks in the proper perspective.
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, while acknowledging that these regulations do a very useful tidying up job, on what was previously a rather tangled web, I should like to ask the Minister whether he would be a little more specific on the philosophy lying behind the raising of the speed limits for coaches and lorries. It is, I submit, extremely doubtful whether public opinion played much part in this matter. All we have had is some suggestion that the new limits are more realistic and acceptable to drivers and, therefore, in some way easier to enforce.
In this context I refer to a letter written to The Times on 20th August last year by a retired senior police officer who was one of the first on the scene of the M4 disaster which occurred last August when a lorry was in collision with a coach. In that letter he expressed amazement that we still allowed the then existing
428
limits for such vehicles to continue. He referred, appositely. to the United States of America, a country where the motor vehicle is king but where the limits for all vehicles vary according to state between 55 and 65 miles per hour.
It is appreciated that the road lobby has a powerful voice in the Ministry. I believe that the Minister's right honourable friend in another place quoted the figure of cost saving to the industry of£300 million arising from the higher speed operation. That is fine so far as it goes, but obviously it does not give the full picture and it is only the credit side of the balance sheet. What about the major debits? First is the increase to the Government and to the public of the cost of accidents. Secondly, is the increased damage to bridges, infrastructures and road surfaces themselves. On the first point, it may be that the Minister has tucked away in his brief some statistics showing that speed is not the prime cause of many of the accidents that occur. He will, of course, be aware that, if so, this is a misleading statistic because in any road accident, however caused in the first instance, speed has a direct bearing on the consequences; which is what we are concerned with.
If I may be technical for a moment, this is not a simple matter of an increase of 20 per cent.—the difference between 50 and 60 miles per hour. The impact force is directly proportional to the square of the velocity of the vehicle. Therefore, in the case of a coach, using this calculation, the actual increase in impact force of these proposals is 56·25 per cent. The figures for lorries are even more formidable because we are still in the aftermath of increasing the maximum permitted weight for lorries from 32½ to 38 tonnes. On that basis the difference in impact force of a 32½-tonne lorry at 40 miles per hour and a 38-tonne lorry at 50 miles per hour is 82·7 per cent. That is doubled if two of these vehicles meet head on.
There is no need for me to say much about damage to roads and structures except that the joint effects of speed and weight, in my view and the view of many others, have been under-estimated for years, as the Department of Transport is now finding to its cost with bridges and roads all over the country. Finally, what about enforcement? I understand that in the United States, even with its lower limits, both speed and lane disciplines are excellent in most places. Of course, there are remote roads which are sparsely patrolled. However, in that connection may I quote from a personal experience.
Many years ago in East Africa the public transport system ran an extensive network of road transports in Uganda and Tanganyika, as it then was. The roads were remote. They were dangerous after rain. The vehicles were heavy lorries with continental type drawbar trailers and there was a high proportion of cowboys among the drivers. The operation was none the less successful. The answer was governed engines and road speeds and tachometers which were properly monitored. This might fill the Minister and the industry with some horror, but it can be done.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their response to my introduction of these regulations. The best thing I can do, probably, is to go

429
through the major points that each noble Lord has made in turn, because in the majority of cases each covered somewhat different areas.
I start with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, with whom I so frequently have to begin discussions when coaches, other vehicles and roads are concerned. I have a feeling that on balance we are probably more at one than perhaps his speech suggested. The noble Lord asked whether those who were consulted about these regulations had the advantage of having special copies of the national speed survey which was published on 28th February. The answer is: no, they did not have a special copy. We start this exercise from a commitment given by the Government in their White Paper which was in response to the Armitage Report. The consultations and investigations have covered two years. We arrive tonight with a set of regulations that have been hanging around for just over two years.
The noble Lord mentioned a number of areas in which he thought there were disadvantages. He asked about energy considerations. I think he would be the first to agree that the consumption of energy by today's modern commercial vehicles, coaches or motor cars shows an improvement of between 15 and 18 per cent. over seven, eight, nine or ten years ago. That is a reasonable answer to give him under that heading.
The noble Lord also asked about economic considerations, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth. The noble Viscount quoted a figure which was given in the other place last night of £300 million. I think that is probably where he obtained it from. He will probably know, therefore, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave this figure. If I could find the place in the manuscript copy of last night's proceedings I could quote what he said, but in substance he said that this was a figure which the industry had given him—that £300 million would be saved. I was there last night. His tone of voice implied not exactly scepticism but perhaps a little doubt. He certainly was not prepared to substantiate the figure. There can be little doubt that there are economic benefits to be gained in terms of scheduling, particularly, commercial vehicles; but whether they are of that order I do not know.
The noble Lord mentioned the other side of the coin—the cost of accidents and of damage. I cannot reasonably deal with that tonight, but I can tell the noble Lord that the recent consultation paper on vehicle excise duty and track costs as applied to commercial vehicles went out for consultation. That was completed, and the Government's response was made a week or two ago. It is there that we would seek to recover true track costs of commercial vehicles at whatever weight. The new method of calculating that takes into account a number of roads. Previously it did not; it lumped them all together. We have a reasonably accurate figure for the cost. I think that it is in that way that I can best describe to the noble Lord the other side of the coin.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggested that I had said 40 miles an hour for certain caravans. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. There will not be a 40 miles an hour limit for any car towing one trailer or caravan when these regulations come into force. There is a blanket limit of 50 miles an hour on all
430
roads. But cars towing two trailers will be restricted to 40 miles an hour on motorways. If I have misunderstood the noble Lord, I shall be happy to correct that when I read through Hansard.
The noble Lord raised at some length the question of coaches. He will probably recall that coaches have always been subject to the national road speed limit on motorways, which has stood at 70 miles an hour since December 1965. We have not made any alteration since 1965. We should recognise the extraordinarily low, and reducing, number of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. The figure was quoted in another place by my right honourable friend. I was looking for it, but I have not found it. In the past four or five years the incidence of accidents per 100 million kilometres has decreased from 114 in 1972, I think, to 68 in 1982. Again, if I have those figures substantially wrong I shall ensure that noble Lords are advised of it, but the figures are of that order.
The noble Lord asked what we are going to do about coaches. I can only repeat that the operators have agreed voluntarily to install tachographs in all their coaches operating on dual carriageways and motorways, as a management tool. I should emphasise that. It was always agreed when tachographs were introduced that they were not to be used in furtherance of prosecution. That remains so. This is a management tool. It is for the operators to read the tachographs and take managerial decisions on the information that the readings give them.
There have been discussions with regard to speeds which gave rise to the Bus and Coach Council adopting the code of conduct. I have also been at the discussions with my honourable friend the Minister of State. I think everybody agrees that if an industry, or indeed a profession, can discipline itself, that is far better than making yet another set of rules and regulations. I have said that if the code of practice, which is to be introduced this season, is found to be unreliable—in other words, if the practices which noble Lords have described and which I cannot deny continue—we shall have to look again to see whether it is necessary to introduce more law.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked about unions. I can assure him that a number of the unions were involved in the consultations. There were 200 on the list of people invited to consult. As I said, some 80 of those on the list did consult, including a number of the unions.
The noble Lord asked me what "normal" conditions are. I had to smile. I suppose they are those which are not abnormal. In other words, as soon as the fog warning lights came up on the motorway, one would say that that was abnormal. Heavy rain or snow storms and had light would also make conditions abnormal. But, of course, we are talking here about normal conditions.
The noble Lord asked me about private cars. All I can say there is that we have just had the national speed survey at the end of last month. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is giving consideration to what is contained in that survey in relation to motor cars. If there is necessity, he will of course consult with all the interested parties on that

431
matter before coming to any decision. I should not like to give any timescale for that to be undertaken.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about enforcement, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in his wide-ranging contribution to this debate this evening, also spoke about enforcement. I repeated what the police had to say. We believe that there will be a greater element of self-enforcement which will enable those resources which can be best used for dealing with this matter to be used more effectively. The noble Lord also asked me about locomotive brakes. I think that it would be better, and more helpful if I wrote to him on that matter. I do not think it is of great and burning importance this evening.
I did so enjoy—as I always enjoy—Lord Houghton's contribution. I am sorry he had to forgo his supper to make his cynical remarks. Perhaps having got the cynical remarks off his chest, it may help him to enjoy his supper without the threat of any indigestion that that cynicism might have engendered had he not got rid of it. I think that the noble Lord spoke largely about motor cars and the motorist in general. He said that the law will not make any difference. If he will allow me to take that a little out of context and say that we are talking tonight about commercial vehicles and coaches, I said earlier what the British Coach Council have said: "We will look after it; if not, we will have to go back to you." I have had a letter—and perhaps a number of other noble Lords may have had a letter—from the Freight Transport Association. I quote their last paragraph:
"The FTA accepts that parliamentary approval for such changes must result in an equivalent response from industry. We shall therefore give the utmost public support for the need for new limits to be properly respected."
That is what they have said quite clearly; and I can assure noble Lords that if indeed they do not do that, then my right honourable friend will have no hesitation in calling them together and telling them of other measures that will have to be taken.
Speaking broadly, the noble Lord said that this change in the law appeared to be merely to accommodate the wishes of people. I think that was the substance of his opening remarks. I would say to him, no, that is not quite true. It is more to accommodate the technical changes that have taken place in both road construction and indeed the vehicles themselves. That is, in part, the reason why we feel it is perfectly reasonable, without a great threat to the accident and injury statistics, to allow these rather modest increases in speeds which, we must face, have been happening in practice for some little time—as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, quoted from the speed survey I think that is reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, may be interested to know that currently there are on motorways some 21.99 billion vehicle kilometres travelled by cars; some .33 billion vehicle kilometres by buses and coaches, and 4.96 billion kilometres by goods vehicles. For those roads with a speed restriction of under 40 miles-an-hour, cars count for 121 billion kilometres; buses and coaches 2.3 billion; goods vehicles 6.5 billion. We also have other figures. So there is an increase in traffic and we have to take that into account.
432
I will make one last comment in respect of Lord Houghton's contribution. He said that the police and the courts cannot cope. The implication was that that is why we are, so to speak, letting some people off the hook. My right honourable friend has been in touch with his right honourable friend at the Home Office. There is indeed a great desire to enforce the law, but the law has to be practical. It has to be one that people respect and wish to obey. We believe that these speed limits that are contained in the regulations will go some way towards that acceptance. It would make enforcement that much easier.
Lastly, I come to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth. I think that I have covered the general philosophy on coaches and lorries, the question of consultation and also the question of the two sides of the cost coin. He read some very interesting figures, which I promise him I shall study at greater length. If I can add anything to them, I shall certainly write to him; but when on a recent visit to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, looking at accidents and accident prevention, I was very surprised to see figures—again I do not have them with me but the sense is correct—that suggest that the majority of fatal and serious injury accidents happen at extremely low speeds. That is really quite interesting.
Of course when you get a laden heavy lorry or a coach that gets involved in a major incident, it makes the headlines; but happily there have been few such incidents. Where these headlines grasp the imagination, one should not talk in terms of speed but in terms of road behaviour. There is no doubt that many of these accidents that happen, particularly on the motorways, are as a result of drivers of all kinds of vehicles not obeying the signs that are there for them. We have all seen it, and this leads to massive pile-ups.
I think perhaps one last word on that: I am happy to tell the noble Lord that there is across Europe an agreement very near with regard to coach body construction in accordance with EEC and United Nations directives. Much of this work has been pioneered by ourselves through MIRA and TRRL, and many of the European coachbuilders and our own coachbuilders are already conforming to the standards which we have suggested. So in the unhappy event of a coach accident, certainly injury would be minimised. I do not think I can tell the House any more about what lies behind the regulations. I hope that the House will now approve them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]

  (formerly Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill)
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
  Moved, that the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [References are to Bill (57) as first printed for the Commons]
  Clause 14, page 10, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert ("Act 1984, and this Act and the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1983 may be cited together as the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1984.
  (2) This Act shall be construed as one with the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1983.").
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment. This is a technical amendment. It is the normal practice to entitle an Act in this field as the Merchant Shipping Act of a particular year. That was not originally possible in this case because there was already a Merchant Shipping Act 1983. It was therefore necessary to include "(Miscellaneous Provisions)" in the title. As the Bill did not complete all its stages in 1983, this technical amendment changes the title to the more simple form of "Merchant Shipping Act 1984". It makes associated provision for amended citation together with other merchant shipping Acts. I hope therefore that the amendment, as proposed by the Commons, meets with your Lordships' agreement.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing and Building Control Bill
8 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD HAYTER IN THE CHAIR.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 87:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Independence of approved inspectors.
.—(1) A person acting as an approved inspector shall not have had, until final notice is given, any direct or indirect financial or professional interest in the work specified.
(2) A person acting as an approved inspector who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction in accordance with the provisions of section 30(2) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment that stands in my name. However, before we proceed to the debate this evening I wish to express the dismay of Members on this side of the Committee that such an important Bill as that which we are about to consider once again is brought on at what is a late hour. The Minister will be aware that by agreement with his office earlier this week there was an amicable settlement as to the division of work on the Bill on the first and second days. The Minister is also well aware that on the first day noble Lords on this side of the Committee played their full part in trying to ensure that we reached the point that we had agreed. However, as the Minister knows, and as the record will show, there was a great deal of agitation on the side of the Government towards the end of the first day, with noble Lords being most anxious to conclude. Consequently noble Lords on this side were certainly
434
put under some strain and pressure in regard to very important amendments, which in the view of those of us on this side, as well as professional bodies, councils and councillors outside, required considerable discussion.
As a consequence debate has been truncated, to say the least. The series of amendments that we are about to consider will be looked upon by people outside the Chamber as important, and the manner in which we are likely to treat them will not enhance the reputation of your Lordships' House as a serious debating Chamber. Looking at the realities of parliamentary life, I say to the Minister, in all honesty and candour, that to start at eight o'clock on what before this week was ostensibly a full day's business to do with a most important matter is a travesty of how we ought to conduct our affairs.
I am not blaming the Minister. I am simply explaining how events have conspired to produce this situation. If the noble Lord who sits alongside the Minister is indicating (by pointing) that the responsibility lies over here on this side of the Chamber, then I would say that that would need to be looked into later. I am simply saying that in the time that is available to us tonight it is not possible to do justice to those outside this Chamber who would expect us to treat seriously these very important matters.
Therefore, I shall certainly speak to every amendment that has been put down, but clearly I shall not be able to do so as fully as I should wish. So we give due notice to the Minister that where we are not satisfied that we have tonight done justice to ourselves and those outside, we shall take full advantage of the Report stage in order to bring forward the necessary amendments.
I thank the Committee for allowing me to get off my chest (as it were) something on which I have felt very strongly during the last two or three hours—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to intervene before he gets on to the amendment. I have no idea where the responsibility for this situation lies, but I should like to reinforce the noble Lord's note of indignation. This is a Bill of appalling complexity and difficulty, and I adopt the noble Lord's language in saying that it is a travesty of parliamentary proceedings that so much of it should be brought on at this time on the third day.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am most grateful indeed for the comments of the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches, which were quite unprompted. I appreciate that he has followed the proceedings on the Bill at all stages, and quite clearly he has a point to make. I believe that noble Lords on the Back-Benches opposite would have wished to participate in the debate on insurance, for instance, which we did not have full opportunity to consider on Tuesday, and to which we shall need to turn on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne, who is always in his place for these matters, I am sure has a great many valuable comments to make on a range of matters relating to planning, building control, and so on. So I hope that outside of the Chamber we shall have his support in ensuring that we shall have proper

435
opportunity to debate these matters on some other occasion.
In moving Amendment No. 87 I wish at the same time also to speak to Amendment No. 88.
Amendment No. 88: Insert the following new clause—
("Appointment of approved inspectors.
.—(1) A person shall only be appointed as an approved inspector if he satisfies the Secretary of State or the body referred to in subsection (1)(b) of section 31 of this Act that he is a fit person to be so appointed.
(2) In determining whether a person is fit to be appointed an approved inspector the Secretary of State or the body referred to in subsection (1)(b) of section 31 of this Act shall have regard to section (Independence of approved inspectors) of this Act and to any circumstances appearing to him or that body to be relevant, and in particular any evidence tending to show that the applicant has—

(a) committed any offence involving fraud or other dishonesty;

(b) contravened any provision under this or under any Act with regard to compliance with building regulations.").

These amendments relate to concern that is felt as to whether when the approved inspector has been appointed we can be wholly satisfied that he is independent of other interests. I am very pleased to say—I am quite certain that the Minister would have said this if I had not—that following consultation and movement by the Government over a period of time there now appear in the building regulations a great many new provisions, new phrases. or new considerations of circumstances. Two years ago in this regard there appeared to be a yawning gap in terms of the protection of the public. I would not use any untoward words, such as corruption, but there was a possibility of certain events occurring. However, further building regulations have now been circulated and the Minister has been kind enough to send a copy to us. These are the building regulations of 3rd February.
Part of the regulations refer to the grounds for rejection of an initial notice. Regulation 8(1) states:
"The grounds for rejection of an initial notice are that …"
There is then listed a series of grounds for rejection, after which it is stated in paragraph (1)(c),
"except in the case of work within the descriptions set out in paragraph (2) (minor works), the notice does not contain a declaration by the approved inspector that he does not, and will not while the initial notice is in force, have any direct or indirect professional or financial interest in the specified work".
If we turn, as we need to do, to the paragraph dealing with minor works we must take into consideration the exclusions from the need to establish the absence of a financial tie-up, which are referred to there. As I understand it—and I am sure that the Minister and is advisers will make it quite clear not only to myself, but to those outside—the inspector need not sign the declaration that is called for in Regulation 8(1) (c) in respect of the following works:
"Single storey extensions to the, ground floor of dwelling-houses; alterations which—

(i) relate to dwelling-houses having not more than two storeys …

(ii) have no effect on the external walls or roof of the dwelling-house; and

(iii) do not include a material change of use;

(c) alterations to the roof of a dwelling-house having not more than two storeys …
Then other details are given.
We also have in the regulations—and in a moment
436
I shall explain why I stress that it is the regulations as opposed to the Bill—the following explanation as to the declaration which needs to be signed by the approved inspector under paragraph (1)(c):
"For the purposes of a declaration … a person—
(a) shall be treated as having a direct professional interest in the specified work if he is, or has been, responsible for the design or construction of any of the specified work in any capacity other than that of approved inspector".
I would say to the Minister that judging from my experience that goes a considerable way towards allaying the fears that were at one time felt that it would be possible for a person such as an architect who may very well have designed the building in question, later to he involved in some other aspect of the matter wearing his hat as an approved inspector. I am certain that the regulation will be helpful.
We move from "a direct professional interest" contained in paragraph (4)(a) to the words in paragraph (4)(b):
"shall not be treated as having a financial interest in the specified work on account of the fee charged or to be charged for the carrying out of his functions as approved inspector".
I fully understand that the mere gaining of a fee to carry out the work cannot be held to be a financial interest in any other sense. We have "a direct professional interest", and we have "a financial interest". Then, in paragraph (4)(c) we have the words,
"shall be treated as having an indirect professional or financial interest in the specified work".
I have pointed this out to show the complexity of the situation and the care that needs to be taken by everyone to be clear that those who carry the title of approved inspector are seen to be free of any charge that they may be trying to serve two masters.
The main point that I make to the Minister, as he and his advisers are well aware, is that NALGO, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and others have raised these matters with us, and it is really at their request that they appear on the Order Paper. I wonder whether the Minister would not agree there is a case, having gone so far into the building regulations, for having what is eminently suitable written on the the face of the Bill. That is the main burden of what I want to say on this amendment.
I am absolutely certain that the Minister and his advisers will say that there is a limit to what can appear on the face of the Bill, and that there are regulations, schedules and other matters that need to take account of much small detail. I would suggest, however, that this particular matter of the independence, and what is seen to be the independence, of the approved inspector is crucially important.
I recognise that other noble Lords may perhaps wish to contribute. I shall content myself by saying that, in my view, the Government have gone a considerable way over a period of time in seeking to allay the fears of those like myself who could see the possibility of a loophole. The loophole has perhaps been substantially cleared up. My request is for the Government to consider, if not tonight then at another stage, writing on to the face of the Bill the regulations that cover the independence of the approved inspector.
Lord Broxbourne: I am glad that I arrived in the
Chamber just in time to hear the kind reference to

437
myself by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, my friend in everything other than the technical political sense; otherwise, he might not have been so kind. Had I not been here, I might have been in danger of the old maxim, "Les absents ont toujours tort". The noble Lord has addressed himself with his customary felicity to a matter of great importance—the independence of approved inspectors. The noble Lord described it as crucially important. No one, I think, whatever their political persuasion, would dissent from that description. The independence of the inspectors is obviously a crucially important matter, as the noble Lord says.
I would go a little further. It is not only of crucial importance that these inspectors should, in fact, he independent: it is of equal importance that they should clearly appear to be independent. If that was not so, the scheme behind the Bill, which I am convinced is a good one, would not get a favourable reception in public opinion. Of course, it is not enough for a proposal to have good intent and good purpose, as this undoubtedly has, which all of us, both in the Committee and outside, I am sure, share. It must be shown that the particular proposal and its wording is appropriate for giving effect to that good intention. Here, I think, with great respect to noble Lords opposite, the amendment is on less sure and safe grounds. I think that the drafting of the proposals contained in Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 is not as precise as one would wish for this particular purpose. Basically, I would think that it does not improve on the drafting of the proposed approved inspectors' regulations.
In the context of drafting subsection (1) of the new clause contained in Amendment No. 87 in regard to the requirement of no financial interest, I do not think that the words "shall not have had" are very happily phrased. I can see that these are words that could easily give rise to argument and difficulty in interpretation and application if this matter came to the courts. I think that the words contained in draft regulation 8(1)(c), which the noble Lord has fairly quoted, are preferable and easier for the courts to apply.
Your Lordships will appreciate that it is particularly important to achieve clear drafting in this context because contravention would involve a criminal offence under subsection (2). Parenthetically, on the subject of drafting I think that the noble Lord will appreciate that in his proposed new clause the words "final notice" in the second line should, in fact, read "final certificate". I mention that in passing because, obviously, it is not a fundamental point.
On a more substantial point, in subsection (1) of the new clause in Amendment No. 88 the onus is put on the prospective approved inspector to satisfy the Secretary of State or other body as to his fitness. I wonder whether perhaps my doubts as to this are shared, by some at any rate, on the question of a basic principle—the question of where the onus should be placed when matters of criminal liability arise. I respectfully suggest that it would read better as:
"A person shall not he appointed unless the Secretary of State or the body referred to is satisfied that he is a person fit to be appointed".
Perhaps better still would be:
"A person in respect of whom the Secretary of State or the body referred to is not satisfied that he is a person fit to be appointed shall not he appointed".
438
This is not a semantic point; it is a point of principle. If prima facie a person is suitable, there should be an initial presumption of fitness and the onus of rebuttal should lie on the Secretary of State or the body referred to. This is a question of some fundamental importance when we are at any rate on the threshold of the criminal law, as we are in this context. As this matter deals with criminal liability, it should be tightly drafted. That is not so in all respects. For example, in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 88 the words "evidence tending to show" leave me a little unhappy as to lacking the conclusiveness which in respect of criminal liability should exist.
The other point that I wish to make is that I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said about the draft regulations. He has quoted regulation 8(1)(c). That is a definition of a declaration of financial interest which, coupled with regulation 8(4)—which he has already quoted—I would have thought is a sufficiently clear indication of what is here required, and coupled with Clause 42 of the Bill (which provides for offences in respect of false or misleading statements) I would respectfully say that that is enough. I do not say that the drafting is necessarily perfect—drafting rarely is—and no doubt Ministers will consider it further before Report stage, but I think that should be sufficient, and the noble Lord may think it appropriate to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne who has enabled me to cut out quite a lot of what I might otherwise have said on this amendment. I understand why the noble Lord moved these two new clauses, and I hope that I can reassure him.
We are all agreed it is important that as a general rule approved inspectors should not be subject to a conflict of interest in respect of work which they are supervising. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has looked with great care into the question of whether independence should be written into the Bill, and as he told the other place at the Report stage of this Bill, we have concluded that for the following reasons it should not. First, if we consider the requirement for independence, it is not sufficient to say that an approved inspector must not have any direct or indirect financial or professional interest in the work specified. We need to define what we mean by that, and we need to be able to tighten up that definition at a later stage if we find this definition is too loose. The House will know the difficulty of amending primary legislation if it is found to be unsatisfactory. For this reason we think it is better to put this detailed requirement in the regulations.
Following consultations on the first draft of the regulations we have—and the noble Lord gave us credit for it—amended it by adding a reference to conflicts of interests arising by reason of marriage, for example. I believe that the Committee will find its wishes in the matter, and its desire to have those wishes enshrined in legislation, satisfied by what we include in the regulations. In this respect I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Committee last time round in April of last year, and particularly—although he is not here—to my noble friend Lord Caithness who took this whole subject very strongly to heart.

439
Secondly, we do not intend that the requirement for independence should apply in all cases. We think it reasonable to allow for exceptions when only minor works are concerned. These again are the ones which the noble Lord quoted. This is not a new suggestion. It was in the White Paper of February 1981 which set out the proposals on which the Bill is based. Again, the details of the exception need to be set out in regulations, we shall wish to consult further on what those details should be, and we wish to leave open the possibility of amending those details in the light of experience and, of course, the results of the current consultations. At the moment our thinking behind this is that minor matters which do not bring serious risks for public health and safety should not be included hut, as I said, we are very open to consultation on this.
In the second amendment, No. 88, the Government entirely agree with the intention of subsection (1), which says that a person shall be appointed as an approved inspector only if he is considered a fit person. Equally. I am sure that the Committee will accept that his fitness will lie in his professional qualification, his relevant experience and also in his professional probity, a subject on which we touched the other day.
These are all matters which will need to be considered in relation to candidates seeking approval. It is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the appointment of approved inspectors as an alternative to the present monopoly of local authorities shall he matched with an absolute determination to maintain the highest possible standards. In approving inspectors, or designating other bodies to do so, my right honourable friend will have that determintion uppermost in his mind at all times.
I hope I have said enough to convince the Committee that this amendment is not necessary. Should the noble Lord at any stage wish me to go into greater detail. I shall be only too happy to do so, but I must stress that that must be within the limits of my ability.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: May I rise to say that I do not wish in any way to test the ability of the Minister on this or any other matter, because I appreciate (a) that he has a brief and (b) that he understands his subject. If I say he does his best, that is not an unkind phrase. I am satisfied with this explanation.
So far as I am concerned, I want to repeat that the evidence we have had from outside is that there has been substantial understanding, I think, by the Government and its advisers on the need to spell out more than they did originally the actual parameters of the independent approved inspector nexus. I have a note, as the Minister clearly has, of the reasons why on 21st December the Minister said in the Report stage that the safeguards had to be included in regulations, because there was a need to define what was meant by,
"any direct or indirect financial interest and work specified and it is reasonable to allow for exception when only minor works are involved".
I acknowledge—as I think all of us who have some experience do—the difficulty of making subsequent changes in the light of experience if what you want to
440
change is primary legislation as opposed to regulations. Nevertheless—and I intend to withdraw the amendments—I wonder if in actual fact the Minister (and I am not asking for a commitment) could look at the possibility of meeting the points that have been made in this very short but useful debate to see whether or not it is possible to transpose the sense of what we are after. I understand the sheer volume of it. Leaving aside the regulations, there are 14 or 15 sheets. If between now and Report stage I am advised from another place, or the Minister gets some advice, perhaps we can make it quite clear on the face of the Bill just how much the Government, the profession and the industry recognise the crucial need for the public to be satisfied that there is no possibility of collusion, slipping from there into corruption, in these matters.
I sympathise. We are not using words lightly, nor are we making broad accusations, but I think the public needs to be satisfied on such a major change from an old to a new system that we have taken all the care in the world. I do not even wish the Minister to comment, but I hope that between now and Report stage some thought can be given to see whether a form of words can be used to strengthen this. I simply say that if I cannot find any other words myself from advice given, we will not come back to this on Report. I give notice, however, that we might come back if, in the light of debate, those who advise us on this side can make a suggestion.
Incidentally, it was not merely the long list: I forgot to mention the Institute of Building Control Officers, a very important body in this matter, whom my noble friend Lady Nicol and I saw to get advice. They are equally strong on this particular point of the independence of approved inspectors. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in this line.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 88A:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Builder's manual.
.—From a date to be specified by the Secretary of State the builder of any new dwelling shall provide for the purchaser or tenant a manual which shall contain the plans of the dwelling, its basic construction method, the materials used in its load-bearing walls and provide for the insertion of details of all structural changes and improvements.").
The noble Lord said: We on this side of the Committee consider that this amendment could be—and I stress the tentative nature of "could be"—a very valuable addition to the range of tools which are in the hands of the building industry and which in our view would go a long way towards satisfying a number of problems that have emerged when we have considered this particular situation.
This part of the Bill is all about the care that should be taken by the industry, by those who buy houses, by those who sell houses and also by those who are concerned with legislation as regards inspecting houses and factories. It is also to do with, if not latent defects,

441
certainly things that can go wrong and of which people are not aware. Indeed, if they were aware of certain matters either they would be able to discover why something had gone wrong 20 years later, or they would know exactly where to look for the fault, the stress or the strain. So in this particular amendment I am moving that there should be, as of right, the provision of a manual to the purchaser or tenant of a house so that they have access to maps, diagrams and the,
"basic construction method, the materials used in its load-bearing walls and provide for the insertion of details of all structural changes and improvements".
We are talking about the most important purchase in a young person's life—and indeed in the life of an older person as well. When one purchases a car for £3,000, one gets a user's manual. When one buys a refrigerator for £100 or £200, one gets a manual; one gets some guidance and one is told where the faults can occur, what to do when they do occur, what to be careful about, and so on. But when one buys a house, although there are titles and documents and a great deal of other detail, there is not something that one can put on the side and say. "If ever something goes wrong and I want to find out why it should go wrong or if there is an emergency and someone needs to come in to look at the electrical wiring, the gas, the services or anything else, I know where I can find the information". Discovering such information is a problem. Somebody may or may not know something about what has happened. It may be that the building society will have a document.
We are saying that not only should the owner of the house get what might be called—and I am using here a clumsy and inappropriate phrase—"plans as built": in other words, "This is what you have got; this is what is in it". However, in addition, we need to be careful (especially in the age of do-it-yourself) about all the people who think that they can improve their property and who, in the absence of precise detail, can do great damage. I have heard of instances of tenants in, for example, a council house, or other houses who, by tapping on the wall, discover—as they think—that it will be possible to take down the wall between two rooms. They do so, only to find out that the load-bearing capacity of the other walls was insufficient. They were misled by their amateur approach to the situation. It is a sad situation; but it can happen if people are not fully aware of the circumstances. We are asking for a manual as a right. It would be almost a court of last resort for the local authority. If there were a disaster, subsidence or if—God forbid!—there were an earthquake, they would know exactly what the problems would be.
I know that when this matter was raised in another place very late in the day, the Minister was sympathetic in his response. He understood the sense of the amendment but he fell back on the defence that these were matters that needed consultation, negotiation, care and voluntarism, and he did not want to legislate. I am certainly not saying tonight that we want to be too strong about it, but it is an interesting point that needs to be explored. The Minister could do a great service to millions of people and perhaps save them from a great deal of distress and financial loss if he would he prepared tonight not merely to say that this is something with which he
442
sympathises. Although, for example, the National House Builders' Council may proceed more strongly with its present plans—and it has plans—to strengthen and sharpen its existing facilities, and even if the National House Building Council finds a useful formula for a manual, we must remember that its properties are not the only properties that need a manual. Millions of other houses will not have the seal of approval given by the National House Building Council. There are council properties, private rented properties and so on.
Therefore, I very much hope not only that the Minister sympathises, but that he is prepared to say that meaningful discussions will take place with the local authority associations who obviously have a part to play, and certainly with the British Property Association and other interests. This is not just a council-orientated matter; it is a property-orientated matter. It may very well be that it will be two or three years before we get what we want. But I should like the Minister to say that he understands the crucial nature of the peace of mind for someone to have a document which he may or may not peruse, but which, when a crisis occurs, will be there for the competent expert to refer to and to work from. I beg to move.
Lord Auckland: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has very wide experience in these matters, and I am quite sure that this amendment has been put down after a very great deal of thought. I would also urge that the Government give some deep thought to the amendment. However, I must say as one who is by no means as knowledgeable as the noble Lord on these matters, that I have some reservations about it.
When manuals or other documents are put through letter-boxes a very large number of people do not read them. That is not necessarily justification for this amendment to be in any way invalid, but it is a point. As I understand it, this is something very new in building and housing legislation, but it is possibly none the worse for that.
There is also the question of who is to bear the cost? In an area where there are a large number of tenanted houses it is obviously going to involve a lot of preparation, and a lot of manuals will have to be delivered to a large number of houses. But the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has a very valid point when he says that tenants should be made aware of dangers from falling plaster and other such defects which may occur, and that they should have access to advice on this.
I wonder whether the local library, where there is a reasonable sized village or small town, the local town hall or citizens advice bureau, or the local post office if it is a small village, should not contain manuals of this kind—and not merely one manual but perhaps a number? People go into the local post office in a village to shop and while shopping they can always consult, perhaps borrow or even he given a copy of this manual. Therefore, although I think that this amendment deserves consideration, I wonder whether it is practicable in application as it is literally worded.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is not just idle words—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will believe this—hut I understand the point that he is making, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the

443
idea. It is helpful for house purchasers—particularly those buying a new house for the first time—to be given information about the nature of their purchase. From looking again at the amendment, I am not so sure whether it applies to tenants, but this is perhaps something that could be brought out in discussions. It is helpful for information to be given about the house structure, about the points where they need to take particular care in its maintenance (for example. there might he a flat roof, a gutter, or a gully), and about the things that purchasers need to be careful about if they ever consider altering or extending the house.
I am satisfied that it would be a good idea for house builders to give the new owners all the necessary details about the construction and running of their home. I understand that the National House Building Council, whose scheme already covers virtually all houses built for private sale in the country, is preparing a revised version of its existing Owners Manual to be provided by the builder for each new purchaser. This manual will allow for information covering the type of construction and other relevant features.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised the matter that those exercising the right to buy should have access to similar information. Such tenants are of course in a slightly different position from tenants purchasing in the private sector, especially for the first time, inasmuch as they will have, for the most part, lived in the house for some time before the purchase. I would expect those tenants to know considerably more about the house than someone who has perhaps viewed the house only a few times before moving in as its new owner. Nevertheless. I certainly hope that local authorities would be prepared to make available to tenants buying their homes such information as they may request about the type of construction and any other details which they might find useful.
On the other hand, we have serious doubts about whether this is an appropriate matter for legislation and about whether such a requirement could reasonably be enforced in practice. As I have just explained, the house builders are already, and voluntarily, taking major steps in the direction of giving the buyers of new houses information of this kind. Thus, even if such legislation could be enforced, its practical effect would only be marginal. I very much take the point made by my noble friend Lord Auckland. In a previous role I have had quite a lot to do with direct mail—whether solicited or unsolicited—and I certainly understand the point that my noble friend has made.
Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that it will be much better to proceed by co-operation than by the necessary compulsion which primary legislation would give, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am disappointed with that reply because the genesis of the amendment was the Campaign for Traditional Housing, and that Campaign for Traditional Housing comprises a number of bodies which are involved in housing. The Consumers Association also supports this view. Last year the RIBA issued a joint report, Homes for the
444
Future, and it recommended that user manuals should be provided for public sector rented accommodation. Then in June last year the RIBA, in a report entitled, Homes Old and New—a Strategy for the 80s, stated:
"A house logbook should he issued with each new house built. This would record important information".
Last year the AMA produced a report, Timber-Frame Housing—a Cautionary Note, and it said:
"With all dwellings a "user manual" available for the consumer is always advantageous. However, in timber frame housing it is vital, and all owners and tenants should be given adequate advice and information about the particular problems of timber-frame dwellings in use."
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for the sympathy which he expressed for the principle; he certainly wants some movement in this matter. He does not merely want to leave it to what one might call market forces or natural evolution. There is some urgency about the matter. The noble Lord referred to information that is pushed through the letterbox. I do not remotely regard the standing of this document as something which is pushed through the letterbox. It is a precious document and I would give it the standing very akin to that of the deeds of a house (because we know just how important they are). When deeds are conveyed from one owner to another, the manual is among the important documents that should accompany them. The manual must not be locked away but must be kept handy, and I am thinking in terms of a cupboard or a place under the stairs so that the householder knows where it is. I can see a great deal of practical use and value in this.
The Minister rests his case on allowing those who feel so moved to take the steps to bring this about, I welcome the intention of the National House Building Council to strengthen its existing service. This indicates that it is aware that there is a need to provide a better document. The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, raised the question of cost. We are talking about plans; we are talking about keeping a document up to date. This is not a document such as deeds, which do not change; whenever there is a major change or even a defect which needs to be put right, the document needs to record it. So it is a living document. It will cost money. But when we are talking of someone buying property worth £30,000. £40.000 or £50,000—and that is modest—we are perhaps only talking about E30, £40 or £50 for a document.
I understand the sense of what the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said. There may very well be types of property which are exactly the same, so why go to the trouble of charging 1.000 people £50? It could be that documents could be situated in a building that is used by the community. That would be better than nothing. The Minister blanched at the words "coercion" "insistence" or "mandatory". We will see exactly how he feels about the use of those terms and actions when we come to later legislation as to whether we shall allow local people to decide what they want or whether we are to coerce. I will give way to the Minister in a moment. We are talking about something which is absolutely central to the future of ordinary people: their home, whether it is a council home or a rented home. They want to know how to look after it to the best of their ability. We believe that a house owner's

445
manual, such as the one you get with a car or with a fridge, would be money well spent.
I know that the Minister is about to say "Before the noble Lord sits down", so I will sit down so that he can say it.
Lord Skelmersdale: I was going to suggest to the noble Lord that he did not tempt me into validating future legislation which he, at least, and I have only partly seen.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister will make his points as to why in certain circumstances the Government intend to rule with a rod of iron and leave no opportunity, where we are saying that in the interests of the consumer we are anxious that the consumer is best served. Caveat emptor is a well-known Latin tag to those of us who may know little about Latin tags but know something about the consumers' interests. Letting the buyer beware may be a well-used phrase. We are anxious that the buyer is not only on his own metal to find out everything he can, but that he has some reserve, some document on which he can rely.
I can understand points being made about the validity or legality of a document and the ability to quote a document in a court of law. There is a long way to go before this idea comes to fruition. I am disappointed. We intend to return to this at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Cancellation of initial notice]:
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 39, line 23, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (3)").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 37(3) provides that if a person carrying out work, or intending to do so, under an initial notice becomes aware that the approved inspector is no longer willing or able to carry out his functions, then notice must be given to the local authority and to the approved inspector. Clause 37(4) makes it an offence to fail to give such notice without reasonable excuse.
We take the view that an approved inspector should also he liable to criminal prosecution if he failed to give a notice as required under Clause 37(1). This amendment brings that into effect. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Baroness has finished with Clause 37(1), so perhaps it might be convenient if I started with it. It requires an approved inspector to cancel an initial notice in certain circumstances. These are, first, when he can no longer carry out his functions, for example, through incapacity or ill health; secondly, where he considers that the work is being carried out in a way that prevents him from carrying out his functions, for example, if he is not given information or calculations which he needs to perform his job; and, thirdly, where he considers that there is a contravention and the developer has not taken steps to remedy the matter.
Clause 37(3), which we should now properly go on to, provides for the situation where the approved
446
inspector has not cancelled the initial notice, but nevertheless it is apparent that he is not able or willing to continue to carry out his functions. In these circumstances the developer must cancel the initial notice. Failure to do so without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence under Clause 37(4).
The effect of the amendment would be to make it a criminal offence for the approved inspector to fail to cancel the initial notice, just as it will be for the developer. However, there are significant differences between the two situations. It is very important that a certifier who expects to become, or becomes, unable to continue to carry out his functions of supervising work should notify not only the local authority but also the developer.
We see no reason why an approved inspector should fail to comply with this statutory requirement any more than with the many other statutory duties under which he operates. We can see no reason for creating a criminal offence. Indeed if an inspector is no longer able to supervise work he will want to put beyond doubt the limit of his own responsibility for the work for which he is cancelling the initial notice. Legally he will be under a continuing obligation to discharge his statutory functions until the cancellation notice is given both to the developer or building owner and to the local authority. This is a point which I made on Tuesday.
I should like to remind the Committee that a designated body has power to withdraw approval from an inspector at any time. I should also like to take this opportunity of clarifying a comment which I made on Tuesday evening, apropos an inspector who acquired a reputation for being too lax. A local authority would not be able to reject an initial notice from an inspector, so long as he was approved. However if the authority, or anyone else for that matter, had reason to believe that an inspector was too lax, it would be up them to make this known to the designated body which had approved him. It is up to the designated body to consider whether to withdraw his approval. Any designated body will be concerned to protect its own reputation, without which its designation would be unlikely to last very long, and for our part we would want to be satisfied that such bodies will take speedy action if they consider that an inspector has acted irresponsibly.
Once the approval is withdrawn the local authority will be obliged to reject any subsequent initial notice which he gives. Furthermore the inspector would have to withdraw from any project he was already engaged on because any final certificate which he gave would also be rejected.
I accept that this point is only of marginal relevance to Amendment No. 89, but I thought that the Committee might find it helpful to have a fuller explanation now. In the light of my preceding remarks about the amendment, I would invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full ėxplanation, and I am quite happy with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Effect of initial notice ceasing in force]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 40, line 8, leave out ("not be exercisable") and insert ("only be exercisable where the local authority is of the opinion that any work previously carried out is in breach of building regulations").
The noble Baroness said: Where an initial notice ceases to be in force, provided that another initial notice is not served under Section 32, the building control functions will revert to the local authority. This clause provides that where a local authority takes over work, part of which was previously subject to an initial notice and in respect of which a plans certificate was issued, then the local authority cannot interfere in respect of that work. Under the clause as presently drafted, the local authority could be placed in a position where they had to carry out building control functions in respect of further works where previous work was clearly in breach of building regulations, yet they would be unable to interfere.
Furthermore, if a plans certificate had been issued in respect of work as yet to be carried out, and the local authority had to exercise its building control functions in respect of that further work, the situation could arise where they had to pass work which was clearly in breach of the building regulations, because it was the subject of a plans certificate.
It cannot be the intention of this legislation to perpetuate breaches of any regulations. That would be contrary to public policy. Where the building control function reverts to the local authority, the local authority must be in a position to rectify any breaches of which it is aware, and this amendment seeks to ensure that they do have full powers of enforcement in such a situation. We have touched on this in earlier discussions, but I think some clarification and reassurance are still necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Clause 38 deals with the effects of an initial notice ceasing to be in force. This could happen because a notice has been cancelled by an inspector, builder, or local authority, or because the building has been occupied without a final certificate having been given within the prescribed period. In these circumstances the local authority's responsibilities and powers in relation to building control revive—I think this is the important point that the noble Baroness may have missed—within limits imposed by the clause.
These limits are necessary in the interests of both the builders and the local authorities. Builders do not want to lose the benefits of any certificates of plans or of work which their inspectors may have issued and local authorities, for their part, do not want or need to assume responsibilities and liabilities for matters which have been certified by an approved inspector. Where such certificates have been given, local authorities will not be able to require work to which the certificates relate to be taken down nor could they prosecute for contravention. If, for example, half the houses on a building estate have been certified by an approved inspector before the initial notice was cancelled, the local authority would have no power to inspect them or to require any alterations. Subsection (7) makes it clear that the second initial notice may be served so that a second certifier can take over where the previous one has withdrawn.
448
There is no point in forcing a developer to present his local authority with the problem of half-completed work. Regulations will be made providing arrangements for a smooth handover, but where a local authority has become substantially involved in supervising the work it will not be possible for a second certifier to take over. I hope that that is a reasonable answer to the points that the noble Baroness has made.
Baroness Nicol: Yes, that is a reasonable answer up to a point, but I still have a great deal of unease about the more complicated developments. We keep talking about housing estates, but these are not what we are worried about. It is the much more complicated development, the large mixed development of commercial and perhaps residential where large parts of the work can be covered up and certified before the local authority might have to step in. I am not quite sure from anything that has been said whose liability it will be, or how difficult it will be to prove liability, in the event of a failure in these very complicated developments.
I should like to see the local authorities left with some power where they suspect—even where a final certificate has been issued; they do not suspect without good reason—that something has not been properly certified in the first place. I am very concerned that they may be left picking up the pieces. Can the Minister offer more reassurance on that?
Lord Skelmersdale: If my memory serves me right, one of the objectives of the final certificate is that if the building or part of the project—say, it is a mixed development or a range of shops or a garage, and so on, which I think is the point which concerns the noble Baroness—is not fit for use, it will not be able to be occupied. I shall have to check into that point and confirm in writing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister must take fully on board one of the great aggravations which have emerged particularly regarding the present building inspectors and on councils in the precise situation which my noble friend Lady Nicol has outlined. That is, where, in some circumstance, whatever the reason, the local authority has to continue and take over the inspection function. We are not reading more into this than is possible; we are simply saying that it is possible. Invariably when that happens there has been an unfortunate circumstance. Otherwise the local authority would not have reverted to the responsibility. Let us suppose that the approved inspector who is responsible for the whole of the job, or a specialist, has died or has left, or there has been an argument, or he has emigrated. or he has retired, and the developer then says, "I am now going to go through the procedures and the work is going to revert to the council". That is not the developer's fault, perhaps. It is certainly not the council's fault. But in the circumstances we are talking about how the local council building inspector, who then has the responsibility of carrying out inspection, satisfies himself that the earlier work for which he has not been responsible nevertheless has been carried out properly.
The Minister might fairly say, as he has said, that it has nothing to do with the council. One must assume that if final certificates have been issued for various

449
stages of the work, you must accept it. But we are talking about professional people who may look at some work for which a final certificate has been given, and they are far from satisfied. The Minister must really say a bit more about satisfying the public—not the council inspectors, but the public—that there is no possibility that the council will continue to approve work on top of work which may be suspect. The point my noble friend made is very real. Who will carry the responsibility for the dereliction revealed later?
Lord Skelmersdale: I appreciate it, and I am sorry that I was talking in shorthand; but I had anticipated that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord had read my response to a question asked me by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, on Tuesday last, in column 235 of the Official Report. In the situation which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has outlined the local authority will have very wide powers, comparable to those we have under the existing system. Clause 38(4) provides that building regulations may require them to be provided with plans not only of uncertified work but of certified work, too, because they may need such plans in order to see whether the building as a whole will comply with the regulations. Draft Regulation 18 specifically provides for this. It also enables the local authority to require work which has not been given a final certificate to be opened up for inspection. If the reason for cancellation of the initial notice was an alleged contravention, the local authority, on becoming responsible, must be informed of it. They will therefore be well armed to deal with this situation. I hope that this is the reassurance that the noble Lord requested.
Baroness Nicol: I accept the explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 93 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Giving, acceptance and effect of public body's notice]:
9.7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 41, line 17, leave out ("public") and insert ("designated").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have been given to us by the District Planning Officers' Society as a series of amendments. I think that one can appreciate that a body as eminent as they are in this particular field will have given the matter a great deal of thought. In essence, what they are saying is that there is the possibility of confusion between using the term "public body" in one circumstance and "designated body" in another. The Minister may be able to tell us that he and, ipso facto, everybody else ought to he clear as to what is meant and the only people who are confused are the district planning officers; in which case, I will send them a copy of the Hansard immediately and tell the House at Report
450
what they think of his answer. In the meantime, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether it is possible either to leave the Bill as it stands with "public" in one place and "designated" in another, or whether in fact the amendment seems sensible.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, I do think that the words in the Bill are sensible, not surprisingly. Bodies approved under Clause 39, which will be able to certify their own work, and those defined in Clause 45, which will be able to relax certain building regulations, being exempt from the procedures of the building regulations under Clause 44, will all be public bodies acting under enactments for public purposes and not for their own profit. I am advised that it would be misleading to refer to either category as "designated" rather than "public" bodies because they are referred to in the way that they are in this Bill as they are referred to in other statutes, whether they are statutes setting them up or whether they are statutes that pertain to them. Also, it could give rise to confusion with bodies designated under Clause 34 to approve inspectors or those designated under Clause 46 to approve documents.
I shall have more to say about the operation of Clause 39, and the bodies which might be suitable for approval, in regard to the next amendment. In the meantime, I really do think that the Bill is a sensible piece of drafting, and I hope that I have gone some way towards convincing the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 41, line 22, after ("agents") insert ("who meet the qualifications required for an approved inspector and is satisfied that it has sufficient insurance cover for any claim made against it as a result of the occurrence of any defect in that work")
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the status and standing of public bodies and to the ability or the right of public bodies in this matter. It relates to the supervision of their own work by public bodies. I must tell your Lordships that in no way do I wish to see a public body have any special rights or any exclusion or exemption from any element of the law. I think there is a cynicism about in many quarters that there is a law for one and a law for the other. If we are laying down controls of disciplines which have to be followed by the private sector, then we ought to make sure that they are also laid down for the public sector. What we are saying in this amendment is that we want to make sure that the same standards are applied.
The Minister might tell us that there is no need for this, but we are anxious to ensure that the public bodies (although we have argued long, particularly in respect of the insurance cover) do not have one law and the private sector another. A good deal of debate took place in another place on this matter, and I have a copy of the relevant Hansard. Some powerful arguments were deployed there which I myself may have to deploy later. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I know that there has been some confusion between this clause and Clause 44, which we

451
shall move on to in a moment. Perhaps I might now explain the purposes of this clause in response to the noble Lord. Lord Graham.
Clause 39 provides that public bodies which act under an enactment for public purposes and not for their own profit, and which are approved by the Secretary of State, may supervise work which they carry out on their own buildings. An approved public body may give to a local authority a "public body's notice" similar to an initial notice, accompanied by the plans and information needed by the local authority for their public health functions, referred to as the "linked powers". This category of public bodies may include bodies such as statutory undertakers and municipal undertakings, and possibly some nationalsied industries. When the Bill was in Committee in the other place my honourable friend the Minister gave assurances that such bodies would be approved in a limited and careful manner. and only when the Secretary of State was satisfied that it would be in the public interest.
At present these bodies are required to deposit full plans and submit their works to local authority inspection, except for statutory undertakers, which are entirely exempt from the building regulations in respect of their operational buildings only under Section 71 of the Public Health Act 1936. Since Parliament has already demonstrated its trust in these bodies in giving them specific statutory functions to perform for the benefit of the public, there must be a strong presumption that they can be trusted to behave responsibly. Freeing them from the need always to deposit full plans, and to go through the full procedures with their local building control authorities, could represent a useful reduction in bureaucracy.
Clause 38 would, therefore, enable the Secretary of State to give an approved public body or class of bodies the option of certifying work they carry out on their own buildings where they consider that this can adequately be done by their own servants or agents. They will still be able to go through the full local authority procedures if they wish, or to use the private certification system.
Amendment No. 97 evidently has two purposes. First, it would require a public body intending to certify its own work to use as its servant or agent supervising the work a person who meets the qualifications required for an approved inspector. This would obviously include a person who was an approved inspector, but it would also seem to include a person who was suitably qualified, but who had not actually been approved.
The Government believe that there is no need for such a provision. We think that a public body of the type that I have described, which has already been approved by the Secretary of State, and which considers that it can properly carry out the task of self-certification, can be trusted to conduct its affairs responsibly. In any case, it can use this provision only if it considers that the work can be adequately supervised by its own agents or servants. Depending on the nature of the work in question, it would be obliged to entrust its supervision to a person who was, in its view, suitably qualified.
452
It might choose to employ an approved inspector, but it could equally use a member of its own staff whom it considered competent for the job. This is similar to the position of local authorities. They have the responsibility of enforcing the building regulations, but there is no requirement that they employ people with specified qualifications as their building inspectors. They are trusted to exercise their judgment reasonably. There is thus no need for the first part of Amendment No. 97.
The second part of the amendment would require the self-certifying body to be satisfied that it has sufficient insurance cover for any claim made against it as a result of the occurrence of any defect in that work. I would remind the Committee that self-certification can be used only for work on the public body's own buildings. It is up to such bodies to decide how far they want to insure their own buildings against defects, if at all. They are hardly likely to sue themselves for negligence. As public bodies they should be able to meet claims from third parties. A statutory requirement that they should satisfy themselves that they have sufficient insurance is not required. If a building were sold, a subsequent owner would be able to sue the approved body for negligence.
Amendment No. 107, which is partly consequential, would additionally require the public body to provide insurance cover for any period during which a claim may be made. As I explained when we were considering Clause 32, such claims could arise in the indefinite future, but there is no way in which we could ensure that premiums would continue to be paid, and so the insurance industry could not provide such cover. As I have just explained, the kind of body which would be approved under this clause would be able to meet any claims which might arise in any case. So I do not believe that the worries of the noble Lord are viable. If they are, I shall be interested to hear his views.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful for the care which the Minister has taken with his response. But what he is saying is that there is no need for a public body to alter in the future any of its procedures which it has operated in the past. The current situation is that a public body exercises its discretion, its supervision, its appointment; it carries its risks and makes sure that only competent people are used. The great puzzle for Members outside this place about this whole part of the Bill is why the Government are determined to change what the Minister has, very fairly and effectively, described as a good working system. It is worked, at the moment, not only by public bodies in regard to their own buildings, but also by the public inspection system in regard to other buildings. Yet the Government have decided that this needs to be changed.
I appreciate that there are two or three threads woven into these amendments. There are not merely the public bodies and the qualifications of the approved inspectors; there is also the enormous subject of insurance, at which we had one nibble the other night and to which we shall need to come back again. But in view of the lateness of the hour, I simply serve notice that we shall be coming back to these

453
subjects on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 98 to 107 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Offences]:
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Interpretation of Part II]:
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Exemption of local authorities etc. from procedural requirements of building regulations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.20 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: I do not intend to speak at great length because my noble friend has done much by way of explanation. The word "public" is a very uncertain word. I would have preferred the franker expression "designated", because that is what is really meant. One talks about public schools when one really means private schools; one talks about public limited companies when one really means private organisations. The words in this clause really mean very little. I do not want unduly to press my noble friend at this time, but I should like to have a better idea of what it is he has in mind. After all, every joint stock company is entering under statute. As I read it, this clause to a great extent leaves the department completely free to do what it wants to do.
The record in public building is not by any means without fault. My noble friend Lord Carrington tells me that the Victoria and Albert Museum is in a shocking state. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk tells me that the College of Arms is in a deplorable condition. They are both public buildings in any normal sense of the term but I do not suppose for a minute that they will be given the authority in Clause 44.
Any people who are working on a building are probably not ill-advised to obtain an outside opinion from time to time. I hope that my noble friend will not be too free in saying that any body which is a public body shall be entitled to make their own inspection. The record of local authorities is not by any means outstanding. There are many examples which I could mention, but with which I will not bother your Lordships, of works which have had to be rebuilt at the cost of very large sums for one reason or another. I do not want to press my noble friend further, but I should like some idea of the principles he will work to. We are setting up a new system of regulations; let us see that they work well. It will be many years before new regulations are made, so let us try to ensure that the standard of building in this country is greatly improved.
Baroness Nicol: I wish to support the noble Earl. He has given some examples of older buildings where the standards leave a lot to be desired. It is equally true that many modern buildings—those built not only by local authorities but also, for example, by health authorities and many other statutory bodies—fall short of the required standards. I suspect that they do so not only in respect of building controls but in terms of planning as well. I hope the day is not far distant when all public bodies will be subject to the same expectations as far as the public are concerned as are private builders. In other words, I hope they will be subject to building controls and also to planning controls. I hope that the noble Earl will pursue this point.
Lord Broxbourne: Listening to my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I wondered whether he had altogether appreciated the limitations of the exemption given by Clause 44. As I read the clause, the exemptions concentrated under subsection (1) are exemptions
"from compliance with any requirements of those regulations which are not substantive requirements".
For what is meant by "substantive requirements" we have to look at Section 76(3) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, where we find that they mean,
"the requirements of building regulations with respect to the design and construction of buildings and the provision of services, fittings and equipment in or in connection with buildings"—
then there follow the words—
"as distinct from procedural requirements".
Therefore, there is in the operation of public health law, in the context of building regulations, that continuing dichotomy between substantive requirements and procedural requirements. Unless I have misread the clause, the contemplated exemption leads only to procedural requirements. The matters to which my noble friend very properly drew attention are, of course, all substantive requirements—which will not come within the ambit of the exempting provisions of Clause 44.
The Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, and will enlighten the Committee more correctly, but as I read the Bill and as I read the 1974 statute that appears to be the effect. Although I wholly appreciate and sympathise with the apprehensions and public-spirited anxieties of my noble friend, I think and hope that in this context they are not well founded.
Lord Skelmersdale: I listened with great interest to this short debate, but I am still not persuaded that Clause 44 should be omitted from the Bill. When my noble friend Lord Selkirk raised his original objections I understood that he was quite happy that a local authority or county council should be included, but that his real worry was the phrase, "any other body". If I am wrong, he can correct me. But before sweeping those two aside, may I point out that this clause in part repeals what I can only describe as a legal dottiness. At the moment a district council, for example, has to apply to itself, pay itself fees, submit plans to itself, and so on. Of course, it does no such thing because the officers move these things around among themselves. None the less, it is a legal requirement as current law goes, and, as I said, it seems to me to be more than a little unnecessary.

455
In addition to these two classes of bodies—that is, the local authority and the county council—other bodies which act under an enactment for public purposes and not for their own profit may be prescribed for exemption under this clause. We intend that these prescribed bodies shall be ones which exercise some local authority functions and are directly responsible to Ministers. Examples are the new towns development corporations and the Development Board for Rural Wales. If new development boards for inner cities were to be set up, they would seem to merit consideration for exemption. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, set up under the National Heritage Act 1983, is a case in point.
When Cmnd. Paper 8179, to which I have already referred, was issued it contained a list of possible bodies which might be considered for exemption under the present clause. That list was highly conjectural, and the Government's intention now is that exemptions should be limited to bodies of the kind I have just mentioned. There is no question of absolving those bodies from the duty to ensure compliance with technical building regulations. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Broxbourne, not for the first time this evening, for making that point. The case for exempting them from the procedures is the case for avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.
The Earl of Selkirk: I thank my noble friend for what he has said. I do not wish to pursue this matter further.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Power of certain public bodies to relax requirements of building regulations for their men works]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 46, line 6, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: This relates to the extent to which certain public bodies are able to relax their own requirements on building regulations in respect of their own work. As I said in earlier debates, we are again just a little uneasy at the extent to which it appears—the Minister may be able to reassure me and others outside the Committee—that the Bill, if not too relaxed, certainly includes some such bodies under the paragraph which we are proposing should be deleted. This is new subsection (2B)(c), which states:
"any other body which is prescribed for the purposes of section 44 of the Housing and Building Control Act 1984".
The Minister needs to spell out to us which bodies will be covered by the words, "any other body". He may well say that they are the same bodies as those covered in Clause 44, which states:
"Building regulations may exempt—

(a) a local authority,

(b) a county council, and

(c) any other body which acts under any enactment for public purposes and not for its own profit".

Quite frankly, we want only the local authority to have the power to relax that requirement and no one else, particularly when we are moving to a situation
456
where the local authority will not be retaining the tight hold that it has over its work. We are a little unhappy. The next series of amendments raises the same questions about giving others the ability to make changes in documents that are required. The Minister and his advisers should address themselves to the unease that will be felt in a wide number of forums about this matter. At this stage I content myself by moving the amendment in my name.
Lord Skelmersdale: I really am surprised by the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. has just made. I have been at great pains to explain matters in response to Lord Selkirk's opposing the Question, That Clause 44 stand part of the Bill. That explanation contains the entire answer to the question which the noble Lord has just asked.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has given an assurance on Clause 44, but we are moving to another clause. Clause 45, and a new amendment. The Minister forces me to weary the Committee by again reading out the provision in new subsection (2B):
"'public body' means …
(c) any other body".
In our view that provision should be deleted. The term "any other body" is far too wide.
Lord Skelmersdale: No. I am sorry, but I really must take issue with the noble Lord. He must read the entire paragraph:
"any other body which is prescribed for the purposes of section 44 of the Housing and Building Control Act 1984".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is right.
Lord Skelmersdale: When talking about Clause 44(1)(c) I described exactly what those other bodies are. I really cannot add to that. I can repeat it, of course.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Would the noble Lord mind doing that, please?
Lord Skelmersdale: What I actually said was:
"We intend that these prescribed bodies will be ones which exercise some local authority functions and are directly responsible to Ministers. Examples are the new towns development corporations and the Development Board for Rural Wales. If new development boards for inner cities were to be set up, they would seem to merit consideration for exemption. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, set up under the National Heritage Act 1983, is a case in point".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Approval of documents for purposes of building regulations]:
9.33 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 46, line 26, leave out ("or a body designated by him")
The noble Lord said: This is the leading amendment to a series of others which relate to:
"Approved documents giving practical guidance".

457
I think that it would be helpful to the Committee if I read out the first subsection in Clause 46:
"For the purpose of providing practical guidance with respect to the requirements of any provision of building regulations, the Secretary of State or a body designated by him for the purposes of this section may".
The words that I am asking the Committee to bear in mind are:
"or a body designated by him".
Then by the next amendment the provision would read:
"or a body designated by him for the purposes of the section may—(a) approve and issue any document (whether or not prepared by him or by the body cncerned)".
It will short-circuit the debate if I simply say that we are worried about the power which, as we see it, is pretty substantial—that is, the power to conceive and create and then to put into operation the approved documents which are very important, and the purpose of this is to control building regulations. We are intrigued to know from the Minister who the bodies are and why any other body other than the Secretary of State ought to have the power written on the face of a Bill to carry out the functions which Clause 46 lays out.
We do not see any necessity for other bodies and there could be confusion if there is a range of bodies. If they have any gumption at all they will have some form of independence. They are not simply going to be told, "You can issue guidance on approved documents but they all must he the same". Therefore there could be variation; and if there is variation, then there could be confusion. So that is the reason why we want the Minister to be a little more forthcoming, first as to why; and secondly as to whom. I beg to move.
Lord Skelsmersdale: My Lords, this clause is a key provision in our plan to produce a more efficient system of building control. It will enable the Secretary of State to give effect to his undertaking to produce a new set of building regulations which are radically simpler and clearer than the existing ones. At the moment the building regulations fill a moderate sized book of over 350 pages, and their language and arrangement is often complex in the extreme. They have been much criticised as obscure and overelaborate. Essentially, the simplification of the regulations hangs on the idea of separating mandatory requirements—what builders must do—from descriptive material—how they might do it. The question which the noble Lord asked was about who is going to, in a sense, approve the second half—the non-statutory half, if you like—of the building regulations.
Clause 46, as drafted, allows the Secretary of State both to approve documents himself or to designate other bodies to approve them. The only bodies contemplated for this important role are the British Standards Institution and the Agrément Board. The combined effects of Amendments Nos. 112 to 120 will be to remove his powers to designate these bodies, as the noble Lord has already said. The Secretary of State's responsibilities for public health and safety will not be diminished by designating these bodies, but the process of arriving at new, approved documents may be speeded up. Approval would not be a separate, subsequent process following on from drafting and
458
consultation stages, and this could clearly save time. Flexibility would also be enhanced because of all the possibilities for consultation and for direct involvement by industry and the professions right up to the final stage. The noble Lord asked me who and why. I hope that I have given him the answers. If not, of course I should be delighted to respond to any further points the noble Lord has made.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The answer is perfectly acceptable. What we feared—but it was obviously born out of if not ignorance, not being fully apprised—was that we did not wish to see other bodies that are involved in the whole process of designation and approval—for instance, of approved inspectors or the professional bodies, et cetera—causing the possibility of different interpretations, different standards and different advice and guidance coming from a range of bodies. But the two bodies which the Minister says are the only two bodies they have in mind at the moment that would be covered by this phrase, certainly appear to me to be eminently suitable and completely non-partisan and acknowledged as being independent. Their advice and references are very well received, not only in the industry but also by the consumer in general. In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the first amendment and I do not propose to move the other amendments in the series.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 120 not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
9.42 p.m.
Clause 48 [Certificates of compliance with building regulations]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 49, line 29, at end insert—
(" () There shall be paid on an application for any such approval as is referred to in subsection (3) above—

(a) where the application is made to the Secretary of State, such fee as may be prescribed by building regulations;

(b) where the application is made to a body designated by him as mentioned in that subsection, such fee as that body may determine.")

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 121 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 124, 125 and 126.
Amendment No. 124: Page 49, line 44, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
("(a) contain provision prescribing the period for which, subject to any provision made by virtue of paragraph (c) or (cc) below, any such approval as is referred to in subsection (3) above shall continue in force;")
Amendment No. 125: Page 50, line 5, leave out ("so referred to") and insert ("referred to in that subsection")
Amendment No. 126: Page 50, line 7, at end insert—
(" (cc) contain provision authorising the withdrawal of any such approval or designation as is so referred to:")
These amendments are virtually identical to the Government's amendments to Clause 34, which enabled designated bodies to set their own fees for approving inspectors, and to limit such approval to five-year periods. They apply in this case to the corresponding arrangements for the approval of

459
persons to give certificates that plans show compliance with certain prescribed provisions of building regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Again, we may have got it wrong—we got it wrong the last time, when we were talking about prescribed fees—but are we looking at a situation where different bodies will prescribe different levels of fees for the same kind of service? Part of Amendment No. 121 states:
"where the application is made to a body designated by him as mentioned in that subsection, such fee as that body may determine".
I admit to uncertainty, and I shall try to assist the Minister for the next minute or two because I believe that he may be able to assist me. There is a reference to. "such body". Can we have some illustrations of the kind of bodies that would be involved? Where there is a reference to fees. does that mean that different bodies could prescribe different levels of fees for the same kind of service? If that is to be the situation, people will shop around for what appears to be the same service but which is cheaper or dearer depending on who is providing it. We should regard that as an unhappy feature of the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am advised that "fees" will be fees paid by the person seeking approval, not fees to be paid by builders for the building control service. So I think that I am giving, though in different words, exactly the same answer to the noble Lord as I gave when he asked the same question on Tuesday. I do not have with me the 1936 Act, nor its various appurtenances. Perhaps it is a subject that is some way back in history and I should be better advised to write to the noble Lord on the question of the persons who are covered by the 1936 Act.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: When your Lordships went into Committee on this Bill earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, expostulated that so important a Bill, on which there is so much to be discussed, should be brought on at such an hour. We are now 14 clauses further on, over 30 amendments later, and over an hour and a half later. I draw those matters to the attention of your Lordships' Committee in weighing up whether what has happened this evening may not be a breach of any decent parliamentary practice.
Lord Skelmersdale: I had not intended to answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, at the beginning of this third day of the Committee stage at around eight o'clock, but I should point out that it was agreed perfectly amicably through the usual channels that this third day should in fact be a half day—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: A half night!
Lord Skelmersdale: It was agreed that it should be not a full period of discussion. The fact that the business came on a little later than any of us might have desired was totally beyond anybody's control. I think that that is as far as I can go in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We are dealing, of course, with building control. If we cannot exercise some control of our own affairs, what chance has the building industry? However, in respect of the point made, will the Minister take what I have to say in the right spirit? What the noble Lord says will be understood by those who are fully aware of all the facets and who are able to quote every section of the 1936 Act, but I wish to be satisfied of the postulation I made—that the possibility of some shopping around element does not exist. The Minister said that the person seeking approval would be the person paying the fee. Of course, the person seeking approval would pay the fee. I wanted to know to whom he would pay the fee, for what he would be paying, and whether there would be a range of options. Otherwise why leave the words.
"such fee as that body may determine"?
That must mean something. It must mean variation. I should like to know how the variation could arise and its importance. This can clearly best be done by studying the words of the Minister and by taking advice from those outside.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 49, line 32, leave out ("adequate").
The noble Lord said: At this late hour I think that the Committee could reasonably take Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 together.
Amendment No. 123: Page 49. line 33, after ("cover") insert ("as agreed between the two parties concerned").
Both amendments relate to the same aspect of the Bill. As I mentioned on Second Reading, particularly when one is discussing the subject of insurance—I declare an interest as an insurance consultant although not concerned with this Bill—the word "adequate" can never really be satisfactory. In this matter, where one is dealing with the certifier and the authorities concerned, this is very much to the fore. Amendment No. 123 is really the gravamen here. If a defect becomes apparent later and the certifier is found by the courts to have been negligent in some respect and the sum exceeds the cover that the certifier is required to provide, there is the question as to whether the claimant will he allowed to pursue in the courts over the extra amount insured, assuming that the client involved is a Minister of the same government at the time, a Minister of a different government and party, or a commercially minded private client. All of us know that governments change, that officials change and that housing legislation changes.
At this late hour when our brains are getting tired, I do not wish to pursue this in detail, but I should like to thank both my noble friend Lord Bellwin and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for the help that they have given on these matters. I would hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill this particular aspect of the Bill can be clarified to ensure that the insurance is on a reasonable and logical scale. I beg to move.
Lord Broxbourne: May I very briefly indeed ask my noble friend the Minister—in addition to looking between now and the Report stage at the important

461
points made by my noble friend Lord Auckland—to consider or to initiate a consideration within the corridors of power in the Government as to the position of the law of limitation in regard to actions brought in respect of buildings? It is this, as especially exemplified by the leading case Anns v. Merton in the 1970s, to some extent followed and clarified in the Pirelli case more recently, which makes the question of liability so very difficult. It makes the question for people seeking to establish a claim very difficult, and therefore inevitably makes the postion of insurers very difficult. This is a fundamental point in this context and it would certainly be rewarding for Ministers to consider it, though I am not so foolishly optimistic as to expect them to come up with a definitive and perfect solution between now and Report stage.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: May I rise briefly to say that we on these Benches support what is being requested. This is a probing amendment. There are a range of bodies outside this House who are anxious to test what they understand from their own experience will be the effect of insurance matters and they are asking legitimate questions. The Minister can fairly tell us consultations are going on, papers are being issued, comments are being received and they are being refined. This is against the background of the uncertainty as to whether this particular route will ever be followed because of the inability of the insurance companies to be satisfied that a market can be created in this specific field of insurance. We shall certainly be interested in the response of the Minister and be guided by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, as to his intentions in respect of the amendment at the appropriate time.
Lord Skelmersdale: We have already had quite an innings on this subject of insurance when discussing Opposition amendments on Clause 32 on Tuesday (Amendments 74 to 77 inclusive, which are reported in columns 239 to 248 of the Official Report). May I suggest that noble Lords who have shown great interest in this very important subject read what I am about to say now with that, because I hope that between the two some light will be thrown on the situation.
The purpose of giving the Secretary of State the power to approve insurance schemes under Clause 48 of the Bill as under Part 2 of the Bill is to enable him to ensure that such schemes provide adequate protection for any people who suffer damage as a result of negligence of an approved person. The reason for requiring evidence that an approved insurance scheme applies to the work is to make sure that the building owner or any injured third party can be sure of redress at least up to a known limit in the event of the approved person being found negligent.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has been poking fun at me constantly this evening about this consultation process, which I really do not think is legitimate criticism. He has already admitted that in this process we have moved a long way towards satisfying various concerns that have been put to us during the course of consultation. We will continue to do so. As I have said at earlier stages of the Bill, we regard this Committee stage—and indeed any subsequent discussions we have on the regulations as they pertain to various clauses in
462
the Bill—to be part of the consultation process. I hope the noble Lord will consider taking note of what I have just said.
As to what that limit should be, the draft guidelines on which we are currently consulting set out suggested limits in some detail, thereby putting flesh on the single word "adequate" which appears on the face of the Bill. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has not yet decided exactly what those minimum requirements should be, but he is in no doubt that there should he a minimum and I am sure the Committee will share his view.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 would enable the Secretary of State to approve an insurance scheme in which the amount of cover would simply be a matter of agreement between the developer and his insurer. I do not think that that could give sufficient protection (it might in certain circumstances, but equally it might not) to the final owner or tenant of the building.
The intention of the draft guidelines is to set general standards which the Secretary of State will expect to find in insurance schemes submitted to him for approval. We are awaiting the response of the insurance industry and of the building owners to these draft guidelines. I can assure my noble friend that we shall consider very carefully the points that he has made tonight in the light of the comments we receive from the industry itself. I should like to add that the insurance requirements under the Bill in no way limit the court's power to award damages for negligence. The purpose of insurance schemes which will be approved is to ensure that the resources to meet claims up to specified limits will be available. I hope that that clears up by noble friend's point.
Lord Auckland: I quite agree with my noble friend that at this late hour we should study what has been said. He is quite right that much of this has been answered during our discussions on Clause 32. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and my noble friend Lord Broxbourne, with his legal expertise, for their assistance in this short discussion. Naturally. I and the Committee will study between now and Report stage what has been said, what the insurance industry feels and, above all, what the building industry feels, which is very important, However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
9.50 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 124, 125 and 126:
[Printed earlier: col. 458.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 124, 125 and 126 en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 121.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Amendments of enactments relating to building regulations]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 51, line 2. at end insert—
(" () Where the Secretary of State proposes in building regulations to prescribe criteria and requirements for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Bill it shall be his duty before he makes them to consult such organisations as appear to him to be representatives of interests substantially affected by the proposal and such other persons as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 127, and I shall do so as briefly as possible. Clause 50(1) limits the circumstances in which it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to consult interested bodies before amending regulations. In Section 9(3) of the 1961 Act, which requires consultations with such bodies as appear to the Minister to be representative of the interests concerned, the word "concerned" is of significance. Where interests do not appear to the Minister to be concerned with the subject-matter of the proposed regulations, whether trivial or substantive, there is no obligation to consult their representatives. If, on the other hand, they do appear to be concerned, there seems no justification for removing the existing right to be consulted before the regulations are made.
I fancy that the answer to this amendment will tie up with an answer which was given to an earlier amendment. I therefore propose not to follow this particular amendment too far this evening, but to study the Ministers' reply. However, I should like his confirmation that in fact the answer is the same.
Lord Broxbourne: At this late hour I propose to be very brief—and may I say parenthetically how very agreeable it is to somebody who, like me, has come here so recently from another place, where the words "late hour" bear a very different connotation, to be able to use those words at this time and in this context?
I think that this amendment is based on a misconception. It is based on a failure to take account of what in the discussion on the Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of Bill? I described as the dichotomy in relation to the requirements of consultation under the building regulations. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, the proposed amendment overlooks the distinction in law between substantive requirements and procedural requirements, which, as I mentioned then, are defined in Clause 76(3) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Quite properly in my view, the substantive requirements want far more extensive consultation than the procedural ones from which they are distinguished and with which they are contrasted. I understand—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that in addition to the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, the substantive requirements have an obligation to consult with between 100 and 200 bodies, one of which I am informed (and I hope credibly informed) is the British Bingo Association, though I am not quite clear what its particular interest or expertise in this matter would be.
On the other hand, for procedural requirements Ministers have to circulate proposals only to a much smaller body of specifically interested organisations. In
464
default of the provisions of Clause 50 of this Bill, regulations such as the approved inspectors regulations, would be subject to the necessity of this much wider range of consultation, including the British Bingo Association. The intention and effect of the amendment would seem to be to impose this additional obligation. That would necessarily add to expense and administrative work; and would, in my submission, be unnecessary. Therefore, I hope that this matter may not be proceeded with.
Lord Skelmersdale: Let me make it clear at the beginning that I am not speaking for the Home Office. The building regulations have until now been almost entirely substantive. They impose technical requirements and they define what work is exempt or partly exempt. In other words, they bear directly on what is built, extended or altered.
As I told the Committee just now, many of the new regulations made under the Bill will however be procedural. They will include the regulations under which approved inspectors will operate. We have already completed one round of informal consultation on a first draft of these regulations, on a limited scale, but covering many of the bodies which seemed likely to have comments, and we are grateful for their comments. We are currently consulting on a second draft, again informally. but on a wide scale covering all the bodies, which number over 300, on the list of those we consult on the building regulations.
This list is an open list, and any representative body which can claim a legitimate interest can ask to be put on it, even though its interest may in practice be very narrow and limited. My noble friend Lord Broxbourne referred to the British Bingo Association. He is quite right, but also on the list are the Cake and Biscuit Alliance, the Vitreous Enamel Development Association and the White Fish Authority. We do not feel that a statutory requirement to consult and to go on consulting on this scale about every detail of procedures is justified. It would be a pointless waste of time, paper and effort on the part of the department and many of the persons consulted. For this reason we have included in the Bill the provision in Clause 50(1) which confines the statutory requirement to consult to those regulations which are substantive. I hope that this gives the explanation that was desired by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful for the explanation, and fascinated by the idea of having to consult the British Bingo Association. I shall carefully study what the Minister has said. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 128:
After clause 50, insert the following new clause:—
("Amendments of enactments relating to sanitation and buildings.
.—(1) Part XII of the 1936 Act (enforcement and other general provisions) shall have effect as if so much of Part II of the 1961 Act (sanitation and buildings) as does not relate to building regulations were contained in Part II of the 1936 Act.
(2) In the following provisions, namely—

(a) so much of Part II of the 1936 Act (sanitation and building) as does not relate to building regulations;

465

(b) sections 137 and 138 of that Act (certain buildings to be supplied with water); and

(c) so much of Part II of the 1961 Act as does not relate to building regulations,

expressions which are defined by subsection (1) of section 82 of the 1974 Act shall have the meanings given by that subsection.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 145.
Amendment No. 145: In the Title, line 6, after ("regulations") insert (", sanitation and buildings").
Amendment No. 128 is a draft new clause necessary for a proposed consolidation Bill. The law relating to buildings and building regulations is at present spread inconveniently over a number of statutes, some of them referred to as the enactments "relating to building regulations", a title conferred on them by Section 76 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Law Commission is consolidating the enactments relating to building regulations and other provisions about building in a Bill to be introduced later this Session and entitled the Building Bill.
Because of the somewhat disorderly way in which the various provisions have been enacted over the years, marginally different procedural provisions and definitions apply to the enactments relating to building regulations and to the rest. The main differences are in the definition of the words "contravention" and "modification", and in the procedures which apply to such mundane activities as the serving of notices and the requiring of information. We will go on to this in more detail when considering the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will move. I hope I have said enough at the moment to explain the need for these two amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 51 to 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 129 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 129A.
Page 52, line 30, leave out from ("force") to end of line 31, and insert ("on such day after its consolidation with the 1980 Act as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is designed to ensure that this Bill does not go out without Part I being consolidated with the 1980 Act to which it refers and by which it proceeds as legislation by reference. At this hour I would not be justified in detaining the Committee long over this. It is sufficient if I remind your Lordships that at the very outset of your Lordships' consideration in Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Molson, protested at the baffling nature of this Bill, referring particularly to Part I.
That has been echoed by a number of your Lordships in discussing this Bill. Those two noble Lords are lawyers—indeed, the noble Earl is a Queen's Counsel. Both those noble Lords have had high
466
ministerial responsibility; the noble Lord, Lord Molson, in the very field of this law. All your Lordships present have had great experience of legislation—in its initiation, preparation and administration; but if noble Lords find this Bill so baffling I ask the Committee to consider the persons who are affected by Part I.
Let us take someone who is affected by Clause 4; someone who has exercised his right to buy. He now wants to sell, probably to move to somewhere else, and naturally he wants to know what discount, if any, he has to repay. On that will depend what type of house he can purchase. He may be someone who left school at 14 and has spent all his life in manual labour. What is he told? He is told that it all depends on whether his sale of the house is "a relevant disposal". Having determined that, he is told it is a question of whether it is a relevant disposal under a new clause imported by this Bill into an earlier Act by a subsection (3) or a similar subsection (3)(A), also imported by this Bill, which will then be an Act, into another Act. If he is living in an old people's sheltered accommodation he has a further exercise to perform: he has to have to look at Clause 7 of this Bill because that refers back to Clause 4.
Nothing as the Bill is drafted and at the stage at which it has reached can make it entirely simple, or even intelligible, to the sort of person whom I have described and who is, after all, the consumer for the purposes of this legislation. But what your Lordships can do is to insist that this Bill does not go out so that the consumer has to read two documents. one from another, but that it is consolidated into one document.
It can be done in this Session. There is no need to wait, just in case the Minister is anxious to have the Bill. The Consolidation Committee can consolidate a Bill when it is actually passing through Parliament. It did that in 1975 with the massive social security legislation consolidation, in which was consolidated the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill while it was passing through Parliament. It is perfectly within the compass of a competent draftsman, as the draftsman of this Bill seems to be. After all, the Bill will have to be explained by the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, if by nobody with professional qualifications, and they will have to do a job with scissors and paste with this Bill, which will then he an Act, and the Act which is amended by it, the 1980 Act. If all over the country the Citizens' Advice Bureaux would have to perform the scissors and paste operation, surely it is more reasonable that the draftsman who has used this Bill to amend the earlier legislation should do the job himself and for them.
It is not as if the job is altogether a novel one. We heard from the noble Lord the Minister that the task of consolidation on a far wider field has already been started. We heard that also on Second Reading from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. And this is a comparatively simple piece of legislation to consolidate. because the draftsman has, I think, largely, if not entirely, followed the instructions of the Renton Committee and amended the earlier Act textually, so that it is really only a matter of scissors and paste.
Last Session the same Ministry prepared the National Heritage Bill, which was the subject of execration throughout your Lordships' House. The

467
drafting was so extraordinary that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, actually moved an amendment to omit a vital schedule. on the ground that it was virtually incomprehensible. We were asked to a meeting with the Ministers, and I was certainly left with the impression that the National Heritage Bill probably would not be amended during the last Session, because that would hurry the draftsmen too much, but that it would certainly be consolidated this Session. However, it is not in the programme of the Consolidation Committee at all. They have already consolidated legislation about dentists and about registered homes in Scotland, neither of them subjects to be dismissed summarily, but surdy less important than legislation the consolidation of which had been promised by the Ministry responsible for this Bill, or this Bill itself, where the probability of the requirement of consolidation must have been perfectly obvious to anybody considering Part I.
In my experience, this is the most disgraceful Bill by way of legislation by reference that I have ever seen, and to let it go out unconsolidated in this form would be, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, a legislative enormity. I beg to move.
Lord Molson: There is no need for me to speak at any length after the speech that we have heard from the noble and learned Lord. Not only was he for a long time a Lord of Appeal but during that period he presided over the Consolidation Committee. He therefore has expert knowledge not only from the point of view of draftsmanship but also in regard to the problem of getting these matters through the elaborate machinery of consolidation. I think he has made out an unanswerable case for something to be done in order to consolidate this legislation before it goes out to be interpreted and put into operation.
I am only sorry that my noble friend Lord Renton is not able to be here at this late hour of the night. It will be in the memory of your Lordships that some four or five years ago he presided over a committee which went into the whole question of draftsmanship and emphasised how urgently important it was, in order that law should be "understanded of the people", for draftsmanship to be greatly simplified and rationalised. I am very sorry to have to say that since then extremely little has been done to carry out the recommendations of the Renton Committee, despite the fact that I think in almost every respect the Government of the day accepted those recommendations in principle.
I wish to put the proposal forward to the Government in the simplest way possible. There is an urgent need for there to be consolidation of all the housing legislation on the statute book, but I recognise that that is a very large task and would take a very long time. Therefore, in line with the argument of the noble and learned Lord, I think it is desirable to take two bites at this cherry.
Part I of this Bill is primarily legislation in order to amend the Act of 1980 and I suggest that, as the noble and learned Lord has said, there should be no difficulty in consolidating the Act of 1980 and that of 1984. In fact, the noble and learned Lord speaks about scissors and paper and that is very largely what it would be.
468
The same draftsmen and civil servants who have been concerned with drafting this legislation to amend the Act of 1980 will have all the facts and relevant references in their minds, if not still on their desks, when they could begin the task of consolidation. That this is not far from the Government's thought is obvious from the assurance which I received from my noble friend the Minister on the first day of these proceedings when he said that the task of consolidation had already begun.
As I have said, Part I deals almost primarily—I will not say exclusively—with the amendment of the Act of 1980. When we come to Parts II and III we encounter matters which are entirely different. Quite clearly, this ought not to have been a single Bill. There ought to have been one Bill containing Part I, another Bill containing Part II, and another Bill containing Part III. I do not in any way blame the Government for having proceeded in this way, because I fully recognise that they felt there was great urgency about this matter and there is a shortage of parliamentary time. But having economised time by incorporating these three different parts in one single Bill, I suggest that it should now be relatively simple for them to begin to take these three pieces apart and to make them into separate Acts to go onto the statute book.
At this late hour, I do not wish to go into details. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord has already, with great erudition, emphasised the point. I would only say that Clause 52 refers to two Public Health Acts of 1936 and 1961 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; Clause 54 provides for amendments to Schedule 10; and Clause 55 repeals enactments in the third column of Schedule 11. All this demonstrates how extremely difficult it would be for even highly ingenious lawyers to understand exactly what the change in the whole corpus of the law is, which is affected by this, Bill. I hope, having been assured that the task of consolidation is already in hand, that the Government will give a sympathetic reply to the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend.
So far as I am concerned. I will summarise by suggesting that, first, there should be without any delay consolidation of the Act of 1980 with this amended Act of 1984—almost the whole of which is contained in Part I of this Bill. Then, there should be separate consolidation as soon as possible of Parts II and III. Next, the major task should be undertaken—and I want to be perfectly reasonable because I realise that a lot of other legislation is being dealt with by the Law Commission and by the Joint Consolidation Committee—of complete consolidation of all the housing Acts. Finally, it is extremely desirable, although perhaps less urgent in view of much of what the noble Lord has said this afternoon, that there should be consolidation of all the Acts dealing with building control. In that way, we will have on the statute book relevant statutes dealing with these different and complicated matters, all of which are most confusingly dealt with in the present Bill.
10.27 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I recognise the noble and learned Lord's concern about the need for consolidation of housing legislation. My noble friend Lord Molson called this an "unanswerable case" for consolidation: we shall see. It is an issue to which the

469
noble and learned Lord referred when we considered the first part of this Bill in Committee last week. He was particularly concerned in the context of Clause 4, which he used as an example this evening. I might reconfirm that the points he raised on Clause 4 are points on which my noble friend Lord Bellwin has offered to write to him. I assure the noble and learned Lord that my noble friend will do just that.
The Government need no persuasion as to the merits of consolidation of housing legislation. As I said in my last speech to the Committee, the Government are seeking to achieve early consolidation of the statutes, but nobody is better placed than the noble and learned Lord to realise that this is a task that cannot be rushed. Hasty and ill-conceived consolidation will only add to the difficulties he outlined. The noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Molson made a case for consolidating the 1980 Act with this Bill and for doing so now as the Bill proceeds. Many of the Bill's provisions do amend textually the 1980 Act, since much of what the Bill does is in effect to improve and add to the existing right to buy in the tenants' charter. There are, on the other hand, completely fresh provisions in the Bill which could not possibly be incorporated in an amended version of the 1980 Act.
For instance, there is the shared ownership scheme introduced by Clauses 12 to 17—also in Part I of the Bill. The present Bill is consistent with normal parliamentary practice and procedure. I am advised also that it is consistent with paragraph 13, subparagraph 16, of the report of my noble friend Lord Renton on the preparation of legislation—and he, of course, put his name to this amendment.
I would not presume to argue with the noble and learned Lord on a subject on which he is such an expert. I accept the point he makes that it becomes increasingly more difficult for practitioners and others affected by legislation if successive legislative measures proceed by textual amendment of a previous measure. To deal with this problem, the 1980 Act as amended by Part I of this Bill will be reproduced by the publication Statutes in Force in a way that can be readily understood by practitioners. Statutes in Force may be cited in court as further proof of their authenticity.
We have asked whether publication of a complete text can be expedited, and have been told by the Statutory Publications Office that it hopes to publish a new cumulative supplement incorporating the amendments to be effected by this Bill within four months of receiving a Queen's Printer's copy of the Act. We also intend to publish a series of explanatory booklets on the subject of the right to buy, which will be widely distributed.
To come back to the question of consolidation of the 1980 Act and this Bill, I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that time taken on any ad hoc consolidation will be time lost on the main consolidation since, taking the whole of housing legislation, the text of the main consolidation will not have the same character as the text of any earlier part of the legislation, largely because the consolidator is seeking to achieve maximum consistency in the final consolidation measure or measures.
470
I hope I have said enough to explain to the noble and learned Lord that we are very much on his side but we cannot quite go all the way that he so obviously desires in this amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. May I deal with a point he made on Parts I, II and III? In the normal process of consolidation the draftsman will only consolidate with the 1980 Act so much of this Bill, when it is an Act, as is relevant to the 1980 Act. We had that experience, I believe, two Sessions ago—it may have been last Session—in relation to matrimonial homes. An Act had to be consolidated which dealt partly with matrimonial homes and partly with matrimonial property. The draftsman quite properly consolidated only that part which was relevant; namely, that relating to matrimonial homes. So there is no difficulty in hiving off Part I.
The noble Lord the Minister said that it will be time lost. It may be time postponed, but the measure of consolidation which I am now seeking is urgent consolidation. The rest is important, but it is not urgent in the sense that quite humble people and the people who man the Citizens Advice Bureaux have got to understand what this legislation does. The noble Lord said that there will be publication in four months' time by the Statutory Publications Office. If so, the draftsman can do it in four months. It is exactly the same problem that faces him as faces the publisher of the Statutes in Force.
The noble Lord the Minister said that practitioners will be able to manage. I do not doubt that with great difficulty they will be able to manage, moving from one Act to the other, backwards and forwards. It is not the practitioners with whom I am concerned; it is the humble users of this legislation. The Minister said he hoped I would he satisfied with his explanation, but in fact he came nowhere near meeting any point I made. It is obviously unreal to talk of pressing this to a Division at this hour, but in view of the extremely unsatisfactory explanation I shall return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, if the noble Lord, Lord Molson, will agree—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has already agreed—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 130:
[Printed earlier: col. 1240.]
The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 131:
[Printed earlier: col. 1267.]
The noble Lord said: Again my noble friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 42. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 132 and 133:
[Printed earlier: col. 1237.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 en bloc. My noble friend spoke to them with Amendment No. 17.
On Question. amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdle Lord Skelmersdle moved Amendment No. 135:
[Printed earlier: col. 1237.]
The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.41 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 86, line 48, leave out from ("such") to ("7(5)") in line 1 of page 87 and insert ("rights as are mentioned in paragraphs 3(1) and (5) and").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 140.
Amendment No. 140: Page 88, line 34, at end insert ("and to such rights as are mentioned in paragraphs 3(5) and 7(5) of Schedule 3 to this Act").
These are technical amendments to ensure consistency of treatment between the shared ownership scheme and the exercise of the right to buy in cases of outright purchase. The effect of the amendments would be to ensure that Part IV of Schedule 2 of the 1980 Act, which deals inter alia with charges on the freehold, applies where the freehold is called for under a shared ownership lease. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment Nos. 137, 138 and 139:
[Printed earlier: col 1268.]
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 137, 138 and 139 en bloc. My noble friend spoke to them with Amendment No. 42.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 140:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 136. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 141:
[Printed earlier: col. 1183.]
The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 90, line 35, column 3, leave out ("Section 2(5)") and insert—

Page 90,("In section 2, in subsection (4) the words "Subject to subsection (5) below" and subsection (5).").

The noble Lord said: Section 2(5) of the 1980 Act provides that the Secretary of State may by order enable the right to buy to be exercised in relation to dwellings held other than under Part V of the 1957 Act —the powers to provide housing to meet general housing needs. The Secretary of State made an order in May 1983 extending the right to buy to most non-Part V dwellings held by the right-to-buy landlords. Schedule 11 of the Bill provides for the repeal of Section 2(5). There is a cross-reference to Section 2(5) and Section 2(4) of the 1980 Act which needs to be repealed, together with Section 2(5). This minor consequential repeal was overlooked in the original drafting of Schedule 11. We are correcting that now. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 144:
[Printed earlier: col. 1200.]
The noble Lord said: My noble friend spoke to this with amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amentment No. 145:
[Printed earlier: col. 465.]
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 145 with Amendment No. 128, but before we leave this Committee stage may I take the opportunity to thank all those noble Lords who have spoken during this stage of the Bill. We have had a number of very constructive debates, and the Government will look very carefully at all the suggestions that have been made before we come to the next stage of the Bill. I am sure that at that stage your Lordships will show an equal diligence in examining the provisions of what the Government consider to be a very worthwhile Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: May I take this opportunity to express the appreciation of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber for the many instances where it was quite clear that the Minister and his advisers anticipated the range of matters over which we were going to work in order to try to elicit information. Certainly we can see some great merit in reading the reports of the Committee stage in preparation for the Report stage. It is one of those exercises where one learns something new all the time.
The Committee is of course aware that this is not merely the second time round for this matter, but that it has been about for a very long time. References were made to over five years of consultation, and clearly, as the Minister has said, the Government are prepared to take even longer than that in order to get it right. As far as we are concerned, we have not yet finished our attempt to improve the Bill.
Certainly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raised a very serious point at the end of these particular proceedings. to which we on this side of the Committee will certainly give a great deal of attention and as to which we shall consult with him to see

473
whether it is possible to be helpful, not merely to the Bill and to the Minister but—more importantly—to millions of people outside. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the Minister pointed out that there are professionals who are involved in these matters. They are able to deal with these issues not only from their own experience but also from their access to information and research. They can look after themselves. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, pointed out, quite properly of course, is that there are very many ordinary people who will be vitally affected by the provisions of this Bill. What in actual fact he drew to our attention, is the need for this Chamber to be ever vigilant, not merely in order to produce a satisfactory piece of legislation, but to try to look behind the legislation at the people who are going to be affected by it.
As a Member of Parliament in another manifestation, I always had great difficulty in explaining the legislation in which I had taken part; so goodness knows what ordinary people, who may be referred to documents and leaflets which were designed to be helpful, made out of going to a library and asking to look at what they were told to look at, which was the Act, and trying to make reference to it. I can recall more than once, in preparing for this Bill, I was referred to a section not merely of the 1980 Act, which was the point that was made, but also to the 1961 and 1936 Acts, and so on.
So as far as we are concerned, on this side of the Committee, this has been a very useful stage of the Bill. We are far from satisfied that when we leave this particular stage the Bill is in as good a shape as it ought to be. I cannot honestly say that the Minister has willingly conceded anything remotely in the form of a concession. What has been wrung from the Government has actually had to be forced from them by virtue of a vote. The Minister has very often satisfied us by way of explanation, where very often we on this side have failed to fully appreciate the significance of the words on the face of the Bill. Quite frankly, very often people outside this Chamber who have advised us have not fully understood what was in the mind of the Minister and his advisers. As far as we are concerned, this has been a very useful stage and one from which we will profit. I think the Minister has had full warning from Members on this side that we intend to come back at Report— and not merely with amendments that we feel necessary. The value of a Report stage of course is to provide the last legitimate opportunity for people outside to recognise that they have another opportunity to improve the Bill.
The Bill has had a good run in another place, and, to be fair to the Minister, we have had a very good run so far as we are concerned. We have taken advantage of the opportunities, and this might be a suitable moment, before I sit down, for me to say that we are very grateful to the Minister for the care and attention which he has given. We intend to come back and try to improve the Bill in any way that we can.
I do not think that the Minister can take lightly the fact that tonight there has been very little evidence of Back-Bench interest, simply because of the unfortunate circumstances. I certainly do not blame the Government Chief Whip; I certainly do not blame
474
anyone. The Minister was fair in his statement that a timescale had been allowed for this part of the proceedings on the Bill, but, unfortunately, due to preceding business, we were prevented from starting at a more reasonable hour. However, I think that we have managed to satisfy ourselves tonight; we are going to conclude at a reasonable time.
Lord Denham: Just before we move on—we have now reached the magic hour of 10.45—in view of the generous words of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I should like to thank your Lordships for your kindness in dealing with this matter so expeditiously after it came on at such a late hour.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended. agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: ELECTORAL LAW
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: ELECTORAL LAW
  "STREAMLINING THE CITIES": ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES
  "STREAMLINING THE CITIES": ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION: COSTINGS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION: COSTINGS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION: EXPENDITURE CONTROL
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION: EXPENDITURE CONTROL
  HOUSING AND BUILDING CONTROL BILL: CONSULTATION
  HOUSING AND BUILDING CONTROL BILL: CONSULTATION
  HOUSING: "RIGHT TO BUY" PAPER
  HOUSING: "RIGHT TO BUY" PAPER
  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, KEW: TEMPORARY CLOSURE
  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, KEW: TEMPORARY CLOSURE
  LEAR FAN CORPORATION: SUBVENTION
  LEAR FAN CORPORATION: SUBVENTION
  DOG LICENCES: COST
  DOG LICENCES: COST
  SPECIAL QUOTA VOUCHERS: STATISTICS
  SPECIAL QUOTA VOUCHERS: STATISTICS
  NATO MEMBERS' DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
  NATO MEMBERS' DEFENCE EXPENDITURE