Sitting of 29 March 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    DERWENT VALLY RAILWAY BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.

    GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 5 April at Seven o'clock.

    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Thursday 5 April.

    TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

      DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL By Order
      Orders for Second reading read.
      To be read a Second time upon Thursday 5 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fishermen (Training)
    Dr. Godmanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the present and future provision of training for fishermen in Great Britain.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I am confident that the Sea Fish Industry Training Council, which has been set up by the Sea Fish Industry Authority, will continue to build on the achievements of its predecessor, the Sea Fisheries Training Council.
    Dr. Godman: Given that training was the sole function of the Sea Fisheries Training Council, whereas it forms only a part of the overall functions of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, can the Minister give the House the assurance that there will be no dilution in the training of fishermen following this transfer of responsibilities?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I can give that assurance. It has been widely recognised that, for reasons of economy and effectiveness, a single body is better. As the hon. Member
    434
    will know, the support grants for group training associations, which we are funding, will allow programmes proposed by GTAs to be fully funded. The allocation for survival and fire-fighting courses will be almost doubled, and the SFIA is continuing its own training programme and maintenance and support grants for fishermen on voluntary training. I believe that that will continue.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the Minister's answer includes Scotland, will be confirm that the same arrangements and enthusiasm will apply to Northern Ireland which, of course, is within the jurisdiction of the Sea Fish Industry Authority?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already had discussions with the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority about training. That is another reason why I believe that it has taken its responsibilities extremely seriously. I have not raised the specific question of Northern Ireland with him, but I shall now do so.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: As there will be little point in training unless there is an industry for which people can train, and as this is the only question on fishing that will be reached today, what proposals does the Minister have for relaxing the full rigours of a cod quota which means that a Grimsby vessel which catches more than 135 kit of cod in one week must stay in dock until the following week to unload the extra quota of cod? What proposals are there for negotiating an extra supply of cod with Norway?
    Mr. MacGregor: I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity. I have been corresponding with him on this matter. On the first point, my officials are discussing this very matter with the industry in Edinburgh today and will be reporting back to me, as we wish to take the industry's views into account. I hope to be able to announce proposals shortly. On the second point, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have commitments from the Commission to do all that it can in its discussions with Norway, and those discussions will be held before the next Council of Fisheries Ministers on 24 May.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Given the Minister's commitment to training and the fact that he has given some idea of what funding might be available, precisely what sums of money are available for training and how do they square up to requests from the industry for such money?
    Mr. MacGregor: The training budget for 1984–85 will be £486,000. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is our general policy to seek to have training costs met by the industry, and in future that will be done through the levy. The figure for this year includes £84,500 from the Manpower Services Commission for the GTAs. I was particularly anxious to achieve that from the MSC to assist in this matter.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Why has the fishing industry to meet the costs of training, when training costs for the farming industry are met by the Ministry?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is the general policy on all these matters, and it has been agreed that on fishing we should move in line with that general policy. I have been corresponding with the right hon. Gentleman on this matter.

    Pigmeat
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the current year's price settlement in respect of pigmeat will have on home producers.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): It is proposed that the basic price will be cut by 1 per cent., but this price is a relatively theoretical concept in the pigmeat sector since it has no direct effect on market support arrangements. However, the cuts proposed in the institutional prices for cereals should produce concrete benefits in terms of lower pig production costs, while the proposed aid for encouraging the use of concentrated skimmed milk in pig feed should also be helpful. I expect the Commission to agree to continue to take account of regional difficulties in its management of the market. The impact of the proposed MCA changes will depend on future currency movements.
    Mr. Haselhurst: If the final settlement does not appear to afford better prospects for the United Kingdom pig industry, are there any measures that my right hon. Friend can take independently to protect the survival, let alone the prosperity, of many United Kingdom pig farmers?
    Mr. Jopling: I am conscious of the difficulties that the pig industry has been through, but I invite my hon. Friend to look at the current all pigs price index, which is currently at over 105p per kilo. That is the highest that it has been. There has been a considerable rise since mid-January, and the figure is now about 18 per cent. above what it was a year ago.
    Mr. Budgen: What is the proposed percentage reduction in price for cereals, and what percentage decrease in the feed costs for the pig and livestock sectors does that amount to?
    Mr. Jopling: A 1 per cent. cut is proposed in the institutional prices for cereals. If that is reflected in market prices, it should cut costs for pig producers by about 22p per fattening pig.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: If the Minister cannot hold on to the variable premium for beef producers, why will he not try to persuade his counterparts in Europe to introduce a variable scheme for pig producers?
    Mr. Jopling: I am determined to keep the variable premium for beef, but the hon. Gentleman should recall that the difference between a pig and a cow is that the pig breeds much faster and produces many more young. A modest subsidy of about lop per kilogram would cost the Community £1 billion.
    Mr. Lord: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of how closely the fate of pig farmers is linked to cereal prices. As even the most efficient pig producers are now in danger of going bankrupt, will he always look at all available means to lower the price of cereals to pig producers?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend will know that I have consistently argued during the past nine months that the cereal livestock balance is wrong, and I have argued for a reduction in cereal prices. I shall be glad to look at whatever ways there are in which I can help the pig industry, although my hon. Friend will accept that the situation is now a good deal better than it was a year ago.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister recollect that the National Pig Breeders Association has argued that the pig industry could prosper if there were a £20 per tonne reduction in the price of cereals? Is he aware that the association is worried that intervention is becoming the market of first resort, instead of last resort? Why does not the Minister do something about that, instead of worrying about the subsidy to pigs?
    Mr. Jopling: I am glad the hon. Gentleman joins me in pleading for a reduction in cereal prices. As a signal to the hard-pressed livestock industry, in an effort to give it some confidence, I have said that it would be helpful if the Community were to agree to a price reduction over a number of years.

    Farmers (Retirement)
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many seminars have been sponsored by his Department in the last 12 months based on leaflet 2010 issued by his Department and reprinted in 1981; in which areas they were held; and how many farmers attended each seminar.
    Mr. MacGregor: Nine seminars have been sponsored by the Department in the last 12 months based on booklet 2010 on "Succession, Retirement and Inheritance" which is concerned with the social and economic aspects of retirement and handing over a farm business, with a total of 1,041 farmers attending.
    With permission I will publish in the Official Report details of the venues and the number of farmers attending each seminar.
    Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend cause the leaflet to be updated and reprinted, in view of the Budget resolutions? In any future seminars after a reprinted edition is available, will there be a facility for reputable pensions organisations to carry out follow-up lectures, because as presently organised the seminars appear to operate in a vacuum?
    Mr. MacGregor: We intend to revise the booklet in due course to take into account not only my hon. Friend's point but also, I hope, the changes that will take place in the Agricultural Holdings Bill. I am obviously keen to encourage representatives from the private sector to attend the seminars, and I understand that they do. We go out of our way to stress the importance of getting independent professional advice, and I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend said about that.
    Following is the information:

    Venue

    Attendance by Farmers

    1. Newark, Nottinghamshire

    110

    2. Colchester, Essex

    65

    3. Kidlington, Oxfordshire

    84

    4. Sparsholt, Hampshire

    151

    5. Wye College, Kent

    236

    6. Newquay, Cornwall

    115

    7. Newcastle Emlyn, Dyfed

    80

    8. Preston, Lancashire

    80

    9. Brecon, Powys

    120

    TOTAL ATTENDANCE

    1,041

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider a measure of transitional arrangements for dairy farmers in the proposed reduction in milk production.
    Mr. Jopling: The agreement on restraining milk production provides for a transitional year in 1984–85, when the guaranteed quantity free of levy will be set at 98·2 million tonnes. In 1985–86 the quantity will fall to 97·2 million tonnes.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that any industry faced with a 10 per cent. cut in production and income merits special hardship compensation over a transitional period? Does he not accept that many farmers who have been encouraged in recent years to increase production are now feeling very concerned, particularly in view of the encouragement that came from CAP reviews and special schemes?
    Mr. Jopling: The cut that is implicit in the transitional year which is about to begin is slightly more than 6 per cent., not 10 per cent. My hon. Friend should remember that one of the reasons for having to take these difficult steps, which I fully recognise as such, is that the Community has no more money at the moment.
    Mr. Torney: Will the Minister confirm that, as usual, the United Kingdom will monitor the cuts in milk production that are forthcoming from the new EC proposals and monitor the super levy? Does he agree that other member countries in the Community are not so eager to do precisely that? Will he ensure that the Community sets up proper arrangements to monitor and administer the super levy in other countries as well as Britain?
    Mr. Jopling: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. All sales of milk are covered by the quota system, with no exemptions, for small producers, regions or off-farm sales, which could have benefited some countries at the expense of others, such as Britain. In discussions on the detailed application of the system we shall insist that the implementing measures are not discriminatory and can be properly enforced throughout the Community. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the new weapon of disallowance, which the Commission is becoming more and more accustomed to use.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable pleasure in the industry that the foreign side has had its direct sales drawn into the agreement and therefore the output fully reflects the proper output? As the system starts from next Monday and there is considerable uncertainty in the industry, can he give us some clue as to when the quota arrangements might be resolved?
    Mr. Jopling: We are having urgent talks with the industry here about the implementation of these measures. Urgent talks are taking place in Brussels in the Special Committee on Agriculture. When I return to Brussels tomorrow, I expect that then and on Saturday we shall discuss again the measures to implement this scheme.
    Mr. Maclennan: What special consideration has the Minister given to the predicament of milk producers in Northern Ireland, and has he made any proposals about that in the discussions?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the debate a week ago today I spoke of the need for equal consideration to be given to the claims of Northern Ireland, and I spoke of this when I was in Brussels at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on Monday.
    Sir Paul Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that dairy farmers have had three years of warning of the great increase in the mountain of butter and dairy produce, and therefore that the call by the NFU president for a three-year phasing-in should be considered in relation to the warnings that farmers have had?
    Mr. Jopling: The standard quantity to which we are working in the Community is 97·2 million tonnes, which is the 1981 figure plus 1 per cent. It is on that basis that the whole thing has been put. It was, of course, at that time that warnings were issued and the guarantee threshold was instituted to try to create a weapon to deal with overproduction.
    Mr. Strang: As the Irish Government have made it clear that they will not accept these proposals, will the Minister tell the House whether it is his policy still to try to secure agreement on the basis of these proposals, or whether he will use this opportunity to achieve changes which will lead to a less severe effect on our own dairy industry?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have made it clear that the Irish demand for its expansion of milk production to be taken into account is unacceptable, and so it is.
    Mr. Needham: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the lot of the average dairy farmer is a hard and difficult one, and that although cutbacks may be inevitable they deserve the sympathy and support of the whole House in what looks to be an even harder and more difficult time in the future?
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. He will recall that in the debate a week ago I expressed my understanding for the difficult decisions that have to be taken. The dairy industry has a difficult period ahead of it. We shall issue guidance to it and give what help we can as soon as possible after the arrangements are finalised.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister recognise that throughout the House there is deep and growing concern about the damage that will be done to the dairy industry by these arrangements? Will he therefore inform the House, because we accept that the Community budget may be pressed, that it is within his power to double the suckler cow premium from £12·37 to £24·75, and that, in terms of maintaining beef from the dairy herd and the incomes of many of the marginal land dairy producers, this immense and immediate help is available for him to implement?
    Mr. Joplng: To double the suckler cow subsidy will not help beef from the dairy herd. That is a different herd from the one that is being talked about in the arrangements. I shall certainly consider the level of the suckler cow subsidy when the time comes to do it.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jopling: As the annual review of agriculture for 1984 makes clear, dairy farm incomes are forecast to be significantly lower in 1983–84 than 1982–83, partly as a result of bad weather last spring and summer. This was one reason why I decided to increase the maximum wholesale price of liquid milk from 1 March to the benefit of producers, although the associated rise in the maximum retail price will not take place until 3 June.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister not agree that he should now accede to the request of the dairy producers and of members of the National Farmers Union that they should be given three years to adjust their farming methods? Does he not agree that unless he accedes to that request many small dairy farmers in the south west of England, in Wales and in many other parts of Britain will be made bankrupt?
    Mr. Joplin: I think that it would not have been realistic to achieve a three-year transitional period. The NFU came to us and asked for a transitional period, and we negotiated one year. I think that it is necessary for the dairy industry to grapple with the difficulties of over-supply and the massive over-production and surpluses in the community. I hope that the one-year transitional period will help in easing the difficult decisions that have to be taken straight away.
    Mr. Marlow: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House why we, who are not self-sufficient in milk products, are taking two and a half times the cut in dairy produce as the French, who produce bigger surpluses in Europe? Could not my right hon. Friend fight a little harder on behalf of British interests?
    Mr. Jopling: Before saying that Britain is not self-sufficient in dairy produce, my hon. Friend should recall that if we take into account our political decision, which I believe he supports, to allow New Zealand butter to come to Britain—I am glad to see him nod—in 1982, since when things have moved on considerably, we have reached 131 per cent. self-sufficiency in solids not fats, and 100 per cent. self-sufficiency in butter fat, taking New Zealand imports into account.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be satisfied with his achievements to date. Is he aware that the dairy farmers in his county of Cumbria — and especially in his constituency—are far from satisfied with the state of the dairy industry? I understand that even the chairman of the Cumbria NFU has a little disagreement with the Minister. What will he do about it?
    Mr. Jopling: I hope that our disagreements will remain little ones. I do not think that anyone could be happy about the prospects facing the dairy industry. Difficult decisions must be taken. We cannot continue to produce milk in over-supply. We are currently producing about 17 million or 18 million tonnes of milk more than the Community consumes.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: In formulating his decisions about the application of quotas on individual farms, will
    440
    my right hon. Friend take account, first, of the need to ensure that quotas are saleable and, secondly, of the position facing farmers in the middle of an expansion plan who may already have invested money in new building and who now find themselves in considerable difficulty?
    Mr. Jopling: Saleable quotas give rise to considerable difficulties. For that reason, the Commission has suggested that the quota should go with the land. While there is room for flexibility, that is probably a rather good principle.
    With regard to the milk producers in the middle of expansion programmes — whether half funded by the Community or by their own money—we shall keep a national reserve to deal with hard cases.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Can the Minister confirm that in the final analysis his Department will be responsible for the allocation of quotas to farmers? Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to skew those quotas in favour of the smaller producers and those areas that feed cows on grass?
    Mr. Jopling: We are currently holding discussions with the farmers unions and the milk boards about who allocates the quotas and administers the scheme. I am not yet in a position to make a statement about that.

    Toxic Tributyl Compounds
    Mr. Nichollsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the effect on shellfish of the use on vessels of anti-fouling paint containing toxic tributyl compounds.
    Mr. MacGregor: The Ministry's Burnham-on-Crouch laboratory has carried out tests which have indicated that the presence of tributyl tin in water can cause shell thickening and reduced growth in Pacific oysters and, in addition, can adversely affect the growth and survival of very young oysters of both the native and Pacific species. It has also been shown to affect adversely the survival of larvae of marine organisms other than oysters; however, further work is being carried out on this aspect.
    Mr. Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave concern that is felt by shell fishermen in Teignbridge about the threat that this killer paint represents to their livelihood? Bearing in mind that the Ministry's experts have established a link between anti-fouling paints containing toxic TBT and the destruction of shellfish stocks, is this not an occasion when just for once we should follow the French example and ban the use of TBT completely?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I am aware of the concern and I have advised all known United Kingdom paint manufacturers of our test results. One of the problems is that no appropriate powers are available to my Department for enforcement or action along the lines that he suggests. I am therefore exploring with my colleagues in other Departments — notably the Department of the Environment—what steps might be taken.
    Dr. Godman: Does this not form part of a wider marine pollution problem, and does the Minister accept that marine pollution in various forms constitutes a major problem for the British fishing industry?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am keen to examine problems wherever they occur with a view to ascertaining what can be done to help.

    Pesticides
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to control the use of pesticides.
    Mrs. Fenner: The pesticides safety precautions scheme has been operated by successive Governments since 1957, and has served the nation well. Its effectiveness is kept under continuous review, and the Government would not hestitate to give the scheme statutory support if circumstances rendered this necessary.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that there are no statutory controls on the safety of pesticides and that there is only a voluntary secret code between manufacturers and the Government? In the light of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution that there should be a new statutory regime and that the veil of secrecy should be raised, will the Government act rapidly and introduce the necessary legislation?
    Mrs. Fenner: Data submitted to the Government for the safety screening of a wide range of products are the legal property of the company concerned and cannot be disclosed to third parties without the company's prior consent. The Government have already published a large amount of data on pesticide use and will do more in the light of the recommendations from the Royal Commission to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    Sheep Scab
    Mr. Macleanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received since 1 March about the dipping requirements for 1984 to control sheep scab.
    Mrs. Fenner: I have not received representations since 1 March about the arrangements proposed to control sheep scab this year. However, extensive consultations have been undertaken with the organisations concerned and the dipping arrangements take full account of the views expressed. An announcement of the details will be made shortly.
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for giving that reply, which will be welcomed by the many farmers in Cumbria. Will she take into account the problems of dairy farmers who have sheep on the open fell and require an extension of the dipping period into mid-September so that they can deal with the undisturbed portion of the flock — perhaps as much as 5 per cent. — which may go undetected?
    Mrs. Fenner: I appreciate the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. It is not possible to apply periods that suit both husbandry and animal health requirements. Bearing in mind the number of outbreaks, we must apply the most effective animal health measures.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the considerable amount of cross-border traffic during the store lamb sales in August and September? Will she have consultations with the Scottish Office to ensure that the regulations are clear and concise and that everyone understands them?
    Mrs. Fenner: I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall do so.

    Animals (Transit)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the transit of animals to and from animal and livestock sales.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The welfare of animals in transit is protected by existing legislation, which is enforced by the local authorities.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that some horse dealers are said to tour the country over five or six days with large horse boxes and pick up horses and ponies at one sale after another? It is said that some of the horses at the front end of the large boxes do not get fed or watered during this period while they are in transit to EC-approved slaughter houses, of which there are only five in Britain, and that others die because they fall to the ground and are trampled to death? Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the relevant legislation is enforced, because it seems that it is not working at present?
    Mrs. Fenner: I reassure my hon. Friend that there is comprehensive legislation making it an offence to cause an animal unnecessary suffering in any way. Where anyone suspects an offence is being committed it is important to inform the local authority at once and in detail, after which it is for the local authority to take appropriate action.

    Farm Prices
    Mr. Lathamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the European Community farm price negotiations.
    Mr. William Powellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now expects the discussion on the annual price review to be concluded.
    Mr. Jopling: I refer my hon. Friends to the statement that I made yesterday in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), in which I said that the Council will resume its consideration of these matters tomorrow and Saturday.
    Mr. Latham: As the strain of any proposed settlement is likely to be taken by the livestock producers, can we be certain that my right hon. Friend will not give way one inch — will he? — over the retention of the beef premium?
    Mr. Jopling: I have made it clear to the Council of Ministers that it is essential to continue the beef premium.
    Mr. Gould: Apart from solving the Irish problem on milk, how close are we to the fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy that the Foreign Secretary laid down as a precondition for any increase in our own resources contribution?
    Mr. Jopling: We have some reservations on the present proposals about the Irish milk quota, the settlement on the MCAs, the beef premium system and sheepmeat.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House why the irresponsibility and inaction of

    443
    successive Governments in this country and within the European Community should be borne by the livestock and dairy sector of the United Kingdom? Will he tell us why, as members of the Community, we should be expected to take the full amount of butter from New Zealand as part of our quota?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is wrong to suggest that the burden of those arrangements will fall upon the United Kingdom. Farmers throughout the Community are dissatisfied. The other day I was interested to read the following by the leader of one of the main French farmers' unions:
    "The French Government has yielded too much and accepted too many restrictions while France's European partners have not accepted the same sacrifices."
    Mr. Deakins: How will the cost of the proposed agricultural package compare with that for the current year? If it is likely to be higher, how does the right hon. Gentleman square it with the Prime Minister's assurance to the House two weeks ago that agricultural expenditure would be reduced as a precondition of budgetary reform and an increase in own resources?
    Mr. Jopling: Whether or not the cost of the common agricultural policy in 1984 exceeds the budget remains to be seen because market circumstances could yet change. If necessary, cost-saving measures would have to be adopted later in the year, as they were last year.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the many people affected that the milk settlement that he is negotiating is likely to allow more flexibility for small farmers in the south west and other areas than for large milk producers? Does he accept that the noise being made by the NFU and many small farmers is on the whole for the benefit of the very large producers rather than their own, and that what the Minister has achieved is much better than most people realise?
    Mr. Jopling: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that the settlement on milk is much more satisfactory to British farmers than would have been the case if other Governments had had their way. Although there will be difficulties for milk producers throughout the Community, I do not believe that there will be discrimination against British producers.
    Mr. Wallace: Given the benefits for many sheepmeat producers since the inception of the sheepmeat regime, will the Minister give an undertaking that he will not agree to any measures that would lessen the effect of that regime for upland hill sheep producers?
    Mr. Jopling: As I said a few moments ago, we have expressed a reserve with regard to the present sheepmeat proposals, which are unsatisfactory, and we shall be seeking changes in the next two days.
    Mr. Leigh: As we produce only 80 per cent. of our dairy product requirements and France produces twice as much as it needs, is the Minister aware that there has been criticism from our dairy farmers that the French have secured a much better deal? Is that true? Is the French Minister popular with his farmers and can he make the deal stick?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He is rather more popular than our Minister.
    Mr. Jopling: As I said a few moments ago, the leader of the main body of French farmers has been making noises to his Minister similar to those made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The House may be interested to know that the Dutch Minister came to the Council the other day and told us that he was being called Santa Claus because he was always giving things away.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Minister agrees with us, for example, that the variable beef premium is of great benefit to consumers as well as to the industry, and as he has stated that he is keeping a reserve on it and the sheepmeat issue, does he realise that it will help his negotiating position in seeking to retain those advantages if he states specifically at the Dispatch Box today that he will use the veto to prevent any changes from taking place that would diminish the advantages of those regimes?
    Mr. Jopling: I have always resisted exposing my negotiating posture in advance on these extremely difficult negotiations.
    Mr. Canavan: Get up off your knees.
    Mr. Jopling: Nevertheless, I hear what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) says and clearly the use of the Luxembourg compromise is something that one always has available in certain circumstances.

    Agriculture Industry (Livestock and Grain)
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that sufficient measures have been introduced designed to correct the imbalance between the livestock and grain sectors of United Kingdom agriculture; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: A better balance in the common agricultural policy between the livestock and cereals sectors is much assisted by restraint in cereal prices. There has been some progress in this direction in recent years and the 1 per cent. reduction in support prices for wheat and barley provisionally agreed for 1984–85 is a further and significant step.
    Mr. Hicks: In view of the constraints likely to be imposed on milk producers, does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential not only to retain the variable beef premium and the sheepmeat regime support but to secure a reduction in real terms in grain prices? Is that still the primary objective of my right hon. Friend?
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend will have heard, my right hon. Friend the Minister is fighting very hard on the variable beef premium and has made his position very clear. I know from being constantly with him in Brussels how hard he is fighting.
    On cereal prices, the proposals this year for intervention prices represent a real reduction and I assure my hon. Friend that it is the British Government who are pressing that case to secure a better balance in Europe.

    North Sea Prawn Stocks
    Mr. Beithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the state of the North sea prawn stocks.
    Mr. MacGregor: The North sea prawn stock is assessed from time to time by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to whose work experts from the United Kingdom contribute. ICES recommended in 1980 that the stock would benefit from an increase in the minimum landing size and minimum mesh size. These measures were introducea in the Community regulations with effect from 1 December 1980.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that at a recent large meeting fishermen and merchants in the north-east expressed great concern about the landing of small prawns and tailed prawns and about the prospects of beam trawling for prawns, and said that they are seeking help from the Department to get those possibilities assessed much more carefully? Will the Minister make a thorough assessment of the state of the stock?
    Mr. MacGregor: I received a full report of the meeting attended by the hon. Gentleman and one of my hon. Friends. We have at the moment no evidence of a strong conservation case for an increase in the minimum landing size, but we are looking into the industry's request. Nor do we have evidence that beam trawling is taking place on a significant scale or damaging stocks. That is another matter that I am further looking into.

    Whisky
    Mr. Canavanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the minimum alcoholic strength of Scotch whisky; and what action he intends to take.
    Mrs. Fenner: We have received many representations, both written and oral, on the minimum strength proposals contained in the draft whisky regulations. We are considering all of these most carefully before coming to a final decision.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern in the whisky trade and the Scottish Trades Union Congress about the thousands of jobs at risk in the whisky industry? Is she aware that they want regulations for a 40 per cent. volume minimum alcoholic strength for whisky to prevent profiteers selling watered-down whisky in Britain and, worse, in the Common Market, where as much as half of the bottle may be water? Is she further aware that if she takes the initiative of laying down regulations for a 40 per cent. minimum strength, even I may swallow my political principles and swallow a dram to toast her?
    Mrs. Fenner: I am tempted to say nothing further on that point. The case made by those in favour of a 40 per cent. minimum strength must be considered against the views of those representing the interests of bottlers of under-strength Scotch whisky.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Favellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 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
    446
    addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I am holding a reception for the British winter olympic team.
    Mr. Favell: Did my right hon. Friend see on television this morning the chairman of the Labour party give his support to mass pickets? Does she agree that those miners who wish to work and produce coal at a price that people can afford, have the support and respect of the vast majority of the nation?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that miners who wish to go to their place of work to produce coal—that industry has great prospects—must be enabled to go about their law-abiding duties peaceably. The overwhelming majority of people in Britain, except, perhaps, those in the Labour party, are behind the police and the excellent work that they are doing.
    Mr. Flannery: When one considers the action taken by London Transport yesterday, the marches and demonstrations in London today, and what is happening in Liverpool and among working people generally, is it not clear that the Government's draconian policies are themselves pregnant with violence, and that the election of a Tory Government, such as this one, is bound to produce unrest?
    The Prime Minister: Nonsense. Despite the action taken by London Transport yesterday, most commuters were determined to get to work, and to work normally.
    Mr. Hirst: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports of the speech made last week by the Leader of the Opposition to the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd., in which he recognised the importance of small business? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Does she agree that his apparent conversion would sound less opportunist and more convincing the Opposition were prepared to recognise and welcome the many measures in the Budget designed further to assist small business?
    The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to note not only those measures that are designed to assist small businesses but those which are designed to assist all business, especially the removal of the national insurance surcharge, which Labour put on when in office.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When the Prime Minister reflects on the point that has been reached between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Economic Community, will she bear in mind the fact that when grave issues and fundamental differences come up for resolution, nothing is commoner than for them to be disguised as if they were a quarrel about details and small sums of money, such as the little local difficulty over £50 million?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the money aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's question, it is about a great deal more than that because it is about securing an entire and permanent system. It is also about getting a fundamentally equitable system of sharing the burden of financing the Common Market. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is about even more than that, because the fact is that many of us had far greater ideals for the European Community than have yet been achieved. We shall continue to work for them but we believe that the financial and agricultural matters must be settled first.
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a sad day for the rule of law in our democracy when the Leader of the Opposition and his party's national executive committee blame the police for the violence on the picket lines and utterly fail to condemn the excesses of unlawful secondary pickets?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is an upside-down world in which Opposition Members blame the police for enabling law-abiding miners to go to work while endorsing the action of those who are attempting to intimidate them to prevent them from going to work.
    Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that some people would find it easier to understand her ideals for the EC if, every now and then, they got the feeling that she was prepared to listen a little more to some of the views of other European countries? Will she now quantify the narrow divide that still exists between what she feels are the vital interests of Britain and what it is reasonable to ask from our European partners?
    The Prime Minister: By asking that question the right hon. Gentleman shows that he does not understand the type of negotiation that we were having on the Community budget. It was about two things. First, it was about having a continuous system that will endure for a long time. That system has been extremely difficult to negotiate. Secondly, it was about the starting figure for that system which will determine what happens in the future. Great differences remain to be resolved. They are not quantifiable, as the right hon. Gentleman would know if he understood the type of negotiation that we were carrying out.
    Mr. Pike: How can the Prime Minister claim to believe in democracy while proposing to take steps to deprive Londoners of the right to vote next year and stop the other metropolitan county elections? In a democracy, is it not a reasonable price to pay to allow those elections to take place next year?
    The Prime Minister: No. The decision to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils was a foremost part of our manifesto, which was endorsed by more than 13 million voters.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents, who live within the area of a shire county that has accepted the Government's rate support grant allocation for this year and its implications for next year's rates, would simply not understand it if the Government gave one extra penny in rate support grant to the Militant Tendency councillors of Liverpool?
    The Prime Minister: I understand what my hon. Friend says but if the Liverpool councillors reduced their expenditure they would find that they would get an increase in rate support grant. I believe that most of us would welcome a reduction in that council's expenditure.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister stand for town hall, not Whitehall, and does she accept the freedom of local government as one of the twin pillars of our
    448
    constitution? If she does, why is she capping, cutting and centralising local government on a scale that is utterly incompatible with any realistic notion of democracy in the locality, for the locality, by the locality?
    The Prime Minister: As was indicated in some very excellent speeches — which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will read — when we debated this matter yesterday, it is the Government's duty to be in charge of the economy and public expenditure of this country and to be in charge of the overall level of taxation levied upon our citizens. It is, of course, a traditional role of Parliament to protect the citizen. There is not the slightest shadow of a doubt, as was indicated last night, that there has been oppression of ratepayers by the very large amount of rates that have been levied because of very high public expenditure. That view was endorsed by a majority of 125 at the end of the debate last evening.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since the Prime Minister is right to say that it is the Government's responsibility to be aware of the overall level of taxation, why are her Government levying more tax than any other Government in British history? If it is the case that the Government have a responsibility for the citizen, why is she introducing and adopting powers that mean that cuts in services and inflict deprivation, disadvantage and even danger on the weakest people in our community?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the latter point, local authorities are spending well above Government target, and if they are choosing to cut on some of the weakest sections, it is up to local people to say what they should choose to spend money on. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the Prime Minister to complete her answer.
    The Prime Minister: Secondly, with regard to the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, one main reason why more tax is being levied now is that incomes are up. In fact, figures produced at 2.30 pm today show that real personal disposable income in 1983 was 3 per cent. above that for the fourth quarter of 1982 and higher than at any time under Labour.
    Mr. Kinnock rose——
    Mr. Bill Walker rose——
    Mr. Hordern rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I think in fairness we really should move on. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I am the defender of the Back Benches here. [Interruption.] The Front Bench always has some dispensation, but I have called the right hon. Gentleman twice and I think that three times would be one time too many, and unfair to Back Benchers.
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing public concern in this country about the erosion of the liberties of our subjects by the—[Interruption.]—arbitrary, secretive and oppressive use of central Government power under successive Governments, and is she prepared—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Come along Mr. Maclennan.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is she prepared to fulfil the promise made in her 1979 manifesto to—[Interruption.]—seek to enter into constitutional talks with all parties in the House—[Interruption.] This is impossible.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must bring his question to a conclusion.
    Mr. Maclennan: In particular—[Interruption.]—is the Prime Minister prepared to enter into discussions to seek to ensure that those of our citizens whose fundamental rights have been eroded, although they are guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, do not have to seek a remedy through the court in Strasbourg but may do so—[Interruption.]—in our own British courts?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough.
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that there has been such an erosion of rights. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman condemned the Government of which he was a member.
    Mrs. Rumbold: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's day of disruption in London by striking London Transport workers caused not only disruption to those trying to get to work but great damage to the capital's commercial and industrial life?
    The Prime Minister: Those who embarked on that day of disruption are not concerned with the commercial success of the capital. However, most people were determined to see that it was business as usual.

    Questions to Ministers
    Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order later. Does it arise directly out of Question Time?
    Mr. Sheerman: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Very well.
    Mr. Sheerman: During Question Time this afternoon we have seen organised chanting on the Conservative side—[Interruption.] With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the protection of the Prime Minister when she has been in difficulties and the gagging of the Leader of the Opposition will bring the House into disrepute.
    Mr. Speaker: I am not in favour of baying on either side of the House, and I try, as fairly as possible, to ensure that Back Benchers have an opportunity to speak during Question Time. But the longer the Front Benches take and the more often they speak, the less time there is for Back Benchers.
    Mr. Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I in no way contradict your ruling and the direction that you gave in the middle of Prime Minister's Question Time. Whenever possible I try to ensure that I do not take up an inordinate amount of time in Question Time, but the exercise of the traditional authority, or privilege, of the Leader of the Opposition to pursue a point is one of the few means available to the House of ensuring that the Prime Minister, who has enormous power, is accountable to the House on a daily basis. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I shall on future occasions be seeking to catch your eye more than once. I shall, naturally, respect and obey your directions but sometimes, occasionally, I hope that you will permit me to pursue a specific point with the Prime Minister so that she can be responsive—as I know she wants to be.
    Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, but I say again that we did not do very well at Prime Minister's Question time today. Only three questions were answered. In fairness to those hon. Members whose questions appear further down on the Order Paper, I should like to get a little further.
    Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not right, and should there not be an appropriate direction to this effect, that the Executive is here to answer the Legislature? Is it not also a fact that the number of questions from Conservative Back Benchers about the Labour party is offensive and detracts from our right to challenge the Executive?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman raised a legitimate point. The other day I stopped an hon. Member from receiving an answer when he asked the Prime Minister her view of some action on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. Members should ask the Prime Minister questions on subjects for which she has responsibility.
    Mr. Ryman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of this point of order——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This does not arise out of Prime Minister's Question Time, so I shall take the hon. Member's point of order at the end of business questions.

Business of the House
3.35 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 2 APRIL—Completion of Report Stage of the Trade Union Bill.
TUESDAY 3 APRIL—Opposition Day (12th allotted day) (first part): until about seven o'clock a debate on an Opposition motion on investment in education.
Afterwards, a debate on the current negotiations within the European Community, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL—Progress on the report stage of the London Regional Transport Bill.
Motions on the European Assembly Constituencies (England) and European Assembly Elections (Scotland) orders.
THURSDAY 5 APRIL—Further progress on the Report stage of the London Regional Transport Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Motion for the Easter Adjournment.
FRIDAY 6 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 9 APRIL—Completion of remaining stages of the London Regional Transport Bill.
Consideration of any Lords Amendments to the Telecommunications Bill which may be received.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that information, but I note that the debate on the current negotiations in the European Community is to be taken on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give further consideration to that, as it is clear that an amendable motion would be more appropriate in view of the importance of the matter and the interesting diversity of opinion on this matter, which is not confined to one side of the House.
Can the Leader of the House assure us that the health and social security regulations that relate to entitlements to social security in the early weeks of unemployment will be the subject of consultation over a period of weeks, as recommended by the Social Security Advisory Committee and not rushed through the House by the Minister responsible, as appears to be his intention?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look at the second point and I shall be anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman's observations. As to the earlier point, I have sought to underline the significance of the debate on the negotiations within the European Community by suspending the rule so that it can run until midnight. I realise that the House will wish to conduct a wide debate on these negotiations, which are of major significance and are still in progress. It has often been past practice to arrange such a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. That is an appropriate form and that is what I propose.
Sir Dudley Smith: Could my right hon. Friend prevail on our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement next week about the parallel importing of medicines? I hope that he will be aware that two days ago this matter
452
was raised at Question Time, and considerable anxiety was expressed from both sides of the House. It would be helpful to have a statement next week.
Mr. Biffen: I am conscious that anxiety has been expressed from both sides of the House about parallel importing of medicines, and I shall refer my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is it not time that we had a debate about official secrecy so that the House can give its view on the proper bounds between Government secrecy and public information, and what might be appropriate punishments for infringements of them? Would not Government time for the Second Reading of the Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the Freedom of Information Bill, be an ideal way of achieving this?
Mr. Biffen: No arrangements have been made for such a debate next week.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the strain and stress upon the police service as a result of the transport strikes, the chaos in the coalfields and many other problems, will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the law and order implications of what is happening? If he cannot do that, will he urge the Opposition to provide one of their Supply days to discuss the matter, bearing in mind that statements by some Opposition Members have been nothing more than a stab in the back for the police service?
Mr. Biffen: If I were to undertake the second course suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) I should show a degree of provocation which is unwise as the Leader of the House of Commons. I appreciate the importance which my hon. Friend attaches to the work of the police in the current circumstances. I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. George Foulkes: On Tuesday's debate on discussions in the European Community, why are the Government and the Leader of the House unwilling to test the views of the House on matters such as withholding an appropriate part of our payment to the European Community or about whether we should increase the own resources of the Community? Would that not be the ideal opportunity to obtain the views of the House on either or both of those matters?
Mr. Biffen: I am absolutely certain that the views of the House will be made extremely clear during that important debate. There are many precedents for major decisions being taken upon the Adjournment formula. There will be plenty of scope for hon. Members to express their opinions.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: If we cannot have that, may we have an assurance that in Tuesday's debate the Government will explain why exports of highly subsidised cheap food to the Soviet Union have increased by 600 per cent. in the last four years and are running at about 100,000 tonnes a week? May we have an assurance that the Government will give an explanation of that, and of whether they have power to do anything about it?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has given us an effective trailer of the speech that he hopes to deliver next Tuesday. I shall, of course, refer his comments to the Foreign Secretary so that he can take account of them when he makes his speech.
Mr. William McKelvey: When may we have a debate on cruise missiles? We heard last night that missile carriers are being moved about the countryside. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is causing great concern? Is he further aware that in the Soviet Union, between January and October last year 147 nuclear alerts took place? Does he agree that the movement of missile carriers is likely to increase that number and so escalate the problems and dangers of a nuclear attack, either by intent or by accident, through computer error?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Member raises a topic of material concern. No provision has been made for a debate on that next week and I cannot hold out the prospect of an early debate in Government time, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will the Leader of the House find time soon to debate the considerable effect that the miners' strike is having upon my constituency, where 6,800 jobs are at risk, affecting 10 pits in the Yorkshire field which supply the Appleby Frodingham steel works with the 2 million tonnes of coal which it consumes per annum? Will he bear in mind the national investment which probably runs to over 1 billion, in that works?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I hope that he will have the opportunity to make his speech about the impact on his constituency in the Easter Adjournment debate or an ordinary Adjournment debate.
Mr. Kevin Barron: If it is not possible to find time for a debate on the deployment of cruise missiles and manoeuvres in and around Berkshire, will the Leader of the House speak to the Secretary of State for Defence and ask him to come to the House to make a statement? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that opinion polls show that the majority of people do not want cruise missiles? Now that they have been brought outside Greenham, surely we should have a statement in the House.
Mr. Biffen: I have said that I shall convey comments to my right hon. Friend. We shall see whether he thinks it appropriate to make a statement.
Mr. Michael Latham: As the Housing and Building Control Bill gives important new rights to council tenants to buy their properties and is completing its proceedings in the other place, can we have it back in this House for its final stages before Easter?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think so, but I shall look at it. If it is not before Easter, it will be as soon afterwards as can reasonably be secured.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 618 on the contraction of the coal industry, which incorporates my name and those of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends?
[That this House fully supports the miners in their struggle to save jobs and safeguard the future of the
454
industry; and demands the setting up of a public inquiry into the administration and management of the National Coal Board (Scottish Area), such an inquiry to take account of the fact that consultation and conciliation have been replaced by confrontation, that six collieries in Scotland have been closed (two are the subject of appeal) over the past 15 months with the consequent loss of 3,000 jobs to the Scottish economy, and that any further closures would have a lasting adverse effect on the economic and industrial base of Scotland and would add to the already disgraceful level of unemployment.]
Having read that motion, would he not agree that its content reflects the serious situation facing the coal industry in Scotland? If we cannot have a debate next week, will he at least consider arranging a statement based on the fact that the Government have made a serious miscalculation of the impact of the miners' strike on the nation's affairs? Will he give an assurance that there will be a ministerial statement, not only on law and order but on how the Government have been misled about the impact of the strike on industrial life?
Mr. Biffen: In no sense do I question the good faith of those who have signed that early-day motion, but I should have thought that thoughtless industrial action would do more to contract the coal industry than almost anything else. I shall, of course refer the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that there should be a statement to my relevant right hon. Friends.
Sir Anthony Grant: After the London Regional Transport Bill has effectively taken London Transport out of the hands of the GLC, would it be possible to have a debate on precisely what useful functions are left to the GLC? Only an extremely tiny amount of parliamentary time would be involved.
Mr. Biffen: Other legislative initiatives may give my hon. Friend the opportunity that he seeks.
Mr. James Lamond: Does the Leader of the House recall that on several occasions when I asked for statements on the progress or otherwise at various disarmament talks, he fobbed me off by suggesting that such matters might be raised during foreign affairs debates? Is he aware that I did exactly that the other day and that in reply the Minister made no reference whatever to my remarks? In view of that, is there any possibility, when telling his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about cruise missiles and so on, of asking the Foreign Secretary whether he could do something about this matter as well?
Mr. Biffen: I have over the years experienced exactly what the hon. Gentleman feels. However, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence so they are fully apprised of feelings in the House on the cruise missile issue.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the serious problems of the unemployed especially the long-tern unemployed, when it should be possible for Conservative Members to make it clear that while the Government have a sound policy on these matters it needs to be developed further in certain vital respects?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot hold out the prospect of a debate specifically tailored to the situation raised by my hon.

455
Friend, but with a little deft footwork he should be able to make his speech on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Leader of the House now give a precise date for the introduction of the Bill to assist those living in prefabricated reinforced concrete houses? Will he bear in mind the anxiety that this problem is causing to many thousands of people throughout the country?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman speaks for many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the anxiety that has arisen from this housing situation. I cannot give the precise date he seeks, but it will certainly be very soon.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: As there is a serious possibility that the House may be asked to authorise an increase in own resources, will my right hon. Friend find time to consider the undertakings given by my hon. Friend Lord Whitelaw on 24 November 1977 that any increase in the powers of the Community could be authorised only by Act of Parliament? If the Government intend to dishonour Lord Whitelaw's undertakings, will they publish a paper setting out Lord Whitelaw's undertakings, and saying which they propose to honour and which to dishonour?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly consider that matter in detail and with charity.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House do his utmost to get a statement on the mining dispute, not only about the lack of coal that is now evident in some areas, which is important to the furtherance of our dispute, but about police activities? Will he take into account the fact that the police do not appear to be evenhanded? Does he agree that in an industrial dispute the police have always been expected not only to allow people to get to work—as, to some extent, they are doing—but also to assist the pickets to carry out their activities? Does he agree that that does not mean smashing the windscreens of miners' cars, and that it should not mean so many policemen being dragged from other parts of the country that part-time policemen have had to be employed in Tewkesbury to arrest poachers?
Mr. Biffen: That is all very interesting. I detect a slight touch of anxiety and hysteria in the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I shall, of course, pass on his remarks, along with all the others that have been made about the current miners' dispute, but the House would be well judged not to over-react. It is interesting that for their Opposition day the Opposition have sensibly chosen other aspects of social policy.
Mr. Roy Galley: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there will be an early opportunity to have a full debate on the Griffiths report on the management of the National Health Service and the Social Services Select Committee report thereon? It is surely vital that the House can express a view on this important subject before decisions have to be made?
Mr. Biffen: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope to be able to announce such a debate in the reasonably near future.
Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House take notice of the fact that the South of Scotland electricity board has increased its charges by 4·4 per cent. on average? Is he aware that many of my colleagues are demanding a debate on this issue, realising, of course, that the increase is more than double that imposed on Wales and England? Does he accept that the Government played an important part in that increase, and that on that basis we demand a statement, or at least a debate on the matter?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of the considerable concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed on this subject, which I quite understand. I shall, of course, refer his request to the relevant Minister.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend expand on the commitment that was given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary the other day that if perchance — per evil chance—there were to be a recommendation to increase the Community's own resources, first, to 1·4 per cent. VAT, and then to 1·6 per cent. VAT, they will be separate items requiring separate measures in this House?
Mr. Biffen: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will take part in Tuesday's debate, it would be most presumptious of me to make any comment ahead of him.
Mr. Tony Banks: Although I realise that the Leader of the House is a self-confessed philistine, will he accept that there is great concern on both sides of the House about the great crisis affecting the arts, in view of the likely announcement by the Arts Council on Friday and the proposed abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils? We do not have a Minister in the House who can answer for the arts. In fact, the Minister does not even bother to come and listen any more. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment knows almost as little about the arts as about local government finance. Will the right hon. Gentleman please give us time for a debate on the arts? I am sure that that would have all-party support.
Mr. Biffen: No provision has been made for a debate on the arts next week and I cannot offer any prospect of an early debate. There are plenty of other demands upon the time of the House that have to be taken alongside that of the Arts Council. If the hon. Gentleman would like to try his chance as a private Member I am sure that he will find the opportunity to raise these matters.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Bearing in mind that some time ago the House expressed its opinion on a code of picketing which the Government had agreed with the TUC and which, speaking from memory, limited the number of legal pickets to five or six, will my right hon. Friend arrange for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement on Monday to guide us as to the status of that code of practice and how much confidence we should have in arrangements that have been negotiated and agreed between the Government and the TUC?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already made a statement on pickets which is contained in Hansard——
Mr. Dave Nellist: It was written.
Mr. Biffen: It is still a statement. The day that the House does not admit a statement merely because it is written in Hansard we might as well go on half-time.
I shall refer the anxieties of my hon. Friend the member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Despite having been pre-empted at some length by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), may I ask an additional question about the arts? In view of the range of dangers facing the life and work of the arts throughout Britain and the paucity of parliamentary time available for questions on the arts—a ridiculous 10 minutes once a month—will the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is not quite the philistine that others make out, consider whether we might have another five minutes a month because there will be an increasing demand for questions about the arts?
Mr. Biffen: The roster for questions is usually a matter for discussion through the usual channels. I shall certainly see what can be done, if only to share the responsibility for any decision which is judged to be philistine.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I draw my right hon. and learned Friends to early-day motion 614, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, on picketing and politics?
[That this House, noting the decision by one area of the National Union of Mineworkers to reverse the vote of its members to continue working on the ground that their safety is at risk; calls on the Leader of the Opposition to make plain his views on the actions of intimidatory pickets and on the need for a national ballot.]
Does my right hon. Friend realise that we understand that it would not be right to discuss the merits of the mining dispute but that it would be right for Parliament to discuss at an early stage the kind of picketing that is going on and to flush out the Leader of the Opposition who, in the terms of my motion, has clearly not spoken up on his views on democracy within trade unions or on the range of picketing action which is an affront to most people in Britain.
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says and I am sure there is widespread support for those sentiments. However, I am grateful that he has not sought a debate next week.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House examined the replies that I have received from the Prime Minister to my questions on the Omani contract? Has he noticed that they are all evasive? They avoid telling the House and the country what happened and they stonewall all the questions. The public and the House demand to know the truth. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Prime Minister that we do not intend to let go? We shall stick like limpets to this issue until the truth is told to the British people.
Mr. Biffen: I have an interest in the handiwork of the hon. Gentleman's research assistant and I shall see that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is made aware of the sentiments that have just been expressed. But it is up to the hon. Gentleman to pursue the matter by what techniques he thinks appropriate and to be judged accordingly.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the request for an early
458
debate on electricity prices in Scotland, because this is, after all, the first increase that we have had for over two years, and it is less than half the rate of inflation?
Mr. Biffen: I think that there are many points to be argued in this debate, but I cannot go beyond what I said earlier in this respect.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Has the Leader of the House noticed that 170 MPs have now signed early-day motion 475 on the televising of Parliament, a huge number for any motion that does not include the name Mark Thatcher and a number which includes the cream of all parties?
[That this House believes that live and recorded television broadcasts of the proceedings of the House and its committees, when sitting in public, should be authorised as soon as possible; and urges the Government to arrange an early debate to agree the principle and the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the means by which this can be achieved, including the experiences of other legislatures, and to recommend the rules and necessary arrangements that should be adopted for televising the House.]
Bearing in mind the facts that arrangements in another place for televising will shortly be proceeding rapidly, that the majority of the public wants this Chamber to be televised, and that nothing else can put this Chamber at the centre of public attention, will he allocate a day's debate at an early date so that the House can come to a considered verdict on this important question?
Mr. Biffen: Notwithstanding the elitist tone and argument that the hon. Gentleman sought to employ on this matter, of course I must note the significant number of signatories that he has collected. I cannot offer the prospect of a debate in the near future, but I take note of the strength of feeling.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a full debate on the British electronics information industries, bearing in mind that there is at present a chronic shortage of semiconductor microchips which has a detrimental effect not just on the electronics industry, but on industry generally? There is great concern that the interventionary measures in the market taken so far by the Government are too late, and far too little?
Mr. Biffen: I have real sympathy with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the topic that he has raised, but I think he will appreciate that I have difficulties in finding time for all the debates that the House would wish, and we have recently had the opportunity to debate the topic in the context of the ESPRIT programme. However, I will bear in mind the point that he makes.
Mr. Nellist: Could the Leader of the House prevail upon the Attorney-General to come to the House next week and make a statement, preferably oral—"oral", not "aural" — as opposed to written, on how he manages, through a crystal ball, to tell police officers that they can judge how people, when they are travelling on a road, are likely to commit an offence 200 or 300 miles away? I refer obviously to the miners' dispute. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot get the Attorney-General to do that, could he get him to come to the House next week, and make a statement on how he stood what I was taught at school is English law on its head — that one is

459
innocent until one is proved guilty—because, by that written statement, and by the actions of the police in the last ten days, the implication is that people are guilty before they have even been tried or suspected of a crime that they might commit 200 or 300 miles away?
Mr. Biffen: I will most certainly convey to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General the anxieties, and the request that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is a need for a statement or debate on the discredited section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, and does he therefore intend to arrange for such a debate to be held before the House rises for Easter recess? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Attorney-General will be expected to make a statement about a particular case, and as quickly as possible, once that case is not longer sub judice?
Mr. Biffen: There are no arrangements in prospect for a debate upon the Official Secrets Act between now and Easter.

Pontefract and Castleford (Police Action)
4.3 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent condideration, namely,
"the arrest and questioning by police of 19 of my constituents."
I was informed last evening by the NUM branch secretary at Kellingley colliery in Yorkshire that 19 of my constituents had been questioned at Mansfield police station on Tuesday 27 March. The complaint that has been made about this interview by that NUM branch, and, indeed, by my 19 constituents, is that, prior to being taken into the police station, accompanied by two policemen for every man, they all had their photographs taken. When they arrived in the police station, they were interviewed individually by two plain clothes officers, who showed no sign of identification.
The great concern which the NUM officials, and, indeed, the men, feel on this matter arises from the questions which the men alleged were put to them, and for the benefit of the House, and my case, I shall quote them. The men allege that they were asked how they voted at the last general election. — [HON. MEMBERS: "Unbelievable."] I hear "Unbelievable" from the Government Benches. When this was first put to me I shared that view, and that is why I think it is so important and necessary for the House to hear it this afternoon, rather than read it in the press.
Secondly, they were asked how they would vote if there were only a Conservative party and a Communist party in the country. — [HON. MEMBERS: "Unbelievable."] Unbelievable again, but this is what these men say was put to them. They were asked who they had voted for in the election for the president of the NUM. They were asked how much they paid in union subscriptions. They were also asked several questions about the local NUM branch secretary at Kellingley colliery. They were asked to——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to stop the hon. Gentleman, but he must show why this is an urgent matter.
Mr. Lofthouse: I am showing it by the questions and the fact that this strike has now been operating some three weeks and the House has had no opportunity to show its feelings. I am trying to isolate this case and to point out the seriousness of what is alleged to be taking place.
These men were asked to name the organiser of the local strike centre. They allege that they were asked what newspaper they read, and whether it was the Morning Star. They were asked a rather silly question, in my view: what did they think of Mr. Scargill driving around in a Jaguar? They allege that the officer said to them that their boss himself did not do that kind of thing.
Let me say immediately that I am no police basher. I believe that policemen are playing their part in maintaining law and order. They have a job to do, and undoubtedly they will be doing it, and certainly doing it on instructions. But for the House, and, indeed, for the country, it must be of great concern if these allegations are true. I am not in a position to say that they are. However, in this sorry affair—and it is a question not only of the

461
case to which I am referring, but we read every day about different incidents, some by police, some by pickets—surely it must be the wish of the House that the truth should come out. If the only possible way that the truth can come out, for the benefit of the police and of the men in question——
Mr. J. D. Concannon: And the Nottinghamshire people.
Mr. Lofthouse: And the Nottinghamshire people—I fully endorse the remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). The facts should come out. The longer it goes on with one person accusing another, and another person accusing somebody else, the worse the situation gets, and it is getting very bitter. I do not know whether the House realises the situation that is developing in a particular area. No one wants to hear threats of anarchy and so on. It is time that the matter was investigated. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to grant a debate so that we can at least decide whether there is sufficient evidence for a public inquiry to investigate whether the allegations are true.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the arrest and questioning by the police of 19 of his constituents."
The hon. Gentleman has made some very serious allegations in his application. I listened carefully, as I know the House will have done, to what he said. He will know that the only decision that I have to make is whether the matter should take precedence over the business set down for today. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.
Later——
Mr. Joe Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point relates to your ruling, which I am not
462
challenging, on the application of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) under Standing Order No. 10.
The opportunities for the House to discuss the serious position in the Nottinghamshire coalfield are limited. The only opportunity will be the Adjournment debate for the Easter recess next Thursday. I understand that nothing is laid down in the rules, but that debate tends to be limited to three hours. Because of the special circumstances, can you rule that the debate should be allowed to run its course next week and not be curtailed by the Government?
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, I am not in a position to do that. I fully understand that the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers is serious, but there is a Standing Order which limits the debate to three hours. The hon. Gentleman will have to seek other opportunities to raise the issue, and those opportunities are available. We had a fairly wide discussion on the matter this afternoon.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you ruled on the application of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse ), you said that serious allegations had been made. The hon. Gentleman made the allegations within the House and, because of your ruling, that is where the matter rests. In the light of the serious allegations which the hon. Gentleman has made, I suggest that he repeats them outside the House or, alternatively, reports them to the chief constable of the area in which the offence occurred so that a full investigation can be carried out.
Mr. Lofthouse: Some of the men involved repeated the allegations last night and at lunchtime today. I was not making any suggestion. I was merely informing the House of what the men had said. They have stated in public that which was put to them, and I was not saying that that was the case.
Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says in the House under protection.

Cruise Missiles (Convoy)
4.10 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the incidents surrounding the movement of the American cruise missile convoy in the early hours of this morning."
The matter is clearly specific. Despite the fact that the police corralled the Greenham Common women against the fence, about 200 demonstrators were at the entrance in time to confront the convoy before it returned to base. The convoy was halted for a short time.
The matter is important because it is the intention of the United States Government that the convoy should carry live cruise missiles into the countryside. Each missile will carry a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead 16 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
The matter is urgent because the police have already stated that there was a risk that many people could have been hurt in this morning's incident. We know that there will be more exercises, and we know that many people will continue to demonstrate their opposition.
There has been no debate about the cruise missiles since they arrived more than four months ago. This morning's events demonstrate the risk of cruise deployment in the countryside. It is imperative that the House gives this matter its urgent attention.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice before 12 o'clock that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the incidents surrounding the movement of the American cruise missile convoy in the early hours of this morning."
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I have to give him the same answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). I do not consider that the matter he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Sub Judice Resolutions
4.14 pm
Mr. John Ryman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order with you, of which I have given notice, relating to the scope of the sub judice resolutions of 1963 and 1972.
There have been a number of well-publicised criminal and civil cases recently. My respectful submission is that the scope of the sub judice resolutions has been deliberately misunderstood by Ministers to stifle legitimate debates and to avoid answering awkward questions.
The resolutions are set out in "Erskine May" on page 343. I shall summarise them to save you reading the entire page and subsequent paragraphs, Mr. Speaker. The effect of the resolutions is that a criminal case is sub judice from the moment of arrest for committal, trial and appeal procedures, providing notice of appeal has been given. A civil case is sub judice in the circumstances set out in paragraph 2 of the 1963 resolution, which are from the time that the case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the courts.
I mention that elementary principle because the Leader of the House obviously does not understand it. On 20 March the right hon. Gentleman was asked a question which proved to be the latest in a series of examples of Ministers of the Crown seeking to hide behind the sub judice principle. The right hon. Gentleman was asked about the "Panorama" programme relating to allegations about certain hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"The 'Panorama' programme is itself now the subject of legal representations and I shall very properly curtail my comments on that account."—[Official Report, 20 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 908.]
That is a misunderstanding of both the law and the rules of the House. A writ had been issued, pleadings had not been completed, interlocutory proceedings had not taken place and the case was nowhere near ready to be set down for trial — as is required in the prohibition of the resolution. It is one example of an important Minister, who should know far better, failing to answer a question by invoking the sub judice resolutions when in fact they did not apply.
I submit that there is nothing in law to prevent an evasive Minister, for political reasons, from falsely quoting the sub judice rule to avoid answering questions. It would be helpful to hon. Members on both sides of the House if you, Mr. Speaker, gave some guidance about the scope of the resolutions, as there are many criminal and civil cases now awaiting hearings, about which questions can and should be asked, without discussing the facts of individual cases.
Within the law and the rules of the House, it is perfectly proper to discuss the general principles involved in criminal and civil cases, provided that the facts of a particular case are not discussed. It is an unwarranted stifling of the freedom of the press and of this House if Ministers hide behind the resolutions. Indeed, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 had as one of its purposes a provision to remove the muzzling writ to prevent discussion of a legitimate interest. It would be a sad day for Parliament if, in that atmosphere, Ministers sought to hide behind the sub judice rule. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of this matter, as that has enabled me to make a deep study of it, which has taken me a great deal of time. The hon. Gentleman's question is really directed more towards the Leader of the House than to me.——
Mr. Ryman: I tried to raise the matter earlier, Mr. Speaker, but you ruled me out of order.
Mr. Speaker: Oh, did I? Nevertheless, I think that the hon. Gentleman's question is more for the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is not here, but he will no doubt study carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said about his answer to a question on 20 March. It would not be appropriate for me to seek to explain all the ramifications of the sub judice rule. As the hon. Gentleman has hinted, it is an extremely complicated one. Hon. Members who wish to pursue questions about the sub judice resolutions should seek procedural advice from the usual sources and from "Erskine May", which the hon. Gentleman correctly quoted.
The underlying principle is that, unless the House is considering legislation, hon. Members should not comment on matters that are before the courts.

BILL PRESENTED
  RIGHTS OF LONDONERS
  Mr. Tony Banks, supported by Mr. Chris Smith, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Frank Dobson and Mr. Harry Cohen, presented a Bill to entrench the rights of the people of London directly to elect a Greater London Council as constituted at 1st January 1984, so that the needs of Greater London may be more fully met and the administration made more fully accountable to the people through the ballot box; to confer further duties on the Greater London Council and the London boroughs; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 141].

RATING AND VALUATION (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
Ordered,
That the Report [26th March] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
Report considered accordingly.
Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in its resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) and agreed to.
Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That—
(1) the order in which proceedings on Consideration are taken shall be New Clauses, New Schedules, amendments to Clauses 1 and 2, amendments to Schedule 1, amendments to Clauses 3 to 17, amendments to Schedules 2 and 3, and amendments to Clauses 18 and 19.
(2) on the allotted day given under the Order (5th March) to the proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

New Clauses and New Schedules

7p.m.

Amendments to Clauses 1 and 2, to Schedule 1 and to Clauses 3 to 8.

9.30 p.m.

Amendments to Clauses 9 to 17, to Schedules 2 and 3 and to Clauses 18 and 19.

10.30 p.m.

Third Reading.

Midnight

Orders of the Day
  Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
    New Clause 1
      RESTRICTION OF SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO CONTROL RATES
      'After section 108C of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 there shall be inserted the following section—
      RESTRICTION OF SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO CONTROL RATES

        Restriction of Secretary of State's power to control rates.
        108D. No order under section 108B of this Act may be made in respect of any local authority whose expenditure has not risen in real terms in the immediately preceding financial year".'.—[Mr Dewar.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        We come to consider the Bill on Report after what I must categorise as a long and dreich consideration in Committee that I found peculiarly unrewarding, being an example of the worst sort of parliamentary trench warfare. I hope that the Minister will not resent me saying that I thought that he was something of an immovable object with very little interest in the arguments that were advanced. At times the whole exercise seemed to be merely a way of showing his determination to serve his master and to establish beyond doubt his orthodoxy on every facet of Tory doctrine. He does not need to worry, for there has not been a touch of innovation or originality in his approach to his job. There was not a hint of heresy to lighten the dark days.
        The new clause represents a last effort at this stage of the Bill's consideration to strike at one of the most obnoxious and resented parts of the Bill. Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State power to reduce rate poundage in a given year as against the previous year. This will be set by grouping a number of local authorities in Scotland. There is a provision in the clause for individual authorities to go scrambling cap in hand, looking for individual mercy or derogations from the general ban and limitation.
        The new clause sets out the thoroughly reasonable proposition that an order limiting rate poundage as I have described should be possible only if the local authority that is to be affected has had a rise in expenditure in real terms during the previous financial year. I hope that this is recognised by the House to be self-evidently sensible and that the clause will find favour with the House.
        The power to make an order under clause 3 should be used only sparingly. That principle has been conceded by the Minister. He has made it clear that it is a power of last resort which will be used only after lengthy warning, and that it is something that he hopes he will never have to do. In that context, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we should further limit the circumstances in which it can be used by confining it to local authorities whose expenditure has risen in real terms in the immediately preceding financial year. That is the simple message of the clause.
        468
        Our arguments go against the principle of rate capping and against the powers that are being taken by the Secretary of State in the Bill. I referred to those powers earlier as being oppressive and offensive, and I make no apology for using stern language. In deciding whether we want the restriction that is embodied in the clause, we are entitled to ask whether the Government have made out their case, or any case, with a shred of intellectual respectability for introducing the Bill to Scottish statute law.
        The basis of the Government's case is that they have been struggling for many a long and weary year with a set of obdurate, profligate and irresponsible local authorities which are putting at risk the recovery of the nation's economy. There are times when the Secretary of State appears to be obsessed with local authority expenditure. Figures are bandied around in the House and in Committee by Government and Opposition Members, and there are endless technical arguments on the shape of the graph of local authority expenditure over the past year or two.
        I shall accept for the moment the Government's premise that there is a problem with the extent of public sector expenditure. That is not a premise that I actually accept, but that is the subject of a wider political argument. However, for the purpose of testing the Government's case that leads them to ask for untrammeled and unrestricted powers to make orders under the clause, I am prepared to accept that there is a problem. If there is one, it is not the responsibility of the local authorities to any great extent.
        The Third Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee for the Session 1983–84 is the result of an investigation of the Government's expenditure plans until 1986–87. It sets out simply the argument that I am trying to advance. The Select Committee states that by the test that the Government have applied to their own economic competency—the ability to reduce or at least contain public expenditure—they have failed miserably. The increase in the five financial years to 1983–84 is put in real terms by the Select Committee at 12·3 per cent.
        I stress that I do not accept the premise on which the Government's case is built because there is room for expansion in the public sector, especially in Scotland where 351,000 people are in the dole queues. However, I shall accept it for the moment for the purpose of the argument. The Select Committee produces some extremely interesting figures in the first table which suggest that the root of the problem, if problem there be, is central Government expenditure and not local government expenditure.
        Table 1 sets out a simple column of figures. If we consider local government expenditure in real terms and take a base figure of 100 for the year 1978–79, the first year for which the Secretary of State was responsible, local government expenditure has risen to 106·9. That provides some support for the argument that there is a problem, but central Government expenditure over the same period rose to 111·2. Therefore, the rise in central Government expenditure has been much faster and much greater than the rise in local government expenditure.
        The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Is the hon. Gentleman talking about current expenditure or capital and current expenditure together?
        Mr. Dewar: I am referring to public expenditure as defined in table 1 of the Select Committee's report. If the Minister is suggesting that the figures are an attack upon the integrity of the Government, I remind him that his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) chairs the Committee. I believe that the report sets out an independent view which suggests that central Government expenditure has been rising considerably faster than local government expenditure since 1978–79. The Minister will no doubt make his own remarks and attack the figures later, if he wishes to do so. I shall give him some others that he may wish to use.
        Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not wish to disturb his speech, but he is using important statistics, so it is important to know whether we are talking about current expenditure or a mixture of capital and current expenditure.
        4.30 pm
        Mr. Dewar: I believe that the figures refer to capital and current expenditure. I am sure that the Minister will be able to make his point in a little while.
        If we take the totality of public expenditure, which is the Government's King Charles's head, and consider the basis for comparison used by the Select Committee, which was chaired by a distinguished Conservative Member, the simple and unanswerable fact is that central Government expenditure has been rising much faster than that of local authorities.
        If we project those figures to 1986–87, it is evident that the Government plan their expenditure to remain static and that local authority expenditure should decrease to 96·9 — going back to our 100 base figure — below the 1978–79 level. I make that point in passing because it is interesting that the Government choose to victimise local authorities on that basis. Whether they will succeed is another question, but they intend to control local goverment expenditure much more severely than that of central Government.
        There may be much argument about those figures. As the House knows the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities puts the increase in local authority spending in real terms since 1978–79 at 1·6 per cent., which is lower than the Select Committee's figure. Undoubtedly, the Select Committee, COSLA and others are united in the view that local authorities cannot be made the scapegoats for global public expenditure totals as Ministers have tried to do in seeking to justify an untrammeled right to bring in the sort of orders envisaged in clause 3. I believe that new clause 1 would sensibly limit the effect of that measure to some extent.
        The Minister may remember that when we were debating revenue figures on Second Reading I pointed out that the total over guidelines for 1983–84 budgets was £121 million for all Scottish local authorities. If one takes into account the £19 million clawed back by section 5 selective action and the £45 million that was taken back by general abatement there is an overspend on revenue — a distinction that the Minister will cling to—of only £57 million. That is a small fraction—perhaps 2 per cent.—of predicted expenditure of local authorities as a whole, which runs at about £2·6 billion. I believe that there is paranoia, lack of proportion and lack of perspective, Mr. Armstrong — [Interruption.] I apologise for not addressing you correctly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spent so
        470
        long on the Bill in Committee that when I am on my feet anywhere else or at any other time I assume that I am still in Committee and address the Chair accordingly. I feel sure that most hon. Members who served or, that Committee have a fellow feeling, having been in the same prison, so to speak.
        I hope that I have said enough to establish what I believe to be self-evident—the element of hysteria in the way in which Ministers try to establish that public expenditure is in some way the problem of local government alone, given the Minister's own terms of reference.
        The second line of argument, as I understand it, is that Ministers need the power as a protection for the ratepayers and that it must not be limited by new clause 1. I do not wish to spend much time on that area of argument, but rates have risen substantially in the past few years. Even allowing for inflation, there have been substantial real increases. I regret that just as much as elected councillors, who have been left to strike the impossible balance between preserving essential services and compensating for the radical reductions in Government support which have resulted from the way in which rating and housing support grant settlements have been manipulated in recent years.
        The Minister knows well that if we assume that the same percentage of expenditure was met by Government grants as was paid in 1978–79 that would be the equivalent for many local authorities of a substantial reduction in the rate poundage. In Glasgow the reduction in rate poundage would be the equivalent of 18p, and I am told that it would be 25p in Dundee. When Ministers complain about rate increases, they must consider their own part. They have a right to make radical reductions, but they cannot duck the consequences for maintenance of services.
        Such rate increases could have been avoided only through substantial disruption of services and serious job losses in many areas. The Secretary of State purses his lips primly and shakes his head adamantly, but that is the experience of authorities that have taken such decisions and whose people are faced daily with the problem of maintaining important services.
        Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. How does he answer the charge that many authorities have kept their expenditure well within the guidelines with no sign of decimation of important services?
        Mr. Dewar: The Minister must be referring to local authorities which provide low services or which do not have to deal with the substantial problems of urban deprivation in areas of declining population and industrial dereliction. Many authorities in west central Scotland are in that position.
        The Minister may not accept my subjective evidence but I have spent much time with responsible councillors and officials. They are not trying to make trouble for anyone, but they face great dilemmas. If the Minister believes that the evident pain felt in local authorities is in some way synthetic, he is deeply mistaken.
        Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have heard before his words about the effects of rate decreases on services. Indeed, I heard them last summer when Glasgow district council's representatives came to see me about the reduction that my right hon.

        471
        Friend asked of them. In that context, can the hon. Gentleman explain how, if it was so difficult and dangerous for Glasgow district council to reduce the rate last August, the council decided to maintain its rate this year at the same level sought by the Government and proudly boasted that it had done so without cutting services?
        Mr. Dewar: The council made a proud boast about no redundancies and has tried hard to maintain services, but if the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), cares to leave Morningside and come to the part of Glasgow that I represent — I know that he has been to Glasgow recently, so I must not suggest that he is frightened to go there—and saw the deterioration in the district council's housing stock he would not be so complacent about what is happening in the local authority world.
        It is sometimes assumed in Government circles that people do not want to pay for services, but want reduced rates, irrespective of the cost in terms of the lack of services. I do not believe that. It is a matter for argument, which should properly be conducted at the ballot box.
        One of the reasons why I dislike the Bill so much is that it gives the Secretary of State powers to pre-empt decisions and arguments that are properly the preserve of local government. If the electors want services they will vote for parties that believe in providing them, knowing that increased rates will be almost inevitable. If the Minister is right about what people want, they will vote the other way and I shall have to live with disappointment and defeat for my point of view. My objection is to the fact that local communities will not have the right to choose because the Government are to be the arbiter, not just of rate levels under this clause but of rents under a later clause and are thus seeking to regulate the whole pattern of local authority spending. That is entirely wrong.
        In new clause 1 we seek to restrict rate capping because we believe that the Bill is unnecessary and that any restriction of damage is to be welcomed and will help relationships between central and local government. The rate-capping proposal is friendless and unwanted. By and large, even Tory councillors in Scotland are embarrassed and silent about it. To be fair, many of them have voted against it through COSLA and have made it clear that they regard it as at best unnecessary. I have quoted the views of the leader of the Tory majority of Edinburgh district council who made his position very clear when he visited the House. Nor is he the only Tory councillor to have shown sufficient independence to say exactly what he thinks, an attitude sadly lacking on the Tory Back Benches here.
        Mr. John Maxton: In the past two days Conservative Members of Parliament have spoken and voted against the Government on exactly this issue in respect of England and Wales, so we hope that they will join us in voting for the new clause to show that their principles extend to Scotland as well as to England.
        Mr. Dewar: I cannot answer for them, but we shall wait with interest to see what they do. My hon. Friend is certainly right in saying that those hon. Members have taken a difficult stand in terms of party loyalty on a matter
        472
        of principle. I hope that they will continue to take that attitude when the same principle is at issue in the Scottish legislation.
        Most Conservative councillors, understandably, believe that the Bill is unnecessary. Again, I give the Government the best of the case. If the Government believe that local authorities must be disciplined on expenditure, they have specific powers in relation to excessive and unreasonable expenditure under section 5 of the 1966 Act. If that does not work, there are the general abatement fallback powers, which are being streamlined in clause 1. In view of the plethora of powers available, it is clear that clause 3 is pointless overkill. That is a further reason for writing in a limitation to ensure that the power is used only in the circumstances with which it was originally designed to deal — that is, in cases of irresponsibility and overspending by an authority or a class of authorities. That safeguard, at least, must be built in.
        The whole exercise has damaged confidence and done much to destroy the good will that is necessary if local and central Government are to work together for the best government of Scotland. It has been a tragic mistake and will lead to great bitterness in the months ahead. If the orders are used with the virulence with which the Government have used the other powers that they have taken in recent years we shall be in for a touch of the bully-boy tactics and, metaphorically if not literally, there will be civil war between St. Andrew's house and the regional and district councils of Scotland. That would be a tragedy and it would give us no pleasure. We stand firmly on the principle that, wherever possible, decisions should be made locally by the communities affected by them. We see no need whatever for this further layer of oppressive legislation on top of the considerable burden already placed on local authorities. If the Bill is to proceed, at the very least it should include the safeguard of new clause 1.
        We offer the new clause to the House—or rather to the Minister, as Conservative Back Benchers are likely to take their instructions from him—as a last chance to limit the friction that will arise out of the Bill and in the genuine hope that even now the Minister will consider it sympathetically.
        4.45 pm
        Mr. Bill Walker: I should make it clear that I shall not be taking instructions from the Government Front Bench. I rise to speak against the new clause because, although the arguments, like so many others, have been interesting and in some respects tantalising, the fact remains that we are in this position because of the actions of district and regional councils. I hope that the Government will reject the new clause.
        Mr. Maxton: The Back Benchers are now instructing the Government.
        Mr. Walker: It is interesting to consider what the situation would have been if the Bill and the new clause had been on the statute book now. [Interruption.] There is nothing frivolous or funny about the situation in Dundee. The Labour-controlled district council there could not have protected itself against itself. Rates there have risen by 207 per cent. in the past four years and constituents of mine with businesses in Dundee have seen those enterprises put at risk by the actions of the council.

        473
        Jobs are therefore also at risk, and it is not only my constituents' jobs that are at risk. Jobs are at risk in five Labour clubs in Dundee because of the high level of rates.
        The Tayside health board has faced massive rate increases. If the level of rates were the same as those in Perth and Kinross and Angus, the board would have £1 million more per year to spend on health care, which would be extremely important for the cottage hospitals in my own and other rural constituencies. The hundreds of thousands of pounds in rate increases on schools have also put educational facilities at risk. Money that should have been spent on education and health has been filched by Dundee district council.
        Mr. Maxton: The district council is elected by the people of Dundee. The candidates told the people of Dundee what they intended to do, and they were elected. In May the people of Dundee can choose again. If they make the same choice as they have made for some years past and elect a Labour council, will the hon. Gentleman withdraw all his criticisms, because that is what the people of Dundee want?
        Mr. Walker: I shall not withdraw any of them. If the hon. Gentleman listens a little longer he will realise that he has once again scored into his own goal. The Dundee Labour councillors were not elected to put up rates to such an extent—because they did not tell the electorate so—that they could no longer pay the rates to the regional council on the five Labour clubs that they manage and run. My constituency has an interest in how those rates are collected, and this has a bearing on all the other services that I have mentioned. If rate levels had been realistic, that situation would not have arisen. The district council owes rates not only on the five Labour clubs, but on both its present and previous headquarters, as well as on the offices of the newspaper that it used to run but which is no longer published. The Labour councillors put up the rates in their area, but almost every commercial venture that they undertake suffers as a result of the excessive level of rates. Those councillors expect other business people and other ratepayers to pay rates which they themselves are unable to pay. Two of those Labour clubs owe rent to the district council which runs them—both rates and rents are a problem for them. The Bill also deals with rents—mostly domestic rents—but they are not covered by the new clause.
        If the new clauses and the Bill were already on the statute book, I doubt whether they would have helped those Labour councillors to meet the penal level of rates that they have inflicted on themselves. Their positive action of raising the rates to such penal levels has made them unable to pay.
        The Bill is long overdue. Those councillors have put cottage hospitals and village schools at risk because of the penal level of rates. They have sucked in money from facilities which my constituency desperately requires and wishes to keep. Any doubts that I ever had about the Government taking control of local government expenditure have vanished because of that. The Bill enables the Government to control expenditure——
        Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman said it!
        Mr. Walker: Real life is about what is happening, not about our theories. The evidence is plain — Labour
        474
        councillors fail to run commercial enterprises effectively. Many people think that running such clubs is a licence to print money, yet those five clubs have not met their commitments. Those Labour councillors are totally unfit to run a council if they cannot even run a club. They could not be members of a responsible council. If they were responsible to those who elected them, they would resign. They have clearly shown that they are not fit to run a council, because they cannot pay the rates which they themselves set.
        Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I support new clause 1. One of the most important results of the Bill is that it will do great damage to the relationship between local authorities and Government, which has traditionally been harmonious. During the past 10 or 15 years there have been temporary difficulties, but no real confrontations, head-on collisions or clashes of the sort which we may be storing up for ourselves if the Bill reaches the statute book.
        I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I do not altogether understand the basis of his arguments, because in my part of the world we do not suffer to the same extent from party political intransigence but I understand that it is a problem.
        Sections 4 and 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 give the Secretary of State powers to take account of overspending by setting a general level of rate support grant. Under section 5 he has the power selectively to take account of circumstances which he thinks are getting out of hand in district and regional councils. Those powers are effective. The Minister keeps telling us about his sterling work last autumn when he took selective action against four councils and how it was a marvellous, effective and salutary exercise. If those powers which he has in his inside pocket are so readily available and effective, why does he need the extra powers for which he is asking? He said that he hopes never to have to use them. That is a bad principle on which to legislate. He could say that he needs powers for any number of hard-line, repressive actions which he hopes never to use. The House must recognise that that is a bad principle on which to legislate.
        The Liberals are always fair, and therefore to be fair to the Government I looked carefully at the general election Conservative manifesto under the section headed "Local government: saving ratepayers' money". It states:
        "In Scotland we are already effectively using powers to reduce the rates of councils which plan excessive and unreasonable expenditure. England and Wales now intend to introduce measures with a similar aim."
        The real reason for the legislation is that it is necessary, not for Scotland, but for England and Wales. The manifesto continues:
        "If necessary we will propose in addition a general scheme of limitation on rate increases for all local authorities".
        What has happened since June that invokes the condition "if necessary" and suddenly makes the powers available under section 5 and 6 of the 1966 Act insufficient for the realities of today?
        The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that if local democracy was not working and the electorate could not effectively express its wishes about the way in which local authorities spend their money—if there is no effective system to enable them to take an interest in that, there is no point in having local democracy—there were ways of dealing with it other

        475
        than those which the Government propose. If local democracy is at risk because it is not working, it is important that we should tackle the root of the problem and make sure that the system works. Proportional representation is one method of dealing with the problem and different systems of rating is another. Local democracy can be made more sensitive in a variety of ways, but the last thing that we need to do is to give Government more say in what is happening in town halls. The Government are tackling the problem in the reverse order. If they feel that voters at local government elections are not controlling local authorities, they should remedy that by changing the electoral system to make it more relevant and sensitive.
        The Bill produces no great benefit for local authorities. If it is enacted and the penal provisions are exercised the year after that in which the rates were set and that happened to be an election year that changed the local authority administration, the Secretary of State may find himself inflicting a penalty on one local authority for rates set by its predecessor. That may happen this year, after our local government elections.
        The Bill is unnecessary and friendless and it will not achieve what the Minister hopes to achieve. If he has to make use of it, he will have a hard job persuading the Opposition that the exercise is worth while. Therefore, I support new clause 1.
        Mr. Home Robertson: I do not intend to delay the House for long, because the arguments of principle on rate capping have been deployed fully in Committee and, with regard to England and Wales, earlier this week in the Chamber. The speech to which the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) treated us was a graphic illustration of the path on which we are embarking. He gave us a parochial, detailed and bitchy little speech about circumstances, as he sees them, in just one local authority in Scotland. We shall get more and more of that because the Government are asking for powers to fix the budgets of local authorities in Scotland. It is extraordinary that Parliament here in London should be making such detailed, individual and local decisions. The House should not be fixing rates for local authorities, as the corollary of that is that the House should fix their budgets.
        5 pm
        I work from the simple premise that local councillors are best qualified to deal with local affairs. That is what they are there for, that is what they have been elected for and that is what they are accountable for. If people in Scotland do not like what their local authorities do, they can turn them out and elect others every four years. That will be far from the case if the Bill is passed without new clause 1. Without it, the present Secretary of State for Scotland will use the powers that he is taking under the Bill to make decisions that affect Scottish local authorities in spite of the fact that he does not have a vestige of a mandate to do so.
        Mr. George Foulkes: Not even in Ayr.
        Mr. Home Robertson: Indeed. The Secretary of State for Scotland is not accountable to people in Scottish local authority areas, so it cannot be right for him to take such powers.
        476
        Another deplorable feature of the Bill is the fundamental dishonesty of the Government and the Secretary of State in droning on about local authorities being responsible for major increases in rates. We know that the cut in rate support grant is principally responsible for recent increases in rates. In 1979–80, East Lothian council levied 16p in the pound. That has increased to 28p in the pound for 1983–84. That is a substantial increase which has created difficulties for many ratepayers. Where do we go to find the culprit for that increase? I contend that the culprit is not the local authority but the Secretary of State. As a percentage of net expenditure, rate support grant was 45·9 per cent. in 1979–80 but is 29·6 per cent. for 1983–84. That is the principal cause of the increase in rates and it is the Secretary of State who is to blame. It is humbug for him to go on and on about being the protector of Scottish ratepayers—he is nothing of the sort.
        The issues before us are far greater than what happens in Dundee, East Lothian or anywhere else. We are discussing an important constitutional issue, which many English Conservative Members have told us about recently. It is to the shame of Scottish Conservative Members that they have not done the same. We should give credit to the 11 Conservative Members who last night voted against parallel legislation for England being given a Third Reading. We shall watch eagerly to see how they vote when they are asked to make a decision on exactly the same principle as it affects Scotland.
        New clause 1 attempts to improve a fundamentally obnoxious piece of legislation. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for his efforts to make the best of a bad job. Even with new clause 1, the Bill will remain fundamentally obnoxious and constitutionally obscene. Nevertheless, I support my hon. Friend's effort and obviously support new clause 1.
        Mr. Maxton: This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to speak on this Bill as I did not catch the Chair's eye on Second Reading and I was not a member of the Committee. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity that new clause 1 affords to tackle some of the basic principles involved.
        I take issue with what the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said. His attacks on Dundee district council are becoming repetitive and increasingly vindictive. If we examine the percentage increase in rates in the past few years we find that Dundee's increase is no higher than that of other district councils in Tayside. I do not disagree that its rate poundage is higher but, if anything, the percentage increase it has imposed is lower than that imposed by other authorities. Moreover, the average domestic rate bill in each of the three council areas is similar.
        Mr. Bill Walker indicated dissent.
        Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member for Tayside, North shakes his head, so I shall give the figures for 1982–83. The average domestic rate bill in Angus was £225, in Dundee it was £296 and in Perth and in Kinross it was £239.
        Although Angus and Perth and Kinross have a much lower rate poundage, they ask their domestic ratepayers to pay nearly as much as Dundee. Dundee has to have a higher rate poundage to achieve the same income because of the number of unemployed people and the amount of

        477
        poor housing, which attracts a lower income, in its area. Because it is a more deprived area, it has to provide more services.
        The hon. Member for Tayside, North said that five Labour clubs cannot pay their rates. I do not know about Dundee and it is not my job to comment on it, but Cathcart Labour party has a Labour club. We have not yet had difficulty paying our rates bill, but the club's income has dropped dramatically during the past five years. That has nothing to do with whether Glasgow district council asks for more rent or rates. In 1979, about 15 per cent. of the club's members were unemployed — that number has now increased to well over 30 per cent. The income of members has declined so dramatically that they can no longer afford to spend so much in the club. That is why the club's income is much lower than it was in 1979 and that is why the club has more difficulty paying rent and rates. That, I am sure, is the reason why many businesses have difficulty. It is not to do with the rates bill. Of course, if they have rates to pay, it becomes more difficult, but the real reason is the decline in people's incomes over the past few years.
        This whole Bill—the new clause is attempting to do something about this — is an attack upon local democracy. It is an attack upon the ability of local authorities to decide for themselves.
        The hon. Member for Tayside, North made the point that he thought that the district councils in Dundee should resign. The point that I made in my intervention was that that is exactly what they are going to do. All of them are going to resign on 3 May, and they will then be standing for re-election. The Government should leave any action, in this attack upon the local people of Scotland, until after those elections. No matter which party is elected by the people to control those district authorities after 3 May, the Government, in a democracy, ought to recognise that the people have spoken; they have had the opportunity to make their decision about local matters and that is the decision which they have made. Therefore, the Government ought to accept it and abide by it. That is the way democracy works.
        There is a local mandate as well as a national mandate for the Government. I do not believe, of course, that the present Government have a mandate to operate in Scotland at all but, leaving that aside, there is a local mandate for local government to decide its own affairs. The Government, by putting through a Bill of this sort, are refusing to give local democracy the opportunity to operate.
        The argument we have heard from Conservative Members on this local mandate is twofold. First, it is that only 30 to 40 per cent. of the people vote. That is a spurious argument, because it can be assumed that, if people were as outraged by what their district council is doing as suggested by hon. Gentlemen, they would take the opportunity to vote against it. If they do not do so, there is a measure of passive support for what the local authority is doing.
        The second argument is that local business men do not have the vote, but provide a fair amount of the rates, so they should have a say, presumably — I do not know whether this is going to happen—or the local mandate argument does not carry any weight. But, of course, that argument is not continued into national Government. There is no suggestion that the big companies which pay corporation tax and individuals who pay capital gains tax
        478
        and the other taxes on business be given a say in the national Government of the day. Although, with the Conservative party, I think they are given a say, it is very much in the smoke-filled rooms of the Tory party; they are not given a legitimate say in how the Government operate. If that is true for the national Government, surely it is true for local government as well.
        5.15 pm
        I assume that the Government do not intend to reintroduce the business vote, which is one way in which their argument on business rates could be put into practice. They could reintroduce the old business vote and give businessmen two votes — one where they have their business and one where they have their home.
        I hope that the Minister will be making some statement during the evening on whether he will be taking the same line as the Secretary of State for the Environment—that the Government have abandoned any attempt to reform the rating system.
        Local democracy should be allowed to operate. The Government are making it much more difficult for local councillors to take the sort of decisions that they are elected to take. All Conservative Members who have been in local government must be aware of the frustration felt by councillors, who feel that their power is being taken away.
        It would be possible to have some sympathy with, or at least to be rather more tolerant about, what the Government are doing in terms of local democracy if it were based on any decent, logical, economic policy, but it is not. It is based upon the fallacious economic theory that somehow or other, if public expenditure is cut, in particular the expenditure of what the Government call "spendthrift local authorities", this will allow money to flow into the private sector. The private sector will then invest that money in new industries and, as a result, there will be more employment.
        That has been the argument for five years now and it has led only to increasing cuts in public expenditure on services provided and a concomitant increase in public expenditure on those who have been made unemployed and are receiving unemployment benefit and all the other social services which they need. So, far from having a decrease in public expenditure, we have had a decrease in services but the same level of public expenditure. At the same time, there has not been the increase in investment in industry in this country that the so-called cuts are supposed to have brought about. There has not been any increase. We have not yet reached the levels of investment in the economy that were pertaining in 1979.
        The Government have put us through all this process of cutting public expenditure, cutting local government services, cutting local democracy and putting up taxes, for the sake of an economic policy that has dismally failed. All that we have got out of it is 3·5 million unemployed. Local authorities have to take a lot of the burden of looking after those 3·5 million unemployed and dealing with the economic and social problems created by that unemployment, but they are having to cut the services they provide.
        At the end of the day—this is where Conservative Members really do not worry much about local government expenditure—it is the poorest in our society who most require the services which local government

        479
        provides. The poorest in society, those who need help and protection, do not look to the Conservative party for them because they know very well that they will not get them.
        This is a squalid measure which the new clause at least attempts to do something about. Even if the new clause is accepted, it will not solve all the problems, but it will take from the Secretary of State some of the powers which he has taken upon himself to curtail local democracy.
        Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who asked why the Secretary of State found it necessary to introduce a Bill of this kind at all. Perhaps I could help him. The answer is very simple. The Secretary of State does not like the fact that far too many local authorities, particularly in the central belt, elect Labour councils which are doing things which the Secretary of State does not like them doing.
        I believe that that is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State, if he cannot get his own way, and his party cannot get its own way with the electors, comes to the House of Commons and declares that, since he has been frustrated in his attempts to persuade the electorate to vote for Conservative councils, he will have to deal with the matter in this way.
        Secondly, I wish to answer briefly the point made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I found his speech very worrying indeed. Much of it was very trivial, but I picked up one sentence in which he said that he was very much more in favour of central control than he had ever been before. I found that very peculiar coming from a Conservative Member of Parliament. I can only refer him to the quite exceptional speech by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) last night. I disagreed with much of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, but there is one point that I wish to put to the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
        The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
        "I commend to my right hon. and hon. Friends Junius's famous declaration to the English nation."
        I did not quite understand that bit, and I thought that I would let it pass, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
        "What does this Bill do? It is a pure Socialist measure, and I take a high Right-wing Tory attitude to it." — [Official Report, 28 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 373.]
        The right hon. and learned Gentleman then voted against the Bill.
        I should have thought that the Bill was anything but a Socialist measure. Opposition Members, and particularly those who have been privileged to serve on local authorities, are very conscious of their obligations and powers as locally elected representatives. In a few weeks time there will be elections in Scotland and we shall see what the people of Glasgow and elsewhere think not only about the policies pursued by Glasgow district council but about this Government and their dictatorial attitude towards local authorities.
        No matter how we may dress up this whole business, a fundamental principle is involved — whether people who are democratically elected members of a council should be allowed to pursue the policies on which they were elected. That point is vital, and I believe that it will be one of the main issues in the election contest.
        Mr. Bill Walker: I respect the right hon. Gentleman, because he is a very experienced Opposition Member. He was a member of the Labour Government in the late 1970s who requested, invited and used other measures to bring about reductions in local authority expenditure. Does he now believe that they were wrong to bring about the biggest reduction in local government spending and support, in real terms, that has ever taken place?
        Mr. MacKenzie: I can only say what I have told Conservative Members many times before. If they talk to local authority members over the length and breadth of Scotland they will find that they would rather have the rate support of about 68 per cent. that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), myself and our colleagues gave than the miserable figure that they are now getting. That is the answer, and the hon. Gentleman should not shirk it.
        What is the Secretary of State really saying now? I understand him to be saying that he is denying local authorities the power to make up their own minds about various issues and that they are simply to be his agents. As I know from when I was a Minister, and as the Secretary of State will know, the Government place considerable responsibilities on local authorities. It is therefore very bad government for the Secretary of State to place additional responsibilities on them and then to deny them the means of raising the money to pursue his various ambitions.
        I want to see local authorities working, and working effectively. I hope that the Secretary of State also wants that, but he has placed himself—with the help of his Ministers — in a position of confrontation with both Labour and Conservative-controlled local authorities, the like of which I have not seen in the 30 years in which I have been associated with local government. We want the Scottish Office, through the Secretary of State, to be more conciliatory. The right hon. Gentleman should not bully those with whom he does not agree but should, instead, seek their co-operation. If he adopts a more conciliatory attitude, there will be more co-operation and much more effective local government.
        The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): It is always interesting to speak after the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie). He spoke about the local elections that are due to take place in a few weeks time, but perhaps he should not count his chickens—or votes—until they are hatched.
        The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) reminded us rather nostalgically of the many happy hours that we spent in Committee. The only sour note that he introduced was when he said that he had found me an immovable force. But perhaps I was an immovable force only because during our Committee proceedings I never came into contact with an irresistible object.
        However, I should remind the House of the reasons why we are seeking the powers which the new clause seeks to amend. Local authority expenditure is a significant part of all public expenditure and amounts to a quarter of it. As part of our policy of reducing public expenditure, we have made it clear to local authorities since 1979 that they would have to reduce their expenditure in real terms. However, that, quite simply, has not happened. In 1983–84 local authorities were still budgeting to spend more than they spent in 1979–80.

        481
        Equally, as a Government, we have had to look to the interests of ratepayers. Given, as the hon. Member for Garscadden rightly pointed out, the cumulative increases of the past few years, the Government must protect ratepayers from such excessive rate increases.
        Mr. Donald Stewart: Hokum.
        Mr. Ancram: I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman would say to his constituents if they suffered a few more rate increases of the size that we have seen in the past few years.
        Mr. Stewart: My local authority has had to levy a rate of 152p in the pound to maintain very attenuated services, yet people have accepted that. They do not like it, but they know where responsibility for it lies. It is the function of councillors to act and then to be judged at the next election.
        Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman and I will, I believe, be debating the issue next Monday evening. I am sure that he does not wish to rehearse his speech, and I do not wish to rehearse mine. We shall no doubt cover the points then. I think that he also feels that it is better to wait until Monday, when the matter can be discussed in context.
        In the past four years there have been two years in succession when rate rises have been over 30 per cent. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Garscadden to say that high rate increases are caused by reductions in the rate support grant, but the Opposition should explain in a moment why, in that case, there were high rate increases in the years before the basic reductions in the rate support grant, whereas in the last two years rate increases have begun to taper off. The hon. Gentleman's argument is that when rate support grant is reduced there are high rate increases, and when it is not reduced there are low rate increases. I shall not trouble the House with the figures, as I have given them before, but if the hon. Gentleman studies them he will see that his argument is not true to experience.
        Mr. Tom Clarke: In the years that have been mentioned rates went beyond the target mainly because the Government failed, in the RSG settlement, to take into account the level of inflation and the level of wage settlements that local councils had to meet.
        Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is not looking up the actual statistics. If the hon. Member for Garscadden's argument is right, when reductions were made in the year 1982–83 to 1983–84 we should have expected high rate increases. In fact, we saw a 2 per cent. rate increase across the board before selective action, and only a 0·5 per cent. increase after selective action. This argument, which is constantly put forward by the hon. Member for Garscadden, bears no relation to the facts.
        What bears much more relation is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who showed in practical terms what the results of high rate increases such as he described mean in practice. Although, after these two years of high rate increases, the increases have been less, this is largely due to our success in tackling inflation, but rates are still higher than they need to be and local authorities are still continuing to spend above the Government's plans.
        482
        5.30 pm
        The hon. Member for Garscadden compared expenditure by central Government to that by local government and I asked him at the time, because these figures are relevant to this debate, whether he was talking about all public expenditure or current public expenditure. He agreed that he was combining current and capital expenditure. If one takes current expenditure, and if one generously takes into account the last year of the Labour Government, the year 1978–79, one sees that the increase in central Government current expenditure to 1983–84 was 78·8 per cent., while the increase in local government current expenditure over the same period was 96·1 per cent. The statistics do not match the logic of the hon. Gentleman's case.
        Against the background of cumulative levels of rate increases and continued overspending, it obviously makes sense for us to bring in the reserve power which I have described before, and which I shall describe again, but which I hope we shall never have to use. It will be brought in for use if the approved form of general abatement and selective action fails to bring local authority rates and expenditure into line with the Government's plans, and it will be available for use in the ratepayers' interests should we see an unacceptable level of rate increases across the board.
        The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to this as a bad Bill, giving the reason that it was bad to bring in something which we hoped never to have to use. All I say to him, and to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), is that that is a strange attitude to take. Many of us put burglar alarms in our houses, not because we have been burgled, but because we want to prevent a burglary taking place. That is a logical and legitimate way in which to proceed and I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire by asking him whether he has a lock on his front door.
        I move on to the new clause, and I may be unique in doing so in this debate. It is based on the assumption that a general rate limitation could be applied selectively. However, this is to misunderstand the nature of the provisions in clause 3. If a general rate limitation order is made, it applies to all the authorities within the class of authorities to which the order applies. Provision is, of course, made, as the hon. Member for Garscadden recognised, for exemption or derogation for individual authorities from the general limit. However, such exemption would be granted, as I said in Committee, only in exceptional circumstances. The fact that an authority's expenditure had not increased in real terms would not be a ground for exemption, given that the Government's policy since coming to office has been to achieve a reduction in local authority expenditure in real terms. However, in 1983–84 authorities were still budgeting to spend more in real terms than they spent in 1979–80. Quite apart from that, an authority's expenditure could still be far too high as a result of a period of expenditure increases, even though it might not have gone up in real terms from the previous year.
        In addition to that, the new clause is vaguely worded and unworkable. Perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) will be able to shed some light on these matters. What are "real terms", and how are they to be defined in the terms of the new clause? What is more important, what is

        483
        "the immediately preceding financial year"?
        If it means what it seems to mean, the clause would be unworkable. We have already discussed the timetable for rate limitation in Committee. The general rate limit would be set in the autumn of the financial year to which it was to apply—that is before the end of the immediately preceding financial year. Authorities would have to set a rate in accordance with the limit by 5 March before the information about their outturn for the immediately preceding financial year was available. By the time the information was available to make the clause work, they would be into the financial year to which the rate limitation order applied.
        On that basis, as well as on the basis that the new clause is imprecise and misconceived, and is based on a misconception about clause 3 as a whole, I ask the House to reject it.
        Mr. Jim Craigen: I am sorry that the Minister was unable to accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and others of my hon. Friends. It was significant that the only Conservative Member who spoke was the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was not a member of the Committee. Had he been so, he would have had the pleasure of spending over 100 hours with the hon. Member for Tayside, North and I have no doubt that there would have been some useful exchanges.
        I wish to correct one misapprehension. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden is far too generous. I should never have described the Minister as an immovable force—immovable perhaps, but when it comes to force the Minister is the Scottish version of the Foreign Secretary.
        It is regrettable that, at a time when the Prime Minister wants to extend privatisation, the Secretary of State, through this Bill, is seeking to bring Scotland's local authorities into Government ownership and outwith local accountability and public control. Rate capping has been sold to the general public as a kind of painkiller for the rating problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart need not worry about whether the Government intend to do anything about rating reform in the future. We need only read the Glasgow Herald of 24 March to see what the Secretary of State for the Environment, addressing the Conservative party central council in Birmingham, said, which was that rates are here to stay "for the foreseeable future."
        Mr. Home Robertson: What does the Minister think of that?
        Mr. Craigen: My hon. Friend must not be too impatient. This Minister never tells anybody anything.
        This ostensive painkiller for the rating system will not numb the harsh truth that services will be cut even more, additional jobs will be axed, either through redundancy or natural wastage, and that local accountability will go for a Burton.
        I am worried that the Government will, by denying local authorities some of their existing responsibilities, create a general climate of irresponsibility. Nobody will be responsible, or at least be seen to be responsible, for anything. The Government, by the rate support grant order
        484
        for 1984–85, have largely decreed higher rate increases for the ratepayers in Scotland. It will mean £1 a week on the domestic household bill in Strathclyde alone, according to a statement made by the region's chairman of the finance committee earlier this month.
        The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) talked about his problems, and I am getting letters in Maryhill from some of his constituents who are attending Jordanhill college of education who are much concerned about the plight of Western Isles.
        I recollect reading an article by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) in which he wrote some time ago that the Prime Minister felt compelled to strike any institution with her handbag. That attitude to institutions is reflected in the Government's approach to local authorities. Rate capping, as it is euphemistically called, is the great Conservative betrayal of the ever-promised reform of the rating system. The Government have done a U-turn on rating reform.
        It will be increasingly difficult to tell where the buck stops. One thing is sure—if one writes to the Minister or the Secretary of State they will say that it is not their responsibility. They will say that the district, the regional or the island councils make the decisions. If one approaches those authorities one will be told that everything is determined by the faceless civil servants sitting in the box and occupying the offices at St. Andrew's house.
        The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has made it clear that it is opposed to rate capping. Even the Edinburgh chamber of commerce—which is not exactly affiliated to the Labour party—has said that it has some misgivings, judging by statements from the secretary of the chamber.
        Once the truth sinks in after the legislation is operating the public will realise that it is a con trick. It will then be understood why only one Government Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Tayside, North, spoke on Report in favour of the proposal. More and more the Government will act as the trapper and local government as the trapped. Both will be ensnared in the process. I do not have much faith in the ability of the Secretary of State, and far less in that of the Minister responsible for local government in Scotland, to get us out of the mess.
        The public will pay in the end. There will be more administration and more time will be spent on working parties and committees trying to sort out the budgetary problems. Scarce resources will be diverted from the local authorities to bureaucratic exercises and administration.
        We should be concentrating our energies on trying to ensure that local authorities work as effectively as possible. The councillors, whom the people elect to serve on local authorities, should be responsible for ensuring that local government runs efficently. Local government has never been popular, but once the Government take a stranglehold on the local authorities in the way proposed in the Bill, unlimited and undesirable powers will, I fear, operate in an unjust manner. I hope that the House will give the new clause its approval.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time——
        The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 245.

        Division No. 212]

        [5.43 pm

        AYES

        Abse, Leo

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Ashton, Joe

        485

        Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Kirkwood, Archibald

        Barnett, Guy

        Lambie, David

        Barron, Kevin

        Lamond, James

        Beith, A. J.

        Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

        Bell, Stuart

        Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

        Benn, Tony

        Litherland, Robert

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

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Blair, Anthony

        McCartney, Hugh

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Brown, Gordon (D't'mline E)

        McKelvey, William

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

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

        McNamara, Kevin

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

        McTaggart, Robert

        Bruce, Malcolm

        McWilliam, John

        Buchan, Norman

        Madden, Max

        Caborn, Richard

        Marek, Dr John

        Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Martin, Michael

        Canavan, Dennis

        Mason, Rt Hon Roy

        Carter-Jones, Lewis

        Maxton, John

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Meacher, Michael

        Clarke, Thomas

        Meadowcroft, Michael

        Clay, Robert

        Michie, William

        Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

        Mikardo, Ian

        Coleman, Donald

        Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

        Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

        Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Corbett, Robin

        O'Brien, William

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        O'Neill, Martin

        Craigen, J. M.

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Crowther, Stan

        Pavitt, Laurie

        Cunningham, Dr John

        Penhaligon, David

        Deakins, Eric

        Pike, Peter

        Dewar, Donald

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Dobson, Frank

        Prescott, John

        Dubs, Alfred

        Randall, Stuart

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

        Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

        Eadie, Alex

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        Eastham, Ken

        Robertson, George

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

        Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

        Evans, John (St. Helens N)

        Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

        Fatchett, Derek

        Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

        Faulds, Andrew

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Flannery, Martin

        Sheerman, Barry

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

        Foster, Derek

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Foulkes, George

        Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

        Fraser, J. (Norwood)

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

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

        Silkin, Rt Hon J.

        George, Bruce

        Skinner, Dennis

        Godman, Dr Norman

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

        Gould, Bryan

        Snape, Peter

        Hamllton, James (M'well N)

        Soley, Clive

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Spearing, Nigel

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

        Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Strang, Gavin

        Haynes, Frank

        Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

        Heffer, Eric S.

        Tinn, James

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Torney, Tom

        Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

        Wallace, James

        Howells, Geraint

        Weetch, Ken

        Hoyle, Douglas

        White, James

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Williams, Rt Hon A.

        Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

        Winnick, David

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

        Woodall, Alec

        Janner, Hon Greville

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        John, Brynmor

        Johnston, Russell

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Mr. John Home Robertson and Mr. Don Dixon.

        Kennedy, Charles

        Kilfedder, James A.

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Alexander, Richard

        Ancram, Michael

        486

        Ashby, David

        Grant, Sir Anthony

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Greenway, Harry

        Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

        Gregory, Conal

        Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

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

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

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmth N)

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Grist, Ian

        Baldry, Anthony

        Ground, Patrick

        Batiste, Spencer

        Grylls, Michael

        Bendall, Vivian

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

        Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

        Berry, Sir Anthony

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Hannam, John

        Body, Richard

        Harvey, Robert

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

        Bottomley, Peter

        Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

        Bowden, Gerald (Duiwich)

        Hawksley, Warren

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Hayward, Robert

        Bright, Graham

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Brinton, Tim

        Heddle, John

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Henderson, Barry

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Hickmet, Richard

        Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

        Hicks, Robert

        Bruinvels, Peter

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Hill, James

        Buck, Sir Antony

        Hind, Kenneth

        Budgen, Nick

        Hirst, Michael

        Burt, Alistair

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Carlisle, John (N Luton)

        Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Holt, Richard

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hooson, Tom

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hordern, Peter

        Chapman, Sydney

        Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

        Chope, Christopher

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

        Churchill, W. S.

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

        Hubbard-Miles, Peter

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Cockeram, Eric

        Jackson, Robert

        Conway, Derek

        Jessel, Toby

        Coombs, Simon

        Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Cope, John

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Corrie, John

        Jones, Robert (W Herts)

        Couchman, James

        Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

        Cranborne, Viscount

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Currie, Mrs Edwina

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Dickens, Geoffrey

        Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

        Knowles, Michael

        Dover, Den

        Lamont, Norman

        du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

        Lang, Ian

        Durant, Tony

        Latham, Michael

        Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

        Lawler, Geoffrey

        Eggar, Tim

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Evennett, David

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Fallon, Michael

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Favell, Anthony

        Lester, Jim

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Lilley, Peter

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        McCurley, Mrs Anna

        Forman, Nigel

        MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Maclean, David John

        Fox, Marcus

        McQuarrie, Albert

        Franks, Cecil

        Major, John

        Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

        Marlow, Antony

        Freeman, Roger

        Mather, Carol

        Gale, Roger

        Mawhinney, Dr Brian

        Galley, Roy

        Mayhew, Sir Patrick

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Mellor, David

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Miller, Hal (B'grove)

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Moate, Roger

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Moore, John

        Gorst, John

        Moynihan, Hon C.

        Gow, Ian

        Murphy, Christopher

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Newton, Tony

        487

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

        Sumberg, David

        Osborn, Sir John

        Tapsell, Peter

        Page, Richard (Herts SW)

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Parris, Matthew

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Pawsey, James

        Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

        Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Terlezki, Stefan

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

        Pollock, Alexander

        Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

        Powley, John

        Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Thurnham, Peter

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Tracey, Richard

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Trotter, Neville

        Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Rowe, Andrew

        Viggers, Peter

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Waddington, David

        Ryder, Richard

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Walden, George

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Walker, Bill (T'side N)

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Waller, Gary

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Ward, John

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Shersby, Michael

        Warren, Kenneth

        Sims, Roger

        Watson, John

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Watts, John

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Wells, John (Maidstone)

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Wheeler, John

        Speller, Tony

        Wilkinson, John

        Spencer, Derek

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Squire, Robin

        Wolfson, Mark

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Wood, Timothy

        Stanley, John

        Yeo, Tim

        Steen, Anthony

        Young, Sir George (Acton)

        Stern, Michael

        Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Michael Neubert.

        Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

        Stokes, John

        Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2
      FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO SECTION 23A OF THE HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) ACT I972
      'After section 23A of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following section—
      FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO SECTION 23A OF THE HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) ACT I972

        Factors to be considered in relation to section 23A
        23B. Before making an order under section 23A of this Act the Secretary of State shall take account of any reduction in housing support grant to, and shall have regard to the impact of levels of rents in, the local authority or class thereof specified in the order".'.—[Mr. Craigen.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Craigen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may discuss the following amendments:
        No. 20, in clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—
        `Any limit must take full account of evidence submitted by a local authority demonstrating significant changes in the council house waiting list or other special needs.'.
        No. 21, in page 6, line 31, at end insert—
        '(6)(a) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under this section applying to any local authority if it appears that X is less than Y.
        488
        Where X =(H+C)÷N
        and Y=I÷M
        (b) In subsection 6(a) above, H is defined as the total amount of Housing Support Grant payable to that local authority for the year specified in the order; C is the total contribution which that local authority estimates it will make out of their general fund to the credit of their housing revenue account for the year specified in the order; N is the number of tenants of houses owned by the local authority; I is the total estimated amount of mortgage tax relief given by the Government and M is the estimated number of recipients of mortgage tax relief in the United Kingdom for the year specified in the order.'.
        Mr. Craigen: The purpose of the new clause is to draw out some of the arguments that were partly discussed in Committee concerning the level of rents and the housing responsibilities of district councils. As matters stand, the Secretary of State will now fix rent levels in 1985–86. Effectively, he will take from the local authorities that power to determine the prevailing level of rents within their areas.
        The operation of the present system of housing expenditure limits has never been satisfactory to the housing authorities, but there is even greater dissatisfaction among local authorities over the Government's proposals for determining rents and limiting rate fund contributions. Rents have more than doubled since this Government came to office. That is why the legislation should include a provision that takes account of the level of rents.
        Moreover, it is essential that the Government be fairer in their assessment of the kind of responsibilities now facing Scottish housing authorities as landlords. The Minister, like myself, is well aware of the debates that took place during our consideration of the Scottish tenants' rights legislation, particularly in relation to the consultation document on right to repair. That highlighted some of the problems that face local authorities in carrying out their statutory responsibilities as public landlords and drew attention to some of the difficulties and costs involved in adequate maintenance and repair of Scotland's public sector housing.
        According to Shelter, about 40 per cent. of pre-war housing owned by local authorities is still awaiting modernisation. I do not intend to overstress the situation in Glasgow, but the percentage of pre-1940 stock awaiting modernisation is 68 per cent. in north-east Fife, 59 per cent. in Inverness, 50 per cent. in Banff and Buchan, 88 per cent. in Badenoch and Strathspey, and 77 per cent. in Renfrew. Consequently, a sizeable proportion of council housing is still awaiting modernisation.
        That will cost money. As the Government have been cutting back on housing support grant to local authorities, it is important that they should take that fact into account when determining the rate fund contribution limits—one of the other main sources of finance available to the majority, but not all, of district housing authorities in Scotland.
        I need hardly remind my hon. Friends of the report recently published on dampness by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say a word on that subject. The Minister knows that he and I may again be together in Committee to deal with a Bill on housing defects in non-traditional housing, following investigations by the Building Research Establishment. The

        489
        Government have a duty to take into account all these factors in determining their approach to the rate fund contribution and the availability of funds for housing authorities to carry out their statutory duties.
        6 pm
        In Committee, the Minister questioned the maintenance and repair costs of some local authorities. The maintenance costs of multi-storey buildings and of a number of tenement properties tend to be higher than the average, and that should be more adequately reflected in the housing support grant that is given to local authorities.
        We debated the housing support grant earlier this year. In fact, 30 out of the 56 Scottish authorities get no support whatever, and what has been available for Scottish local authorities receiving HSG has been steadily decreasing since this Government came to office.
        The Government should be more straightforward in telling Scottish tenants that the Secretary of State will fix their rents as from 1985–86. During this debate, we should like to elicit from the Minister whether the principle of having each authority's housing expenditure fixed by the Secretary of State will open the way for similar proposals in education, social work, cleansing and so on. In our view, it is a principle that should be looked at much more closely before the Bill reaches the statute book. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve the new clause.
        Mr. David Lambie: I want to take up what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said about 30 out of 56 housing authorities in Scotland not qualifying for housing support grant in 1984–85. This is happening at a time when the Government have been steadily increasing national subsidies to owner-occupiers by way of tax relief on mortgage interest. With increasing building costs and—until recently—the high rate of interest, the amount of money given in tax relief on mortgage interest has been escalating throughout the period of office of this Government. In 1979–80, the average tax relief on mortgage interest in the United Kingdom amounted to £250 per annum, or £5 a week. In 1983–84, it had increased to £400 per annum, or £8 per week. I say that to draw attention to the discrimination that has been exercised by this Government in favour of owner-occupiers against council and other public sector housing.
        I do not object to that. It is Tory party policy, and it has been so since the end of the war. I object to the fact that they have no mandate for that policy in Scotland, even though they have a mandate for it in the United Kingdom. Two thirds of our people in Scotland still live in public sector housing or in private tenanted sector housing, and those people are entitled to a different policy from the one that has been carried out by the Conservative Government in England and Wales. Even Conservative Members must realise that this is discrimination against Scotland and that it is giving more money to the richer areas of the United Kingdom than to the poorer areas such as the industrial parts of Scotland and my area of west central Scotland.
        The overall figures show that mortgage interest tax relief this year amounted to £2·5 billion. National subsidies to council tenants throughout the United Kingdom amount to only about one quarter or one fifth of that sum. In the old days, Conservative Members used to say that if one took into account the rate fund contributions, as well as the national subsidy, the equation evened itself out. Even under Labour Governments, the
        490
        money allocated for housing finance in the United Kingdom was divided more or less equally between owner-occupiers and council tenants. It was Labour policy to give people the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to be a tenant receiving national subsidies and rate fund contribution, or to be an owner-occupier receiving subsidies by way of tax relief on mortgage interest.
        Mr. Michael Hirst:Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most significant reasons for increasing mortgage relief is the vast number of council tenants who have taken advantage of the opportunity to buy their homes? They are no longer tenants, and they are getting mortgage interest relief on their new mortgages.
        Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) is a young boy in the House. When he has had more experience, he will know that that is not the argument. We are not arguing whether the owner-occupier should receive tax relief subsidy from the Government. Before the hon. Gentleman pursues that argument, he should remember the recent findings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and perhaps next year, in this or a similar debate, he will be asking me to go into the Lobby in support of his revolt against the Conservative Government's policy to stop tax relief on mortgage interest. The hon. Gentleman may be looking for friends next year to defend his people, the owner-occupiers, from attack by the Conservative Government and the Chancellor who are at present attacking council tenants.
        Mr. MacKenzie rose——
        Mr. Lambie: I shall not give way to my right hon. Friend because of the guillotine, and I know that others of my colleagues want to speak. I do not mind giving way to a Conservative Member, but not to my right hon. Friend, because I know that I shall agree with him. I hope that he will not mind.
        I was saying that, in the old days, Conservatives used to say that council tenants get a rate fund contribution as well as a national subsidy. That was correct. I was saying that under Labour Governments, and even under good Conservative Governments — I say that in inverted commas; the wets are no longer in the Cabinet—that equation was given effect. It was a fair equation for both the owner-occupier and the council tenant. Now we are seeing discrimination against the public sector.
        The average rate fund contribution in 1979–80 in Scotland was £82 per house. In the same year the housing support grant was £239 per house, making a total national and local subsidy of £321 per house. In the financial year 1984–85 the rate fund contribution will be increased, in spite of Government policy, to £113 per house, but the housing support grant will go down to £59 per house, making a total national and local subsidy of £172. Despite the rate fund contribution, when the total subsidy of £172 for the council tenant is compared with the £400 per annum given to the average owner-occupier in Britain, my claim of Government discrimination against council tenants can be seen to be justified.
        I say again that Conservative Members should be representing the views of the people of Scotland. They are here by their votes and they should be standing with us and attacking their English colleagues who are carrying out the policies in England where they can get away with it

        491
        because the majority are owner-occupiers. However, they will not get away with it in Scotland, as they will find out in the district council elections next month when Labour will sweep the board again and keep control of most Scottish councils.
        Not only are there council houses in Scotland, but over large areas there are many houses owned by the Scottish Special Housing Association and in my constituency by the Irvine development corporation. We were told at the end of January that because of the Secretary of State's diktat, SSHA tenants' rents were increased by an average of £1·10 per week. In my new town of Irvine the development corporation said that it was increasing its rents by £1 per week. It was given a choice by the Secretary of State of increases between £1 and £1·20. Because of pressure from Labour Members on the board — there are still some such members despite the Secretary of State's attempts to remove them at every opportunity and to replace them with Tory lap dogs—the increase was at the lower end of the scale.
        Yesterday we received from the secretary of the SSHA a breakdown of rents for the individual areas within our constituency. Irvine has a large number of SSHA tenants and I discovered that the increases range from just over 10 per cent. to just over 12 per cent. That is a 12 per cent. increase in rents when the cost of living has increased only from 4 to 5 per cent. Not only are the SSHA and the Government asking tenants to pay increases in rents to keep them in line with the cost of living, but they have more than doubled them. If the Government are proved correct and the cost of living goes down this year, that discrimination against SSHA tenants will become greater.
        In Springside, a mining village, the male unemployment rate is 25 per cent. Many areas have a tremendous problem of long-term unemployment, and Springside is one. There was an 11 per cent. increase in rents. In Dreghorn there was a rent increase of just under 11 per cent. In Kilwinning there was an increase of over 12 per cent. In Stevenston there was an increase of just under 13 per cent. The SSHA also sent me information about its housing in Saltcoats and, although I do not represent the place, many people there think that I do, so I had better mention it as well. There was an average increase in rents from 11 per cent. to nearly 13 per cent.
        6.15 pm
        The Government are not only discriminating against council tenants in general but they are being particularly harsh towards tenants of the SSHA and the new town corporation. My constituency is fortunate to have solid Labour councillors who will increase their majority after the local elections in May. The council recognises the tremendous economic problems in the area and the problems of long-term unemployment when one man in four is unemployed. In spite of the Secretary of State's diktat that it should increase rents—he is taking power in the Bill to take action against them—it decided to freeze rents during the year. That decision was justified, but it creates a serious anomaly. Council house tenants' rents will be frozen, but people living in the same street in an SSHA house will have to pay an increase of from 11 to 12 per cent. That creates much bad feeling among
        492
        tenants. I hope that that bad feeling will be directed not against the council but against the Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
        When the Labour party is returned to power I hope that we shall be as discriminating in favour of council tenants as the Government are in favouri of their supporters—the owner-occupiers who live mainly in the rural areas in south and central England. If we do that, we shall always have a Labour Government and we shall then be able to organise national housing finance on a fair basis to divide equally the money available between both the owner-occupiers and the council tenants.
        Mr. Dennis Canavan: I want to speak briefly in support of amendment No. 21 in my name, although I whole-heartedly support new clause 2, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen).
        I am against clause 6 because it is an attack on local democracy and, even worse, an attack on the living standards of council house tenants and their families. In essence, the Bill is an attack on local democracy and local freedoms. It virtually dictates to local authorities the amount of money that they can take from their general fund and put into their housing revenue account.
        There is no justification for this further intervention by the Government into the affairs of local government. The net effect will be a further attack on the living standards of council house tenants. Unless one of the amendments to clause 6 is accepted, the clause will further escalate council house rents. Underlying the clause is a political doctrinaire attitude. The propaganda that the Minister is trying to put across to owner-occupiers in particular is that council house tenants are receiving far too much subsidy, and that the people who are paying that subsidy are those who own their houses or have mortgages to buy their houses. The underlying philosophy behind clause 6, if it can be called a philosophy, is that there is an inequitable distribution by way of subsidy in favour of council house tenants, and that the clause will correct the imbalance.
        The underlying thought in the Minister's mind seems to be that housing authorities are not responsible enough to decide how much should come from the general rate fund and be put into the housing revenue account. If the Minister is suffering from that underlying thought, it is a misapprehension and a delusion, as the Government's statistics reveal. The Minister appears to want to use the old Tory tactic of divide and rule, to set the owner-occupier against the council house tenant, making one lot jealous of the other, and blaming the council house tenant for getting far too much subsidy at the expense of the owner-occupier.
        The net effect of the clause will be a further escalation in rent levels of council houses in Scotland. While the Tory Government have been in power—and the figure is already out of date, but it was the most up-to-date figure that was available in the Library—between 1979 and 1983 the average weekly rent in the public sector in Scotland has increased by 100·2 per cent. In other words, since the Laird of Leckie became the Secretary of State for Scotland, and his boss became the tenant of 10 Downing street, council house rents in Scotland have more than doubled. That is a statistical fact which I think not even the Minister would attempt to deny.
        Although there have been price increases in general, and wage increases for people still fortunate enough to

        493
        have jobs, the increase in the retail price index over the same period was only 45·6 per cent., and the increase in the index of average earnings in Great Britain was 60·8 per cent. Rent increase have far outstripped the rate of inflation and the increase average earnings. There is no justification for the draconian increase in rents that has taken place. The net effect of the clause, unless my hon. Friend's amendment or my amendment is accepted, will be further rent increases.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) dealt with the alleged imbalance between the amount of subsidy that goes to council house tenants and the situation of private sector owner-occupiers. Lest the Minister doubts the source of my hon. Friend's statistics, I wish to back them up, although not with the same figures that my hon. Friend quoted, because they cover a slightly different period. However, they reinforce the general trend and the argument of my hon. Friend. In considering central Government subsidy to local authority housing, it must be borne in mind that over half the housing authorities in Scotland now receive no housing support grant. Indeed, the local authority covering my constituency, Falkirk district council, will receive not a penny from the Government in housing support grant for the second year running, yet the Government can afford to spend millions of pounds on prefabricated houses for people on the Falkland Islands.
        Taking Scotland as a whole, the central Government subsidy, or housing support grant, amounts to £123 per tenant. The local authority subsidy to local authority tenants, the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account, amounts to £98 per tenant, giving a total of £221 per tenant for the financial year 1983–84. As to the corresponding amount of subsidy, namely, mortgage tax relief given to people in the private sector who are buying their houses, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South gave an average figure of £400 per mortgagor per annum throughout the United Kingdom. I understand that the total income tax relief for the United Kingdom on mortgage interest is £2,700 million.
        I have a Scottish figure that was supplied by the Library. For the record, I should point out that the librarian did not get these figures off the top of his head. The figures that I have already quoted were given in the Scottish public expenditure White Paper, and the Scottish housing statistics 1982, fourth quarter, table 26. The source for the figure that I am about to quote is Hansard, 18 April 1983, at column 50. The Treasury's estimate of the cost of mortgage interest tax relief in Scotland for 1983–84 amounted to £140 million, representing approximately £450 per mortgagor receiving tax relief. The amount of tax relief per mortgagor in Scotland is by any estimate over twice the amount of subsidy per council house tenant. I hope that the Minister will deal with these figures. Nobody dealt with them, or refuted them, in Committee. The Minister knows that they are correct. Indeed, if they are not correct, he will be calling into question the veracity of his own Department.
        Mr. Maxton: It is worth pointing out to my hon. Friend that the owner-occupier has the added benefit of not having to pay capital gains tax when he sells his house. That tax benefit is given to him by the Government.
        Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is right. Many other forms of subsidy are given to owner-occupiers. I am taking
        494
        this as a rough yardstick to compare the amount of subsidy given to council house tenants and the amount of tax relief of various kinds given to people who take out a mortgage. Even the most biased Conservative Member would surely agree that there is a strong case for a more equitable distribution by having subsidy in favour of council house tenants, rather than discriminating against them, which is the aim of the clause.
        As to amendment No. 21, if one adds the amount of housing support grant given to a particular local authority to the authority's estimate of rate fund contribution for the year to which the order would apply, if approved, and divides that by the number of council house tenants in the local authority, the result is a rough measure of the amount involved. Indeed, if all the variables were accurately measured, there would be an accurate measure of the average subsidy per council house tenant. The other variable in the second equation is the average amount of mortgage tax relief.
        6.30 pm
        Mr. Hirst: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fundamental flaw in the algebra of the equation is that it fails to differentiate between the capital value of owner-occupied houses and tenanted accommodation? Therefore, his comparison is specious.
        Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman forgets that, once a mortgage has been fully paid, the owner-occupier is left with a capital asset. If there is an imbalance in the equation, and if it was corrected, it would have to be in favour of council house tenants. The hon. Gentleman may have difficulty in understanding algebra. The amount of subsidy per council house tenant is less than the national average subsidy for mortgage tax relief.
        The Secretary of State should not have the power to intervene and make an order that virtually dictates to a local authority how much it can take out of the general fund to put into the housing revenue account.
        I appeal to the Minister to consider these constructive amendments. He failed to refute the arguments in Committee. If he had one ounce of fairness in him, he would accept the amendments. He pretends to speak for public sector tenants. We all know the background of some of the Government Front Bench spokesmen, from the Secretary of State downwards. Many of them do not know much about council tenants and the difficulties that they face because of the Government's vicious attacks on them. The Government refuse to intervene to keep prices down, but are prepared to intervene to push up rent levels. They intervened today to push up the price of electricity—a further measure to attack the living standards of people on low incomes. I appeal to the House to accept new clause 2 and amendment No. 21.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 20, which asks the Government to take account of the growing housing problem resulting from the simplicity of their housing policy.
        Despite a successful council house sales policy, the gap between those who do not have a council house and cannot afford to buy a house and those who have council houses and intend to buy them is becoming wider. As a result council house waiting lists are growing longer. There is nothing in the Bill to encourage me to believe that local authorities can do anything other than watch the council house waiting lists grow.

        495
        I shall cite one or two examples from my area. The housing waiting list in Aberdeen has reached 4,700, with virtually no council houses being built. The list is growing steadily year by year. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to take account of that problem. I attended a meeting in Aberdeen earlier this week at which a member of the Tory group fairly pointed out that the Labour group had held down the rates and, as a consequence, had forfeited capital allocation. That had reduced its ability to meet the housing problem. Although I acknowledge that, in a district such as Gordon—where rents have risen fully in accord with the cost of living and are economic—the gap is still growing. The number of people looking for council houses is increasing, while the council's ability to meet that demand is reducing. The Bill can only make the problem significantly worse, unless the amendment is accepted.
        I urge the Minister to tell me why he believes that local authorities can meet that growing problem. In all the time that we served together in Committee on the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill he did not answer that question, even though it was asked on numerous occasions by many hon. Members. All we obtained were statistics on how successful was the policy of selling council houses—which was irrelevant to the problem.
        The Minister will know that the problem of housing associations, which might legitimately be regarded as able to fill the gap, is that they are grossly over-subscribed and under-funded. I would not be satisfied if I thought that the Minister regarded them as a solution to the problem.
        The danger that has emerged in the debate is that Conservative Members appear to believe that selling council houses will meet every need, while Labour Members believe that only the problems of council tenants should have priority. Yet there are people who do not fall into either category. They do not have a council house and they cannot afford to buy a house. Those people form the bulk of the growing waiting list. It is no good saying that Mr. Barratt can satisfy people who have no way of raising a deposit, let alone of paying a mortgage. Many of my constituents feel insulted because their neighbours who have a council house have the opportunity to buy it at a discount, while they receive no help at all. The Bill will do nothing to solve that problem. Indeed, it will make it worse unless the amendment is accepted.
        I urge the Minister to recognise that we need a more flexible approach to housing. Local authorities should be able to demonstrate to the Secretary of State the need within their areas, and that need should be taken into account when their rates are being set and their housing allocations calculated.
        It might help the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) if I tell him that I expect support from his colleagues who were upset by the rate-capping proposals for England and Wales. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) also mentioned that. Twelve Conservative Members voted against the proposals for England and Wales, yet they voted for the proposal for Scotland. They were the right hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for
        496
        Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), for Ashford (Mr. Speed), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I hope that they will support us in the Lobbies tonight. We hear much about the West Lothian question, but this is the reverse.
        I hope that not only my colleagues will support the amendment, but those Conservative Members who have stated their opposition to such legislation. I hope that they will follow the logic of their argument and vote against the Bill.
        Mr. Barry Henderson: I am astonished that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who pretends to take a rational position somewhere between wherever the Labour and Conservative parties happen to be, should support the concept of rate fund contribution to housing revenue account. That is essentially what the new clause and the amendments are about. The whole concept of such a rate fund contribution is as outdated as the dogma of Socialism preached by Opposition Members.
        It is a concept that gives the impression that it would help less well-off tenants of council houses to have that form of rate fund contribution. It is a fallacy to think that that approach would help those tenants financially in a way in which they would not otherwise be helped. Only ratepayers would be hurt because, if tenants were in receipt of such a low income that they needed the help of the rate fund contribution, they would be entitled to housing benefit. The rate fund contribution would put on the back of the ratepayer costs which would otherwise fall on the back of the Exchequer and the national taxpayer.
        Ratepayers who are not well-off and are council house tenants would be hit by the rate fund contribution burden that the Opposition want to place upon them, whereas retired teachers enjoying Members' salaries and living in council houses would enjoy a rate fund contribution. The Opposition are proposing to hurt ratepayers, and their scheme will not help tenants. I commend as a much better example of good sense the policies of the North-East Fife district council, which receives no housing support grant and makes no rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account. No rent increase was introduced by the council this year and there will be no rate increase either.
        Mr. Tom Clarke: You have rightly and eloquently reminded the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that one of your principal tasks is to protect the rights of Back Benchers. I urge that view upon the Minister and the Government. The more that Back Benchers are given the opportunity to examine the Bill, the weaker it will turn out to be. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) have shown, our responsibility is to listen to our colleagues who are working in local government and doing a first-class job in difficult circumstances. Many of them serve on housing committees; they face the realities of the problems that the House is debating, but more immediately so than Members of this place.
        If Conservative Members suggest that the Labour party does not put high priority on the needs of the owner-occupier, I recommend that they refer to the record of the previous Labour Government, which was infinitely better in terms of mortgages, rates and grants for home

        497
        improvements than the record of this Government. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that none of us should be modest about the Labour Government's housing record.
        There is a great economic depression in Scotland and there are high levels of unemployment. Great problems stem from fuel poverty. However, the Government are inflicting even more hardship on many council tenants by means of the Bill by making respectable by way of legislation a reduction in housing support grant. In addition, they have introduced most subtly yet another reduction in the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account, which means that the burden of dealing with housing expenditure will be carried in the main by increasing rents.
        Although the Government may win the vote this evening and may think that that will solve the problem and further their vendetta against council tenants, I think that they will have to return to this subject before this Parliament concludes. I say that in the knowledge that rent increases, many of them substantial, have taken place in authority after authority. That is certainly so in districts in Monklands and in the part of Strathkelvin which I represent. Council house tenants — good people who place a high priority on good housekeeping and who are canny in every aspect of it—are finding that they cannot meet the demands that are being placed upon them by Government legislation and the Government's hysterical attempt to put almost all the housing burden on rents.
        The Government are clearly influenced by economic theory and not by the needs of council tenants and the Bill will be seen as hollow and irrelevant to the housing problems that the Scottish people are facing. The Government's economic theory will fall on its face. I regret that it will be some time before the Government are persuaded that that is so, given their large but temporary majority. I have no doubt that the views that I have expressed are those of the Scottish people.
        6.45 pm
        Mr. Ancram: I have listened carefully to the arguments of Labour Members in this debate, which were well aired when the Bill was being considered at length and exhaustively in Committee. I have no need to repeat the basic purpose of clause 6, which I think is well known. It will enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to limit by order the contributions that local authorities budget to make from their rates towards expenditure on their housing account. We have been prompted to take the new power by our concern that local authorities continue to budget for rate contributions to housing current expenditure in excess of the levels that we believe are necessary or justified. This is unfair to both the ratepayer and the tenant because it pre-empts for a general subsidy on rents resources which would be better spent on the modernisation and improvement of the housing stock.
        The Government have been criticised in the past and during the debate for linking rate contributions to current expenditure with housing capital expenditure in this way. Labour Members have suggested that the Government's actions are an attack on local democracy. They must recognise that the Government have an undeniable responsibility to take decisions on the total amount of public expenditure which can be devoted to housing and on the broad division of that total between capital expenditure, to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was referring, and subsidies on current expenditure
        498
        to ensure that scarce resources are applied where they are most needed. It is my understanding of the remarks of the hon. Member for Gordon that he would find little to disagree with in that.
        New clause 2 seeks to ensure that before making an order setting limits to rate contributions my right hon. Friend should have regard to any reductions in housing support grant and to the likely impact on rents.
        Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister comment on the statistics that appeared in The Scotsman on 14 December 1983? In comparing the financial year 1979–80 with the estimates for 1984–85, and taking the rate fund contribution as a percentage of income, it showed that the contribution of all the local authorities in Scotland was 14 per cent. in 1979–80. It is estimated that it will be the same for 1984–85, whereas the percentage of income by way of housing support grant will fall from 39 per cent. to 7 per cent.
        Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will let me develop my argument in my own way, he may find the answer to the question he poses by means of those figures. He has not detracted from the argument that I have been advancing, that resources that are pre-empted for current expenditure are at the end of the day often necessary for capital expenditure. That is the crux of the issue that we are discussing. The level of housing support grant and the impact on rents will be factors to be taken into consideration in setting the appropriate limits to rate contributions, but I do not think that they can be viewed in isolation.
        The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) alleged that the reduction in housing support grant, when taken with the steps that we are taking to limit rate contributions, will remove local discretion in setting rages and lead to unreasonable increases in the average rents paid by tenants in Scotland.
        I refute the charges, first, because local authorities will remain responsible for determining their level of expenditure on management, repairs and maintenance, which can have a significant impact on rent levels. For example, Glasgow's expenditure on management and maintenance per house, the highest in mainland Scotland, is nearly one and a half times the average of other authorities. If Glasgow reduced its expenditure per house to the average, it would save the equivalent of rent reductions of £2·20 per a week.
        If anyone accuses me of not comparing like with like, let me give an example of neighbouring Labour-controlled authorities. If Stirling reduced its management and maintenance expenditure to the same level as Falkirk, that would permit a reduction in rent of about 75p per week in Stirling. Rate fund contributions are genuinely two-sided and local authorities will retain considerable discretion and responsibility in setting rents.
        Secondly, the current average rent in Scotland of £9·87 per week is still only 6·8 per cent. of the average weekly earnings of a manual worker. If one takes that as a proportion of all average earnings, the figure is lower still. I make no apology for drawing attention to the fact that the average weekly in England is just over £14, although the average weekly earnings of a manual worker are slightly below the Scottish level. Those with genuine difficulty in paying rent can qualify for housing benefit.

        499
        Those hon. Members who argue that it is unreasonable for rents to rise beyond their present level are totally out of touch with the real world.
        I shall deal later with amendment No. 21. Amendment No. 20, in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon, seeks to ensure that in setting limits to rate contributions my right hon. Friend must take account of evidence submitted by local authorities demonstrating significant changes in council house waiting lists and other special needs. With respect, I believe that the amendment is muddled, and I shall try to explain why.
        Clause 6 will enable the Secretary of State to limit the rate contributions that authorities may make to their current—I stress the word "current" —expenditure on housing, which goes towards management and maintenance costs, together with loan charges on the authorities' historic debt. New building and renovation to meet general and special needs is financed out of capital expenditure. My Department collects information on general and special needs, including waiting lists, in the context of the housing plans that authorities are required to submit. Such information is fully taken into account in determining the capital expenditure consents that we allocate to local authorities at the beginning of each financial year.
        An authority's requirement for capital expenditure has no direct bearing on the current expenditure costs that it would be expected to meet in any year from its housing revenue account. Where public expenditure resources are limited as they are at present, and if authorities can be encouraged to reduce rate subsidies from current expenditure, that will free the rate subsidies for current expenditure and provide additional resources for capital expenditure. I understood that that was the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Gordon. On that basis I should expect the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to support us in the Lobby if a Division is called on the new clause.
        The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) must be complimented on the ingenuity of his amendment. However, those who have read his amendment and listened to his explanation may still be a little confused, so perhaps I can simplify matters for them. The amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State shall not set limits to an authority's rate contribution if the combined total of that authority's housing support grant and estimated rate contribution per tenant is lower than the average amount of mortgage tax relief per mortgagor in the United Kingdom.
        The hon. Gentleman alleged that the Government had given a disproportionate subsidy to owner-occupiers, while reducing the subsidies for council tenants. I do not accept that. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like when he seeks to relate the average subsidy per tenant to housing support grant and rate fund contributions, which between them amount to £227 per tenant in the current financial year, with average tax relief per mortgagor.
        One must also take into account the rent rebate element of housing benefit, which accounts for £90 per council tenant. In the current financial year, therefore, the total average subsidy per council tenant is £317, whereas the average tax relief per owner-occupier is £246. The hon. Gentleman seeks to compare the average subsidy to
        500
        council tenants not with the average tax relief for all owner-occupiers but with the average tax relief received by owners with mortgages, which amounts to £432 per mortgagor.
        Mr. Lambie: Will the Under Secretary give way?
        Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as I imagine that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) wants a little time at the end of the debate in which to tell the House whether he wishes to press the new clause to a Division.
        If the average tax relief received by owners who have mortgages is taken as a base, a fair comparison must be with those tenants who receive the rent rebate element of housing benefit, for whom the average subsidy is even higher, at £535 in the current year. Whatever basis is used for the calculation, the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West does not stand up.
        I do not accept that council tenants are in some way getting an unfair deal. Substantial sums are being made available by taxpayers and ratepayers in the form of subsidies for council housing. Our concern is that the subsidy from the ratepayers towards rents is already higher than can be justified by need and is pre-empting resources that would be better spent — I refer again to the argument of the hon. Member for Gordon — on modernisation and improvement of the housing stock. That is why we consider it necessary to take the powers in clause 6.
        Clause 6 will discourage authorities from taking short-term political decisions to pre-empt scarce resources and to subsidise those with no need of subsidies. The clause will be welcomed by ratepayers. It is fair to tenants, who are themselves ratepayers, it makes economic sense and it is in the longer-term interest of the housing stock. For those reasons, I must ask the House to reject the new clause and the amendments taken with it.
        Mr. Norman Buchan: I am glad to have the opportunity to disabuse the Minister. We have no intention of withdrawing the new clause. On the contrary, the Minister's comments have made us even firmer in our intention to press it.
        I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—I do not always agree with him—on his brilliant analysis of the real situation and on the brilliant simplicity of his solution. This whole subject has undoubtedly been bedevilled by the mad way in which over the years the Tory party has played politics with rates, rents and subsidies. In housing, as in other sectors, the Tories have used their friends in the press—whatever Opposition Members say in public speeches, the press is not behind us — to give the impression that the tax evader is somehow a hero while the person who tries to improve his social security benefit is a scrounger; that the person who obtains large tax relief on his mortgage somehow represents the roast beef of old England and the best mutton of Scotland while the person who properly receives housing support from central and local funding is somehow — the Tories have said this themselves — a second-class citizen.
        The fairly simple formula adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West—seeing the Secretary of State for Education and Science arrive in the Chamber, I thought that he had come to explain the algebra to his colleagues in the Government—sets the two factors in

        501
        their proper relationship. Housing support for rent and rates is not a handout but the proper application of public funds to support housing programmes and should be treated in the same way as tax relief for those buying their homes, especially the less well-off. The figures show, however, that the well-off benefit from Government policy by a factor of two to one compared with the average owner-occupier or council tenant. My hon. Friend has made that clear in stark terms.
        The new clause allows that concept to be introduced and I strongly commend it to the House.
        It being Seven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [5 March] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
        The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 223.

        Division No. 213]

        [7pm

        AYES

        Anderson, Donald

        George, Bruce

        Archer, Rt Hon Peter

        Gould, Bryan

        Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

        Hamilton, James (M'well N)

        Ashton, Joe

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Barnett, Guy

        Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

        Barron, Kevin

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Beith, A. J.

        Haynes, Frank

        Bell, Stuart

        Healey, Rt Hon Denis

        Benn, Tony

        Heffer, Eric S.

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

        Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

        Blair, Anthony

        Howells, Geraint

        Boothroyd, Miss Betty

        Hoyle, Douglas

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

        Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

        Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

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

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

        Janner, Hon Greville

        Bruce, Malcolm

        John, Brynmor

        Buchan, Norman

        Johnston, Russell

        Caborn, Richard

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

        Kennedy, Charles

        Campbell-Savours, Daie

        Kilfedder, James A.

        Canavan, Dennis

        Kilroy-Silk, Robert

        Carter-Jones, Lewis

        Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

        Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

        Kirkwood, Archibald

        Clarke, Thomas

        Lambie, David

        Clay, Robert

        Lamond, James

        Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

        Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

        Coleman, Donald

        Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

        Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

        Litherland, Robert

        Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Corbett, Robin

        Lofthouse, Geoffrey

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        McCartney, Hugh

        Craigen, J. M.

        McCrea, Rev William

        Crowther, Stan

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

        McKelvey, William

        Deakins, Eric

        Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

        Dewar, Donald

        McNamara, Kevin

        Dixon, Donald

        McTaggart, Robert

        Dobson, Frank

        McWilliam, John

        Dubs, Alfred

        Madden, Max

        Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

        Marek, Dr John

        Eadie, Alex

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Eastham, Ken

        Martin, Michael

        Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)

        Mason, Rt Hon Roy

        Evans, John (St. Helens N)

        Maxton, John

        Fatchett, Derek

        Meacher, Michael

        Faulds, Andrew

        Meadowcroft, Michael

        Flannery, Martin

        Michie, William

        Foot, Rt Hon Michael

        Mikardo, Ian

        Foster, Derek

        Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

        Foulkes, George

        Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

        Fraser, J. (Norwood)

        Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

        Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

        Nellist, David

        502

        O'Brien, William

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

        O'Neill, Martin

        Snape, Peter

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Soley, Clive

        Pavitt, Laurie

        Spearing, Nigel

        Penhaligon, David

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Pike, Peter

        Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

        Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

        Strang, Gavin

        Prescott, John

        Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

        Randall, Stuart

        Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

        Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

        Tinn, James

        Richardson, Ms Jo

        Torney, Tom

        Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

        Wallace, James

        Robertson, George

        Weetch, Ken

        Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

        White, James

        Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

        Williams, Rt Hon A.

        Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

        Winnick, David

        Rowlands, Ted

        Woodall, Alec

        Sheerman, Barry

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

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

        Mr. John Home Robertson and Mr. Allen McKay.

        Silkin, Rt Hon J.

        Skinner, Dennis

        NOES

        Adley, Robert

        du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

        Aitken, Jonathan

        Durant, Tony

        Alexander, Richard

        Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael

        Eggar, Tim

        Ancram, Michael

        Emery, Sir Peter

        Arnold, Tom

        Evennett, David

        Ashby, David

        Fallon, Michael

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Favell, Anthony

        Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

        Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

        Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

        Fletcher, Alexander

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Fookes, Miss Janet

        Baldry, Anthony

        Forman, Nigel

        Batiste, Spencer

        Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

        Berry, Sir Anthony

        Fox, Marcus

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Franks, Cecil

        Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Freeman, Roger

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Gale, Roger

        Bottomley, Peter

        Galley, Roy

        Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Brandon-Bravo, Martin

        Glyn, Dr Alan

        Bright, Graham

        Goodhart, Sir Philip

        Brinton, Tim

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

        Gow, Ian

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Gower, Sir Raymond

        Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

        Grant, Sir Anthony

        Bruinvels, Peter

        Greenway, Harry

        Bryan, Sir Paul

        Gregory, Conal

        Buck, Sir Antony

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

        Budgen, Nick

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

        Burt, Alistair

        Grist, Ian

        Carlisle, John (N Luton)

        Ground, Patrick

        Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Grylls, Michael

        Carttiss, Michael

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Chope, Christopher

        Hanley, Jeremy

        Churchill, W. S.

        Hannam, John

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

        Harvey, Robert

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

        Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

        Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

        Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

        Cockeram, Eric

        Hawksley, Warren

        Conway, Derek

        Hayes, J.

        Coombs, Simon

        Hayhoe, Barney

        Cope, John

        Hayward, Robert

        Corrie, John

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Couchman, James

        Henderson, Barry

        Cranborne, Viscount

        Hickmet, Richard

        Crouch, David

        Hicks, Robert

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

        Hind, Kenneth

        Dover, Den

        Hirst, Michael

        503

        Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Holt, Richard

        Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

        Hooson, Tom

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Hordern, Peter

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Shersby, Michael

        Hubbard-Miles, Peter

        Sims, Roger

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Soames, Hon Nicholas

        Jessel, Toby

        Speller, Tony

        Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Spencer, Derek

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Squire, Robin

        Jones, Robert (W Herts)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

        Stanley, John

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Steen, Anthony

        King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

        Stern, Michael

        Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

        Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

        Knowles, Michael

        Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

        Lamont, Norman

        Stokes, John

        Lang, Ian

        Sumberg, David

        Lawler, Geoffrey

        Tapsell, Peter

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Lee, John (Pendle)

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

        Terlezki, Stefan

        Lilley, Peter

        Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

        McCurley, Mrs Anna

        Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

        MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

        Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

        MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

        Thurnham, Peter

        Maclean, David John

        Tracey, Richard

        Major, John

        Trotter, Neville

        Mather, Carol

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Mayhew, Sir Patrick

        van Straubenzee, Sir W.

        Miller, Hal (B'grove)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Viggers, Peter

        Moore, John

        Waddington, David

        Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

        Wakeham, Rt Hon John

        Moynihan, Hon C.

        Waldegrave, Hon William

        Murphy, Christopher

        Walden, George

        Neubert, Michael

        Walker, Bill (T'side N)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Ward, John

        Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

        Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

        Page, Richard (Herts SW)

        Watson, John

        Parris, Matthew

        Watts, John

        Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

        Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

        Pink, R. Bonner

        Wells, John (Maidstone)

        Pollock, Alexander

        Wheeler, John

        Powley, John

        Wilkinson, John

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Winterton, Mrs Ann

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Winterton, Nicholas

        Rathbone, Tim

        Wolfson, Mark

        Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

        Wood, Timothy

        Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Rossi, Sir Hugh

        Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Archie Hamilton

        Rumbold, Mrs Angela

        Ryder, Richard

        Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT OF NEEDS ELEMENT OF RATE SUPPORT GRANTS
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out from 'above' to 'either' in line 15 and insert
      'the Secretary of State may, in prescribing a basis for apportionment under either of those paragraphs or in providing for apportionment under paragraph 3 above, have regard to the extent to which, in his opinion,'.
      The amendment is of a technical and drafting nature and clarifies a power which was welcomed by all parties in Committee. The clause aims to permit my right hon.
      504
      Friend, when apportioning any general abatement of rate support grant arising from local authority overspending, to relate the penalties of individual authorities to the extent of their overspend, measured against the guidelines issued by him. The statutory powers governing the distribution of the needs element of rate support grant are set out in part 1 of schedule 1 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, a copy of which is usefully reprinted in the schedule at the back of the Bill.
      Paragraphs 1 and 3 provide for apportionment on the basis prescribed, and during the years up to 1983–84 the annual rate support grant order contained schedules prescribing a basis for distribution. Paragraph 3 contains powers for apportionment of a prescribed amount of needs element to such classes of authorities, or to any such authority, as may be prescribed. The latter power was used in the needs element of distribution for 1984–85, and we expect to continue to use it in the future. The change was a consequence of the use of the client group assessments of relative need for the distribution of the needs element of the rate support grant.
      The amendment seeks to ensure that where the needs grant is distributed on the basis prescribed in earlier years, or by way of the prescribed amount for each authority, as in 1984–85, any general abatement can be apportioned among authorities in proportion to the overspend. The House will accept that the amendment is proposed in the spirit of the clause, which was welcomed by the Committee, and seeks to remove doubt. I ask the House to approve it.
      Mr. Dewar: The Minister read his script with an air of quiet triumph, safe in the assumption that few people would understand the gobbledegook with which he favoured us.
      The hon. Gentleman said that clause 1 was welcomed, but that overstates the case. He assumes that because the Committee did not divide against it. We believed that there was some virtue in the new distribution formula for a general abatement. But I do not want the word "welcomed" to encompass any sly suggestion that we see virtue in general abatements. They are unpleasant and have been over-used of late by more than one Government. That should save the Minister from making another tiresome party political point. They have become endemic in recent years and I hope that they will be curbed.
      I am prepared to accept that it is a tidying-up amendment and does not alter the general principle of clause 1: that the apportionment of general abatement should be on the ratio of an individual local authority's share of the overspend which has attracted that abatement. On the understanding that it is in line with that, and merely enables that object to be achieved, I shall not occupy the House's time further.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That amendment having been agreed to, I will direct the Public Bill Office to make the necessary consequential alteration to schedule 1, which sets out the law as amended.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 10, leave out clause 2.
      This involves a more substantial matter. The amendment seeks to delete clause 2. It is perhaps a little

      505
      unusual that such a radical and fundamental amendment should come before the House on Report, especially as we debated it fully in Committee. There are special reasons for that, and I make no apologies for it. I am grateful to those in charge of selection that we can debate the matter again.
      Clause 2 is innocently entitled:
      "Procedure under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966."
      But behind that facade hides a nasty proposal, of constitutional significance, which is of importance to anyone who is interested in the proceedings of the House.
      Section 5 of the 1966 Act empowers the Secretary of State to make a judgment at the beginning of the financial year about the estimated budget of a local authority. If, in accordance with vague and ill-defined criteria, the Secretary of State concludes that the estimated expenditure is excessive and unreasonable, he is entitled to ask the House to reduce the rate support grant settlement during the year to deal with what he considers to be extravagant budgeting by the local authority.
      We have had a long and sad series of debates on this matter. They have always been conducted on the basis that there was an order for each local authority under threat, and that at the end of the debate there would be an opportunity for the House to pass judgment on each local authority's case.
      Clause 2 seeks to allow the Secretary of State to take more than one local authority — perhaps four, five or six, if it is a busy year—and put them all in one order so that only one vote will be taken. That is a thoroughly bad proposition, which has pricked the consciences of a considerable number of Conservative Members.
      The matter has had a long history. The 28th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the matter in 1980–81. There were excessive and unreasonable orders against both Dundee and Stirling and it was proposed that they should be taken together. Under the chairmanship of our then colleague, Mr. Bob Cryer, the Committee considered the matter and, to use the rather quaint phraseology of the report, it concluded that taking the orders together was an "unexpected use" of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State under section 5. No further attempt was made and subsequent orders have been taken separately — as, for example, last year when, unfortunately, four local authorities attracted the adverse attention of the Secretary of State. Each was the subject of a separate debate.
      It is fundamentally important to the procedures of the House and the House's ability to scrutinise what the Executive is doing that the option of taking each order separately and voting on each separately should be preserved. I stress that this is an option, as I am not suggesting that we want to take the orders separately every year. We might, by agreement, take them together. That is a matter of common sense.
      There is no doubt that excessive and unreasonable expenditure orders are highly controversial. There is also no doubt that they raise the strongest possible feeling among local authority representatives in the area that is to be penalised. By definition, we do not get such an order until there has been a breakdown in negotiations and relations between the local authorities and St. Andrew's house. It is only then when, by definition, at least in the local authority's mind, there will be a strong case to put forward that a Minister will come to the House with an
      506
      order asking for the House's sanction to take the unusual and serious step of docking rate support grant during a financial year.
      In those circumstances, it is common courtesy—I put it no higher than that at the moment—that the local authority should have the opportunity to put its case and have it properly debated and examined in the House. That is implicit in the machinery of section 5 of the 1966 Act. The House will remember that it requires the Secretary of State to consult the local authority concerned and to consider its representations. When he brings his report to the Floor of the House, it is required by statute that he provides copies of those representations, because it is essential, since the Secretary of State's considerations seem to amount to a kangaroo court, that the court of appeal, which is the House of Commons, should be supplied with information about the case for the defence and have a proper, opportunity to consider it.
      It would make a farce of the statutory requirement to print such representations if we had just one debate on five or six cases and if all the problems that they represented were bundled together in one unsatisfactory and confused debate. We are right to protest about that. I know that the Minister will say that he is a nice chap who went to a good school and would not do anything so unreasonable. He has tried to shelter behind that argument at various stages of our discussions. I am grateful that we have recently had a good deal more than the minimum amount of time for such debates. If, unfortunately, we have to examine such orders, I hope that that type of agreement will continue. However, we are being invited to enable a Government, if they want to, to say, "You will get one and a half hours to debate all the authorities." When deciding whether to give a nod of approval to clause 2 or to accept amendment No. 2 which deletes it, we must consider whether it is right to open up that possibility. The Government are the masters of the management of the House, and if they have a statutory power to limit us to one and a half hours we cannot rule out the possibility of that being done. It is dangerous to open up that possibility. If the Minister's defence is that that will never happen, why do we need to put on the statute book a power that will allow it?
      It would be fundamentally wrong to have the possibility of just one order on which the House can debate, ventilate and examine the case of local authorities that are under threat and in open conflict with the Scottish Office. I am not raising a red herring or a transitory fear, because we know from the 28th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for 1980–81 that Scottish Office officials, in evidence to that Committee, made it clear that in 1980–81 it was being considered whether to put five or six local authorities in one order.
      If the Government were so unreasonable as to exercise their right to expect the House to debate the cases of five or six authorities in one and a half hours, the House could do nothing about it. That eloquently makes the case against opening up such a possibility. It would mean that local Members of Parliament would not get a hearing in the debate, as only two or three Back Benchers would be able to speak, even if right hon. and hon. Members were disciplined and brief. Many right hon. and hon. Members would then have to explain to their local authorities and constituents why they did not open their mouths. That would be extremely bad for the House.
      The Minister is furiously pulling faces at me. Does he deny that one of the points of clause 2 is to make it possible

      507
      for five or six orders to be taken together and, if the Government wish, for them all to be debated in one and a half hours? If that is what clause 2 allows, there is a strong prima facie case against it.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that clause 2 will do hon. Members out of a chance to speak about their local authorities. In so arguing, he seems to be suggesting that all local authorities are represented by exactly the same number of Members of Parliament. Last summer we had four authorities in orders before the House—Glasgow district council, which is represented by 11 Members of Parliament, Kirkcaldy, which is represented by two, and Stirling, which undoubtedly has one. In that context the hon. Gentleman's argument does not hold up, because Glasgow would be represented by 11 Members of Parliament speaking in one and a half hours and Stirling would be represented by only one Member of Parliament speaking in a debate of one and a half hours. The hon. Gentleman must see that a more extended debate of the type that we had in Committee is fairer.
      Mr. Dewar: Of course I agree with the Minister that a more extended debate is fairer and that if we agree on a full day's debate, that is more satisfactory. We object to putting on the statute book a power that will allow a future Secretary of State to say, "You will have one and a half hours for Glasgow, Kirkcaldy, Stirling, uncle Tom Cobleigh and all." I do not doubt that it will often be possible to get something more satisfactory, but why should we give the Secretary of State powers which might mean that we have no room for manoeuvre?
      The more important point is that if we have only one order we have only one vote. I find it difficult to know what to say about that; it is so monstrous. The point about excessive and unreasonable expenditure orders is that the Secretary of State carefully exercises his judgment in the special circumstances of each local authority and makes a decision about whether they have been irresponsible. That is a subjective judgment which comes to the House because it is important that final authority lies with us. Built into that, by definition, is the proposition that the House may decide that for local authority A the Secretary of State is justified but that for local authority B he is not. With separate orders we can sanction penalisation and the clawing back of rate support grant in one case and not in another.
      However, if we put clause 2 on the statute book, and if we are then faced with one order covering four or five local authorities, there is no way in which we can select those which we think deserve to be punished by the Secretary of State for their conduct and those which do not. We are left with a blanket situation which makes a mockery of any attempt at parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot be right, and I do not believe that the Under-Secretary, in his private moments, would for one moment pretend that it was. I do not understand why we are being faced with such a ludicrous proposition, which strikes at the whole ability of this House to do its duty and protect local authorities in Scotland. It is beyond my comprehension why we should be asked to do this.
      7.30 pm
      I have re-read during the course of the day the report of the Committee stage of the Bill. The Under-Secretary
      508
      made no attempt to produce a coherent intellectual defence of something which makes a farce of the already inadequate scrutiny which the House procedures allow on matters of this kind.
      There is no doubt at all that for many people these orders and the whole use of section 5 of the 1966 Act represent arbitrary authority. This is seen by many people as having constitutional significance and importance—as a shift in the balance of power between central Government and local government. There may be differing views about that, but certainly it is a matter of serious import which will have enormous implications for authorities when questions arise.
      In that situation, some of us might feel that even an order on which there will be whipping on a United Kingdom basis and something will be pushed through in a one-and-a-half hour debate is a very flimsy safeguard in terms of scrutiny by the legislature of the actions of the executive. But, if we are going to undermine what little there is by allowing one order and only one vote, with no differentiation, I believe that we shall do a disservice to the parliamentary system of which we are part, and certainly a disservice to our constituents. I therefore hope that he will think very hard about that.
      I do not need to tell the House that this is a clause which has attracted criticism from everyone, I think, except those on the Government Front Bench. I do not know of anyone outside the Conservative parliamentary group who has tried to support it. COSLA—I think very properly—has referred to the fact that it will lead to confused debates and detract from detailed consideration of the cases of individual local authorities. Glasgow district council, more trenchantly, and I think very fairly, said that it was making a mockery of parliamentary control.
      To be fair, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie)—he is not present at the moment but was here earlier in the debate—made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that he had grave reservations about what the Government were trying to do. He ended by saying, rather hopefully:
      "I genuinely hope that my right hon. Friend and other Ministers will consider that matter in Committee." [Official Report, 5 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 75.]
      They did, but of course to no avail, because the Government used their all-too-obedient majority on that Committee to force the matter through.
      Sadly, if this had been a debate in Scotland, totally divorced from the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of local government structure, without any other consideration, I believe that we would not have been faced with this clause. I very much fear that the reason we have it is that in England, where there is an enormous multiplicity of local auhorities, there would be a genuine procedural difficulty in having 70 or 80 orders placed before the House in one financial year. Therefore, for purposes of expediency, this clause was introduced into the English Rates Bill and, because it was there, the Scottish Office fell into line. Thus, we have been lumbered with something which I believe is damaging and dangerous, and totally unnecessary in the Scottish context.
      In practical terms, this is certainly not as important as the rate-capping or the rate fund contribution clause, but I cannot remember—I say this with consideration—any clause in my time in the House for which I have seen less of a case. I cannot for the life of me understand why we have it. It is so thoroughly bad that I hope that the

      509
      Minister, even at this late stage, will think again, stay his hand and promise to reconsider this matter. It is a discredit to the House of Commons. It makes us something of a laughing stock. It certainly means that those of us who have to stay on the Opposition Benches temporarily, or those who try to defend their local authorities or see that they get justice at some future date, are being placed at a hopeless disadvantage. Expediency is being allowed to overrule principle in a most fundamental and, in my view, repugnant way.
      Mr. Maxton: I must first apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for guffawing at one point during his speech. I think perhaps he did not understand why I did so. It was because he said that the conscience of Conservative Members had been pricked by this matter. I guffawed because, of course, I do not believe that any of them has a conscience.
      Mr. Buchan: None of them is here, anyway.
      Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden is right in a sense, however. There is some concern among certain hon. Gentlemen with some low political cunning, because they have worked out what the implications of a one and a half hour order with five or six local authorities in it could mean for them in terms of voting. As these local government measures start to bite on local authorities, as the Conservative members of local authorities make clear to their Members of Parliament their views on this legislation and the action that the Government are taking, and as, even more specifically, the electors of Conservative Members begin to make clear in local authority elections what they think of this legislation and this Conservative Government, hon. Gentlemen will possibly find themselves in a situation in which one of their local authorities is on the list—that in fact Bearsden and Milngavie or Strathkelvin or Eastwood is on the hit list.
      Mr. Buchan: My hon. Friend keeps referring to "hon. Gentlemen" when there is, in fact, only one hon. Gentleman present on the Government Benches. The entire Tory party, other than the paid Front Bench, has stayed away. I beg my hon. Friend to be accurate.
      Mr. Maxton: I like to talk about ghosts, or to ghosts. They are somewhere about, I presume.
      One of their local authorities—it could very well be the Stirling district council—might be on the hit list. Let us suppose that with all these Left-wing, Marxist local authorities there are five on a hit list, to be dealt with in a one and a half hour debate, with a vote at the end of it. We have Strathclyde, Glasgow district council, Dundee, Stirling and Bearsden and Milngavie. It is unlikely, but not impossible. After all, Bearsden and Milngavie has the second highest average domestic rate payment of any local authority in Scotland, one of the highest payments in terms of housing costs, so it is just possible that it will be on that list.
      If that happens, what will the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) do? First, he will have difficulty in getting into the debate, because all the Labour Members from Strathclyde, all the Members from the Glasgow district and the two Members from Dundee will want to get into the debate. The hon. Gentleman may have difficulty getting into the debate in the first place, but he and all his hon. Friends will find, at the end of the
      510
      debate, that they are asked to vote. They will want to vote against these Marxist, Left-wing district councils and regional councils, but they will also have to vote against the Tory district council of Bearsden and Milngavie.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: I hesitate to remind the hon. Gentleman—because I know that it will vex the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) — but when we had a chance to vote, on separate orders, the prospect of that 11.30 pm train seemed enough not to give some of us the chance of voting against the extravagance of some Left-wing councils. In practice, if such a debate were to occur on a Thursday evening, previous examples suggest that it certainly would not result in a vote.
      Mr. Maxton: I assume that the hon. Gentleman will now have to sit out the whole of my speech. After all, he will find it difficult to leave the Conservative Back Benches totally bare. However, if he listens a little longer, I shall come to that point. He and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden may well have to vote against their local and district authorities, and all the Conservative councillors will not be very happy about that. Therefore, there is a certain amount of low cunning in the provision. It is an attack on democracy. Indeed, the whole Bill is an attack on local democracy, and the clause takes it one stage further. It is an attack on the legislature's right to scrutinise Government action, and as such the Government are limiting democracy even more.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said that he could not understand the reason for the clause. Unfortunately, I can understand why such legislation is introduced, particularly in a Scottish Bill. The simple fact is that the House finds it extremely difficult to accommodate the Scots with separate legislation and orders. The Scots are given insufficient time for their legislation. Not enough Question Times are given to Scottish affairs and we are not given enough time to debate our issues.
      The Minister shakes his head, but the Scots have to ask questions covering 10 different subjects during Question Time, whereas our English colleagues have separate Question Times for separate subjects. The Report stage of the Bill is limited to one day, whereas the equivalent English legislation is given two days. Next week and the week after, three days, I understand, are to be given to the Report stage of the London Regional Transport Bill. That is an important Bill and it should be scrutinised properly, but to compare London Transport or one part of England with local government and the attack on democracy throughout Scotland is unfair.
      I gather that we are debating the Bill tonight rather than last night or the night before simply because the Secretary of State for the Environment wants to parade his ego on "Question Time" tonight. The debate is being held tonight only because he wants to appear on that programme. That is disgraceful. [Interruption.] One day perhaps I shall parade my ego on "Question Time", but that is another matter.
      I see that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden has entered the Chamber. If he is still in Parliament after the next bit of legislation, he will, I hope. represent one of the Glasgow seats once we have brought Beasden and Milngavie into Glasgow district.
      Mr. Home Robertson: He will not be in Parliament then.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Maxton: That is true.
      There is insufficient time for Scottish business. In addition, the time that we are given is resented by other hon. Members. We all know how our colleagues resent it when Scottish business is being considered. We get remarks about how it is the Scots again, and English Members ask why the House is not dealing with this or that rather than with the Scottish matters. If the Government believed in proper Scottish legislation, carried out close to the Scottish people, by the Scots and for the Scots, and in genuine democracy, they would satisfy the clear wish of the Scottish people to have an Assembly in Scotland. That Assembly would be elected by the Scottish people. There would be 140 Members representing Scottish constituencies and the true wishes of the people of Scotland, rather than, as under this Government, a small minority of them. The Assembly would represent the majority of Scottish people and it would pass legislation.
      I can see that you are beginning to get slightly nervous, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may be drifting a little wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Ancram: I should be very interested to know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that England should have nothing to do with Scotland and that Scotland should have nothing to do with England. He is wearing a badge in support of the GLC. What has that got to do with Scotland?
      Mr. Maxton: I am wearing the badge because the attack on the GLC is part of the attack on local democracy. While I am part of the United Kingdom Parliament, I shall defend local authorities from attack, wherever they may be.
      I know that to talk about an Assembly is to drift slightly away from the subject, but the point is that the Scots are given insufficient time and the House is not prepared to allow us time for proper scrutiny of Scottish matters. If that is the reason for the clause, both sides of the House should be considering how to ensure that there is proper time for such scrutiny. That can best be done by ensuring that there is an Assembly in Scotland that can properly scrutinise Scottish affairs.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: If there is such a chronic shortage of time when it comes to Scottish Members scrutinising such important legislation, why was only one Opposition Member present at the last sitting of the Committee and why was he left to carry out that scrutiny single handed?
      Mr. Maxton: I did not serve on that Committee, but I can understand why some of my hon. Friends who spent sitting after sitting being quite unable to get across the majority view of the Scottish people—because the rules of the House ensure that the minority party in Scotland has the majority in Committee—may have felt so frustrated that they decided not to attend. However, I do not think that that was the case. I think that some were ill, and some had other reasons for not being there. Nevertheless, I could understand it if they felt frustrated, because the majority party in Scotland is in a minority in Committee and thus is unable to carry out the wishes of the Scottish people.
      512
      If we had a Scottish Assembly there would be proper scrutiny of Scottish legislation and we would be able to enact the legislation that the majority of Scottish people want, instead of having to suffer the legislation that is enacted with an English majority against the wishes of the Scottish people as expressed at the last general election, and at the district and regional elections. At election after election, the Scottish people have rejected the Conservative party. The best way of ensuring that the Conservative party's wishes are not carried out is to have that Assembly. I shall vote with my right hon. and hon. Friends to remove this iniquitous clause from the Bill, as to do so is to take at least one step towards ensuring proper scrutiny of Scottish matters.
      Mr. MacKenzie: I have several worries about the clause, the first of which is due to the fact that I have a very old-fashioned view about Acts of Parliament. I was interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He said that at some stage in our deliberations tonight the Minister might say that he had no intention of using clause 2 in the way that some of us think he might do so. As I have said, I am a bit old-fashioned about Acts of Parliament. A provision should not be in a Bill unless the Minister intends to use it.
      I well remember that when the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) was Solicitor-General for Scotland he said at the Dispatch Box that he, as a Law Officer of the Crown, could promise us that the Government would never use a certain section in an Act. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who, like his hon. and learned Friend, is a legal practitioner, said that that was the worst comment that he had ever heard from a Minister, because the law is the law, and if it is not to be put into practice it should not be written into a statute. My main concern about this matter is that if this is not put into effect the whole practice of law-making is called into disrepute.
      Mr. Ancram: I might be able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman. The intention of the Government is to use the clause if the circumstances warrant it. As I said in Committee, and as I shall say again later, we shall use it where it is reasonable to to do in the light of the actions of various authorities. At this stage, not knowing whether there is to be selective action, what authorities there will be, and what the similarity will be, I cannot give an undertaking whether the clause will or will not be used in a particular area.
      Mr. MacKenzie: I am glad to hear the Minister being so forthcoming. When my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden made a similar point the Minister intervened, but he did not satisfy us. This is a matter of considerable concern to all of us. My main objection to the Bill is a purely practical one. We cannot have a proper discussion of local authority questions if part of the Bill is put in this way.
      Many of us feel that the Secretary of State has denied local authorities their rights. Rate capping is a denial of the rights of local authority representatives and the people whom they are privileged to represent. Members of Parliament will be denied their right to put forward, on behalf of their constituents and their local authorities, their particular point of view. I know that the Minister's hon. Friends from south of the border took some exception to

      513
      the measures that have been passed in the last few days, but knowing the record of Scottish Conservative Back Benchers I doubt whether any of them will say a word, or vote, against this measure.
      It is conceivable that the Minister will take exception to what is being done by the Glasgow district council, by Lanarkshire or by Stirling. Those areas account for about 20 Members of Parliament, and all of them, with the exception of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), are Labour Members of Parliament. We would have an hour and a half to debate the order. We would have to allow for the two Front Bench speakers, who, if they are kind to Back Benchers, will take up 20 minutes. That will leave 70 minutes, of which only 35 minutes will be for Opposition Back Benchers to put their case. Eleven hon. Members represent the Glasgow area, and if the right hon. Member for Hillhead or my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) or even I chose to exercise our rights as Privy Councillors and speak we might talk for quite some time. I hope that we should not do so, but there is that possibility.
      There is also the practical difficulty that the speakers would have to be called from alternative sides of the House. There is not a Conservative Member for Glasgow or Lanarkshire, and there is only one Conservative Member for Stirling. If we all wanted to say something, we should get only a minute and a half each. That, in purely practical terms, is one of the reasons why I object to the clause. As I said earlier, this is a House of Commons matter, and the House of Commons should express a view and uphold the traditional rights of its Members to put a point of view for their constituents. This cannot be done if the clause is allowed to remain in the Bill.
      Mr. Buchan: I do not normally talk on matters of rating, local government and housing, but the Report stage of this Bill gives us an opportunity to discuss such matters. The average lay Member, as opposed to the specialist in local government or housing, has the chance to give Parliament's view of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is right. This clause is a democratic monstrosity, and a disgrace to the party who brought it in, to the Conservative Members who have sat silent while the Government have introduced it for their convenience, and to the institution of Parliament that we serve.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) made a valid point about the sheer technical problem facing us. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about the lack of time for Scottish affairs. However, we do not need these technical arguments. This proposition in itself is a constitutional monstrosity. It is disgraceful that while in English and Welsh matters a number of Conservative Members have protested about recent Government action and the continual drift towards centralisation and extending Government power, no Scottish Conservative Member has complained about this Bill. In almost every action taken by the Government since they came into power five years ago, they — the Government that boasted about rolling back the powers of the state — have in every action, in all legislation, extended the powers of the state.
      We see that every day on our television screens with the practices of the protective arm of the state, and its
      514
      provocative attitude. We are seeing it here because this clause is a further attempt to buttress the malevolence of the Bill towards the freedom of local authorities in financial and other terms by limiting their opportunities to protest to the House of Commons. That is an exact parallel to what we see happening to the pickets on our television screens.
      What I am saying is true in any event. That is why the silence is so terrible. Whether the Labour or Conservative parties are in power, as a unitary state, if we do nor have the checks and balances that come from local government, we are heading towards a highly centralised authoritarian political structure. It becomes a matter not only for local democracy but for national democracy. We are above political arguments—they are not the important ones.
      If local authorities are treated in this way by a Government who limit their powers, they will expect us to advocate their position in the House of Commons. Even if there were only one Tory in Glasgow—which there is not—and a Labour Government were taking this action against Glasgow, I should expect that Tory to participate in putting up the case for that local authority. All of us know that our function is to be not only political animals but the last line of defence for our constituents and the areas that we represent.
      It is no use talking as the Minister did about the relative numbers of Members of Parliament who might be available — 20-odd for Strathclyde or whatever. The problem is that that local area may be left without representation because all authorities are put into the one portmanteau of an hour and a half.
      8 pm
      Whatever the political complexion of the hon. Member or the local authority, an authority can be left without representation, as happened recently when four authorities were considered by this holy court.
      We are talking about a matter of intense importance for local and national democracy. The issue involves the representative nature of our constituency and area structure. The clause cuts the power of the tongue. The terrible thing is that the clause is introduced so casually in a Bill dealing with rating and valuation. The Government have slipped in a major constitutional change which is central to local and national democracy and to parliamentary control.
      Never since 1812 and the time of Sidmouth and Castlereagh has such a succession of measures been introduced to whittle the power of the individual Member to represent the people and the power of bodies outwith the House to act as a balance and check upon central Government. Such power, when not written into legislation, can be seen in the Government's activities. It applies to the Government's behaviour towards trade unions and local authorities. Now it is true in their behaviour towards individual hon. Members.
      The measure is a monstrosity, conceived out of malice and put forward in a hidden silence. It has been smuggled into the Bill. It is shameful that only one hon. Member representing the Conservative party in Scotland is here even to listen to the argument. The hon. Member for Stirling has not yet dared to defend or, as he should, attack the proposition. I fear that the hon. Gentleman is here because he has no means of contacting his hon. Friends outside to ask them to come in and relieve him. That is a great shame. We feel sorry for him. He must remember

      515
      that his area, too, could be under attack. If his area were subsumed within a mass of orders to be taken in one and a half hours I hope that he would have the courage to say, "I cannot leave my area unrepresented. I must challenge the Government." Under the proposal he will not have the opportunity.
      We must remember what Pastor Niemoller said, that they
      "came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I was not a Communist. … Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist … Then they came for me … By that time there was no one to speak up for anyone."
      I say to the Government, please take care of what you are doing to the democracy of this country.
      Mr. Forsyth: I make a brief intervention to prove that the fish are biting after all. We have heard the most exaggerated argument conceivable. It is nonsense to suggest that if orders are made against Glasgow, Kirkcaldy, Stirling, Dundee or any of the other extreme councils under which we have to suffer, it would be necessary for every Scottish Member to participate in the debate to defend those authorities' interests.
      I remember that on a similar occasion the biggest difficulty for hon. Members on both sides was having to say something different in the time allocated. The arguments were the same. One advantage of restricting the time available and reducing the opportunities for hon. Members to jump up and repeat the same arguments is that the ratepayers might benefit, not only because the Secretary of State will be curtailing those authorities' expenditure, but because ratepayers will have to pay for the large delegations of councillors who sometimes swell the Strangers Gallery to watch hon. Members perform. We should not then have to watch hon. Members perform for the sake of such delegations.
      Mr. Maxton: That is a disgraceful attack upon local councillors who come here. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) reinforces my argument that local authorities cannot properly lobby their Members of Parliament because Parliament is too far from them. If we had an Assembly in Edinburgh, they would find it easier and cheaper to lobby us.
      Mr. Forsyth: I am always happy to see councillors in my constituency. It is odd that they find it necessary to come to London to consult me in the House when more time is available when I am in the constituency. I understand that in the case that I have in mind the councillors combined their visit with a meeting at county hall with the Labour group to discuss other matters. I have no doubt that they made suitable recompense to the ratepayers since they were making that journey for two purposes.
      The serious point is that every local authority in Scotland that has deliberately gone out of its way to try to frustrate the Government's economic policy and deliberately taken a path of extravagance and overspending has come up with the same arguments. They argue that financial cuts result in cuts in services. In all cases, including Stirling, we are still waiting for the cuts in services. Stirling had a surplus at the end of last year.
      The notion that 11 hon. Members should stand up to put the case for Glasgow is absurd. The argument is nothing
      516
      to do with constitution, but everything to do with putting on a show for the media and for Labour Members' friends who have come down for the show. The argument has little to do with Scottish ratepayers' interests.
      Mr. Craigen: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) was putting on a show before the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when he took up so much time moving amendments to the report on Scott Lithgow.
      Mr. Forsyth: The difference is that Select Committee proceedings are in private, so there is no question of putting on a show. Obviously some hon. Members feel that they are not bound by the privacy stricture.
      Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has done his duty as the only Government Back Bencher to support his Front Bench. Perhaps he will be made a Parliamentary Private Secretary if he continues in that fashion.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the powers sought by the Government will be used only against Left-wing councils. Anything can be sacrificed on the altar of expediency by this Government in defence of their economic policies. If a local authority stands in the way of the Government's economic policy it will be swept aside by any means. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State nods his head; we like to know how he feels about such matters.
      I warn the hon. Member for Stirling that, whether he likes it or not, his party will not always be in power. A Government of another political complexion may one day have the powers that will be put on the statute book if the Bill is passed. I too have my prejudices. I should love to have a go at some of the underspending authorities in Scotland which do not provide adequate services. By varying the legislation, we might be able to have a go at them. The hon. Member for Stirling should remember that it will not always be like that. The point of principle is that, if central Government and this House interfere in local affairs, local Members of Parliament should at least be able to say something about it.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman say which local authorities in Scotland are underspending and which he would like to have a go at?
      Mr. Home Robertson: The list is quite long. In fact, I reside in one such authority, and as my Member of Parliament is sitting beside me perhaps I can mention the Border regional council. I notice that my Member of Parliament — the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) — is indicating assent. Many more Scottish local authorities are not providing adequate services—Tayside, Grampian and so on.
      A genuinely important point of principle is involved. If Parliament is to be wheeled in by any Government to interfere in local affairs, surely in a parliamentary democracy such as Britain the Members of Parliament concerned should be able to have their say. Under the procedures in clause 2, I very much fear that it will be possible to override even that basic principle. The hon. Members concerned might lose the vote, but they would at least have had the opportunity of having their say.
      Much has been said about the constitutional significance of the Bill, but this debate goes to the practical heart of the matter. The principle is enshrined in clause 3, but clause 2 facilitates this oppressive measure being dragged through the House.

      517
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has already said, Scottish business receives pretty inadequate attention in the House because of the very nature of this House. That is not the fault of the House: it is the fault of the constitution. For example, a sparsely attended House of Commons is now dealing with extremely important constitutional legislation. Not many hon. Members are now present, but, hey presto, come the time to vote, many hon. Members from both sides will pour in. I freely admit that the votes will be whipped in, but as this is Scottish legislation the majority of hon. Members will not know very much about what they are voting for.
      About an hour ago we discussed rate capping. Only last night a number of Conservative Members saw fit to defy their Whips and vote against their own Government on the principle of rate capping. Earlier today I was a Teller in the Lobby and was able to see who was voting against one of our new clauses. The hon. Members for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) voted for rate capping in Scotland when yesterday they rebelled against their own Government.
      I do not necessarily blame those hon. Members—the system is wrong, rather than those hon. Members. As this does not affect their constituencies, why should they know what is going on? The system is fundamentally flawed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart also said, this legislation should be dealt with in a Scottish Assembly rather than in this House.
      8.15 pm
      Clause 2 compounds a basically bad state of affairs. By this clause the Government want us to make possible mass production of oppressive orders affecting Scottish local authorities. The clause will enable whole batches of Scottish local authorities to be clobbered in rapid order following a late-night debate lasting one and a half hours. It will be possible to gag the local Members of Parliament, yet there is a guaranteed right for hundreds of hon. Members from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to vote on purely local Scottish issues.
      This is a deplorable proposal. It is a graphic example of the centralisation that the Government keep foisting on Scotland and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom, in spite of the principles of decentralisation of local democracy about which Tories keep talking. This is also a deplorable example of the suppression of democracy in general, and local democracy in particular. It must be resisted.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I wish to make a brief intervention merely to put my position on the record and to make sure that everyone knows that I am here, especially as much of the debate is concerned with who is and who is not present.
      Mr. Foulkes: Can the hon. Gentleman advise me how my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) and I, without making speeches, can ensure that everyone knows that we have been here?
      Mr. Kirkwood: I am not quite sure how to handle that intervention. Both hon. Members are practised exponents of intervening and making their presence felt from sedentary positions. I look forward to their doing so in the next few moments.
      518
      I closely followed the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). We should concentrate on the constitutional issue. The hon. Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) deployed different arguments, and I agree with what they said. However, I do not think that this is the time or the place to deploy them fruitfully.
      From a House of Commons, rather than a party political, point of view, it is indefensible to lump these authorities together in a one a half hour debate to be followed by only one vote. All hon. Members should objectively take that view. I sometimes have difficulty in justifying the debates and votes that take place from time to time in the House. We often spend hours debating abstruse subjects which do not affect too many people. it is, therefore, difficult to justify spending one and a half hours on abstruse and arcane statutory instruments and secondary pieces of legislation, and then have to explain to our constituents why we did not have a chance to put on the record a view that needs to be expressed when discussing local government regulations.
      In essence, this measure has nothing to do with rating and valuation. The powers that the Secretary of State is taking could stand just as easily without clause 2. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that in future he must use these powers, he should take time to argue the case. Even if it takes four or five one and a half hour debates, it is only right and proper that he should exhaustively rehearse the arguments for taking and using these draconian powers.
      The procedure under clause 2 is not necessary for that to be done. It is gratuitous to the extent that it will inflame the situation and cause a needless raising of the temperature of the political debate north of the border. Some of these matters are contentious and difficult, and the situation will be made needlessly worse if things are lumped together for the sake of the parliamentary timetable.
      As a new Member, I am told that the only thing we need here is stamina—not intelligence or anything else. This is a new form of Government power.
      Incidentally, if I had drafted the amendment, I should have left in subsection (2). Those of us who study these issues into the late hours of the night find solace in the fact that sections 2 to 7 of the 1966 Act have been out in schedule 1 to the Bill. Any practising lawyer—I declare a bit of an interest; though only a wee bit—would say that there was some force in doing that.
      In my opinion, the clause will aggravate the situation. It is unnecessary and, from the point of view of the House of Commons, it is indefensible. I shall vote against it.
      Mr. Ancram: I listened carefully to the debate, and I was entertained by the histrionics of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) made a good point. In fact, had he not made it, I should have done so. He said that one reason for the Opposition's dislike of this provision is that they use such occasions to make a lot of heat and noise. As we know from experience of the Labour party, that is much more their way of opposition than constructive debate.
      I shall try to deal with the arguments that have been put forward. I do so from the starting point that the Government's intention in introducing the clause was, as

      519
      I said in Committee, to streamline the procedure. However, when I said that, I also said that it would be used only when it was reasonable so to do. That was what the White Paper said, and that remains the Government's position. I shall return to that matter.
      I listened to — and was puzzled by — the basic arguments that were put forward this evening. I was told by the hon. Member for Garscadden and others that it was all a question of time. They said that all these orders—they did not know how many, and all sorts of numbers were suggested—would go through at the dead of night in one and a half hours. The hon. Member for Garscadden was honest enough to admit that he knows from experience that more time has been given than that. Indeed, on rating matters, this Government have always tried to co-operate with the Opposition in considering Scottish rating business, and business to do with rate support grant, on the Floor of the House during the day. Our record is considerably better in that respect than that of Labour Governments.
      The hon. Gentleman said that one and a half hours was not enough because of the number of Members of Parliament who would wish to speak on behalf of their local authorities. I could understand the logic of that if he said that the present system — the system that has endured up to now — was wrong, because last year Stirling got one and a half hours with only one Member of Parliament, while Glasgow district got one and a half hours with 11 Members of Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman had said that we should therefore have a system in which Glasgow had 11 times as much time to debate the order——
      Mr. Buchan: That is nonsense.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Paisley, South said that these authorities had a right for their Members of Parliament to speak on their behalf in the House of Commons. He cannot have it both ways.
      Mr. Buchan: I am afraid that the Minister has completely misunderstood the point. The question is not whether every Member of Parliament for Scotland, or for the area involved, would necessarily choose to participate in the debate, but that the area under attack would be represented. By having that number, entire areas can go without being represented here. Certainly, many of them will have to go without proper representation. No one has said that they want to have 11 hon. Members speaking for Glasgow. We have all argued the necessity of that local authority having the opportunity at least to have an advocate in the House. If there is only one Member for Stirling for that area, so be it. He will have to make the case. We are not talking in political or personal terms. I hope the Minister will take on board what we are saying. We are talking about the institution of central Government as against the institution of local democracy. We say that this provision is eroding and crushing local democracy, more than the Government have done so far.
      Mr. Ancram: What the hon. Gentleman has just said does not detract from what I said, that he wished those authorities to be represented on the Floor of the House. He wanted their spokesmen to get up and speak for them. Their spokesmen can get up and speak for them in a debate where they are all taken in one order.
      Mr. Buchan: In an hour and a half.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman says an hour and a half. At least his hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden admitted that it is a matter for the House how long a debate on an order should take. There are ways of having a debate for considerably longer than one and a half hours, and obviously during that time there should be a chance for all the authorities — we never know how many are concerned—to be represented.
      Mr. Craigen: Can the Minister at this stage say whether there will be selective action in the current year? Normally it would arise at about the time of the district council elections in May. The hon. Gentleman might find it embarrassing if Edinburgh and Eastwood district councils were to rank alongside the others that might be selected for action.
      Mr. Ancram: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that the budgets of all the Scottish authorities have only just been made available to my Department, and we shall want to consider them carefully. We have never taken the view that we could take selective action lightly. We examine all the budgets carefully to ensure that cases on which we decide to take action—if we do so decide—merit such action.
      On the question of time, it is hard to argue on the basis of precedent that during a debate on an order of this nature there would not be enough time for the cases of the various authorities to be properly represented.
      Next, I come to the question of votes. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) surprised me when he said that the important thing was to let them have their say, and that it did not matter if one lost the vote.
      Mr. Home Robertson: No.
      Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, I think that he will find that that is what he said. The question of voting was tied to the line that the hon. Member for Garscadden took, that Parliament was a court of last resort—I think that that was the phrase he used —and that these authorities had the right to come to Parliament to have their cases heard. It was a form of appeal system against the decision that had been taken by the Administration.
      I do not accept that argument. The argument has two sides to it, and they do not fit. There is the argument that was used by a number of hon. Members—including, I think, the hon. Member for Garscadden — that the Government would push through these composite orders on their majority, without due consideration of the merits. If Parliament were to operate in that way—I do not say for a moment that Parliament would operate in that way —it could operate on a number of individual votes just as much as it could on one. If it did that, it would not be acting in the way the hon. Gentleman described, as a court of last resort.
      Mr. Dewar rose——
      Mr. Ancram: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish my argument. However, if Parliament were to discriminate, and if it found that the Secretary of State had come forward with a case of selective action which had no merits, on an individual case it would refuse to vote for the order, but equally, if it were in a composite order, the Government, by putting it into a composite order alongside other

      521
      stronger cases, would risk losing the lot. It was for that reason that I said in Committee that the Government would only use this power where it was reasonable to do so in the individual circumstances. The logic of that is that no Government could operate in any other way. This is not a mandatory provision but an enabling provision. The word is not "shall" but "may". Obviously any sensible Government would have to operate in the way that I have been explaining.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister not recognise that where three local authorities are dealt with on one order there is a real risk that a Government Back Bencher, although he may have considerable doubts whether authority A is being properly dealt with, if he feels that the Government are right about authorities B and C, rather than defeat the Government and lose all three, will trudge into the Lobby, whereas if there were a separate debate and vote on each there would be a much fairer chance of real justice for authority A.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to hon. Members in taking that line. If an hon. Member believes that an injustice is being done he will act accordingly.
      I must sum up my remarks by reiterating what I said in Committee. It is not necessarily the intention to put together all the authorities subject to selective action as a matter of course. That is why the legislation is enabling rather than mandatory. I went further when I told the hon. Gentleman that combined reports would be used only when it seemed reasonable in the light of individual cases. The purpose of this provision is to streamline.
      Labour Members said that local authorities had a right to be heard, and that is correct. I took over my present job after the election in June, and I spent the first part of my time in the job meeting a number of the councils against whom selective action was being taken. I listened to their representations, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In each case a reduction was made. That is a measure of the care and attention that we paid to the cases that were put forward. Therefore, it is not possible for Labour Members to say that local authorities will not be heard. If selective action is taken against local authorities they have a right to see the Minister to put their case.
      A lot of lather has been worked up during the course of the debate by Labour Members. This is a straightforward streamlining measure which will be used only when it is reasonable so to do, and for that reason I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Dewar: The Minister is being loyal but obtuse. I accept that he has a reasonable record in giving time on the Floor of the House for orders under section 5 of the 1966 Act and I am glad to acknowledge that. But what he is inviting us to do, as I said earlier, is to put on the statute book a power which would allow an unreasonable Minister to deal with four or five authorities together in an hour and a half and that is completely indefensible.
      I find almost laughable the argument that a Government Back Bencher, faced with four or five authorities in one order and having doubts about one, would vote against the Government and cost them the order. It does not work like that. The Minister invited us to look at the practicalities of the situation. If he considers them, he will see what a
      522
      ludicrous situation he is presupposing. It is as logical for me to say that we should not table any amendments to the Finance Bill, that we should not look at it clause by clause and amendment by amendment, because if there is one clause that we do not like the whole Budget can be brought down.
      As always when a vote is imminent, a number of hon. Members from the United Kingdom are gathering. They will probably troop into the Lobbies knowing nothing about what they are voting for. I make no attack on them for that because I have been in the same situation and I am honest enough to admit it. But if they knew just what nonsense they were being asked to endorse, some at least would hesitate.
      I raised this matter with the Leader of the House in an intervention during the debate on the guillotine motion. If I may say so, he looked somewhat taken aback and said in an offhand way that he was in favour of anything that shortened debates. That is the kangaroo court logic of clause 2. It is an insult to the House, which has the power to scrutinise, control and examine what the Executive are doing, to say that we shall do it all on the kind of telescoped time scale that is now theoretically possible. After all, in any negotiations the Minister will be in a position to bargain from great strength. If negotiations break down, he will give the legal minimum of one and a half hours for the lot. In that situation, Parliament will not be allowed the basic right to support the Government in penalising authority A but to withhold support for penalising authority B. People cannot be tried together and given a group verdict. Every one cannot be exonerated because a jury is unhappy about one individual. That is nonsense. That is a perfectly fair parallel to what the Government are inviting the House to do on this occasion.
      I have no doubt that we shall lose a few minutes in protesting against the clause, but this is a pretty shabby business. We are not getting into a lather or any hypocritical or synthetic party rage. We have a genuine concern about the way in which the procedures are being abused and the way in which the Minister, for no good reason at all except the vague slogan of streamlining procedures, is destroying the basic rights of Opposition Back Benchers.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 197.

      Division No. 214]

      [8.37 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Anderson, Donald

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Clarke, Thomas

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Clay, Robert

      Ashton, Joe

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Barnett, Guy

      Coleman, Donald

      Barron, Kevin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Bell, Stuart

      Corbett, Robin

      Benn, Tony

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Craigen, J. M.

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Crowther, Stan

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Deakins, Eric

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dewar, Donald

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

      Dobson, Frank

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

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Eadie, Alex

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Eastham, Ken

      Buchan, Norman

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Faulds, Andrew

      Canavan, Dennis

      Flannery, Martin

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      523

      Foster, Derek

      Meacher, Michael

      Foulkes, George

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Michie, William

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      George, Bruce

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Gould, Bryan

      Nellist, David

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      O'Brien, William

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Haynes, Frank

      Penhaligon, David

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Prescott, John

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Howells, Geraint

      Robertson, George

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Rowlands, Ted

      John, Brynmor

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Johnston, Russell

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

      Kennedy, Charles

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

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

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Snape, Peter

      Lambie, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Lamond, James

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Litherland, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      McCartney, Hugh

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Tinn, James

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Torney, Tom

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Wallace, James

      McKelvey, William

      Weetch, Ken

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      White, James

      McNamara, Kevin

      Winnick, David

      McTaggart, Robert

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McWilliam, John

      Madden, Max

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Mr. John Home-Robertson and Mr. James Hamilton.

      Martin, Michael

      Maxton, John

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Ancram, Michael

      Churchill, W. S.

      Arnold, Tom

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

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Conway, Derek

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Coombs, Simon

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cope, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Couchman, James

      Bendall, Vivian

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Crouch, David

      Best, Keith

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dover, Den

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Body, Richard

      Durant, Tony

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Evennett, David

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Fallon, Michael

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Favell, Anthony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Bright, Graham

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Brinton, Tim

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Franks, Cecil

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Burt, Alistair

      Freeman, Roger

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gale, Roger

      Carttiss, Michael

      Galley, Roy

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      524

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Parris, Matthew

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Pollock, Alexander

      Gregory, Conal

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

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

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Grist, Ian

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Ground, Patrick

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Grylls, Michael

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Ryder, Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hannam, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Harvey, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Shersby, Michael

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Sims, Roger

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hayes, J.

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hayward, Robert

      Speller, Tony

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Spencer, Derek

      Heddle, John

      Squire, Robin

      Henderson, Barry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hickmet, Richard

      Stanley, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Hind, Kenneth

      Stern, Michael

      Hirst, Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Stokes, John

      Holt, Richard

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hooson, Tom

      Sumberg, David

      Hordern, Peter

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tracey, Richard

      Jessel, Toby

      Trotter, Neville

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Waddington, David

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Walden, George

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Knowles, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Ward, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Watson, John

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Watts, John

      Lilley, Peter

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Wheeler, John

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Wilkinson, John

      Maclean, David John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Major, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Mather, Carol

      Wolfson, Mark

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Wood, Timothy

      Moore, John

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Murphy, Christopher

      Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

      Neubert, Michael

      Norris, Steven

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 3

      POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO CONTROL RATES
      Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 31, at end insert—
      '(9) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under this section if it appears that any local authority as a result of the order may fail to fulfil any of its statutory duties.'.

      525
      This part of the Bill deals with the rate-capping proposals, and the procedure under which the Secretary of State would have the power to lay an order before Parliament to seek approval on rate capping. In dealing with the amendment, I do not wish to go into any great detail about the financial implications.
      It is a pity that, in the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, much time was taken up with matters of finance, because the thinking behind the Bill stems from the doctrinaire monetarist theory of the Government, involving savage cuts in public expenditure and the mistaken belief that, if central Government are given more interventionist powers to control the expenditure of local government, that in itself is a good thing, irrespective of the fact that local government historically, and, indeed, in recent times, has a far better track record in meeting its expenditure targets and, to that extent, controlling its expenditure than central Government.
      The Government have not fully thought out the consequences in human terms of a cut in the essential services provided by local authorities. Many of those services are laid down in statute. There is an increasing trend—for worse, not better—of authorities being forced to reduce the standards of many of those essential services. I suspect that that trend spreads south of the border. There is a distinct danger that authorities might fail to meet the minimum statutory requirements. Amendment No. 17 would prohibit the Secretary of State from making an order if, as a result, local authorities that are victims of the order would find it impossible to meet their statutory duties.
      There is also a distinct danger that this one piece of legislation—if this rubbish Bill becomes an Act—could make it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to meet the requirements of other legislation. Surely that would bring our system of parliamentary democracy into disrepute. We place statutory duties on local authorities, but deprive them of sufficient funds to meet them. An example of that is the rate support grant. We then prohibit them from even raising the revenue to meet their duties.
      Earlier tonight there was an interesting debate on housing. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House—even if it is expressed only by Labour Members — are concerned that the standards of housing could drop because of the proposals for the capping of the rate fund contribution to the housing revenue account and the general rate-capping proposals. The proposals will have an adverse effect on the living standards of many council house tenants and their families. The average rents have more than doubled since this iniquitous Tory Government took up the reins of office in 1979.
      The Scottish Select Committee, among other bodies, has pointed to the deteriorating standards of dampness in many council houses. Legislation for rate capping and for limiting the amount that local authorities can take out of rates to put into the housing revenue account will make it increasingly difficult for them to deal with many of the housing problems. I do not wish to dwell too long on housing, as we debated it earlier.
      There is a statutory duty to provide adequate education services. I am sure that all hon. Members receive complaints from their constituents about the difficulties faced by many of our children in their schools. No doubt the Minister will tell us that expenditure per pupil is the highest that it has ever been. That is more a reflection of the drop in school population——
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: That is not true.
      Mr. Canavan: The Minister knows that it is true. Expenditure per pupil is now higher than ever because of the drop in school population rather than because of the Government's generosity.
      The Minister does not understand the economics of education. He imagines that if a school population decreases by 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., expenditure per pupil can be automatically reduced by the same amount. Education does not work that way.
      Mr. Forsyth: Does not the hon. Gentleman's argument imply that he is more concerned with preserving over-manning among teachers than looking after the interests of the pupils? With higher expenditure per pupil, it should be possible to provide a higher standard of education.
      Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman does not have any educational experience, other than the disadvantage of having attended St. Andrew's university.
      Mr. Forsyth: Withdraw.
      Mr. Canavan: I shall not withdraw. I urge the hon. Gentleman to visit schools in his constituency to look at the quality of education that can be achieved in smaller classes.
      A great deal of well-researched evidence shows that if class sizes are reduced that can lead to an improvement in educational standards. When I argue for a reduction in class sizes, I am not arguing for more jobs for teachers —I am arguing for increased educational standards leading to increased educational attainment for thousands of children in Scottish schools. Many children are herded into composite classes, not for any educational reasons—although there might be some in certain cases—but simply because the local authority cannot afford to meet the optimum class size. Children of different age groups are herded into composite classes, which leads to a lessening of educational opportunities.
      Recently, the Government have almost admitted that, because of the financial straitjacket, local authorities will find it increasingly difficult to meet their statutory obligations. In recent years there has been a weakening of statutory obligations—for example, in nursery provision —because of an Act passed during the last Parliament. It was to remove any doubt or ambiguity about a local authority's obligation to provide nursery education that. the Government made it clear in previous legislation that they would abolish that statutory duty. As a result. many schoolchildren are being deprived of the education which should be their birthright.
      The Under-Secretary of State is completely disinterested because he knows nothing about Scottish education. His sidekick, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education in Scotland, knows that I have made many representations on behalf of parents in the Bannock area of my constituency, who have been pressing the Central regional council for some time for nursery school provision. It is an area in which many young families require their children to receive nursery education. I am sure that the local authority would dearly love to provide nursery education tomorrow or next year, but it is not receiving the necessary funds from central Government. The difficulty is not confined to capital expenditure—for example, getting an allocation from

      527
      the Government to enable a building to be erected. In some areas, the capital allocation has already been made and the space is available.
      Mr. Ancram: What has this to do with the amendment?
      Mr. Canavan: I am talking to my amendment, which is directed to the difficulty of meeting statutory functions. I am providing an example of the way in which the Government are trying to reduce statutory obligations. The Minister is trying to do your job, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as his own. If he is as incompetent in chairmanship as he is in performing his ministerial functions, I hope that he never takes the Chair in this place.
      Mr. Kennedy: The problem that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted in the Central region is experienced in many other parts of Scotland. In the short time since the 1983 general election, I have discovered that the Plockton and Kyle of Lochalsh area in my constituency, which is in the Highland region, would dearly love to provide preschool and nursery education. It is prohibited from doing so, although the necessary buildings are available, because the finance is not available from central Government. If the authority provided that extra support from the community, it would be penalised by the rate-capping measures. This makes nonsense of the Government's claim that they are concerned about social welfare.
      Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If a local authority wants to raise more revenue from rates to provide nursery teachers for existing nursery school accommodation so that pre-school children can be educated, the Secretary of State can step in and say, "No, we are not having that. We are setting a limit on how much you can raise on revenue through the rates." As a result, there will be less education provision in many areas.
      It is interesting that many of us have received letters recently about the deplorable situation in the Western Isles, where there is a grave and imminent danger of the education authority failing to meet statutory standards of education. The proposed cuts in that area are the worst throughout the whole of Scotland. I do not point the finger entirely at the door of the Western Isles council. I point it also at the Minister, who through legislation such as the Bill is making it increasingly difficult for the Western Isles education authority, and for all education authorities in Scotland, to fulfil statutory functions.
      School transport provision, another statutory function, is also in danger. During the previous Parliament, there was a move by the Government completely to remove the duty on local education authorities to provide free school transport. Fortunately, the proposal was thrown out by those in another place. That goes to show that the Government are more reactionary even than the House of Lords. Many of those in another place come from rural areas and they were aware of the difficulties facing children in rural areas in getting to school unless the statutory provision was retained.
      The statutory duty to provide school transport has been kept, but I suspect that many local authorities, if the Bill is enacted and other expenditure cuts are pushed through by the Government, will find it increasingly difficult to meet the cost of providing free school transport. I am sorry
      528
      that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is not seeking to intervene. I believe that he was involved recently in pressing the Central regional council to increase expenditure on this transport. That is partly because the rural school in which he was interested was attended by his own children. It is interesting to note that even the most confirmed monetarist will at times call for more public expenditure in his own interests or those of his family.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: That story emanated from one of the Labour councillors on the Central regional council. Like so much of what is said about cuts and other matters in Central region, it was totally without foundation. As the hon. Gentleman should know, my children attend a private school and do not go to the school that he alleges. The hon. Gentleman missed the point completely.
      With regard to the lack of transport, I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks about Central regional council's policy on rural transport, which I support, of encouraging parents to band together and organise their own transport.
      Mr. Canavan: I chose my words carefully. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see that I referred to the school that was "attended"—I used the past tense—by his children. I understood that the hon. Gentleman had moved his children to a private, fee-paying school because of the inadequate school transport provisions. The fact remains that he made representations to Central regional council to improve the school transport provisions for children attending the rural school. That goes to show that even lovers of the Adam Smith institute and the economic doctrines that he espouses sometimes have to call for more public expenditure, if not for their families then for constituents who happen to live in rural areas and whose children need to get to school.
      I support the hon. Gentleman in his representations and I am sorry that his children have the disadvantage of going to one of the worst schools in Central region. It is one of the few fee-paying schools left there. Its educational standards are abysmal compared with the very good standards of the local education authority's school where his children used to go. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not seek my advice on that matter earlier.
      I turn to another statutory function—social work—that is undertaken by Central regional council, indeed by all regional councils in Scotland and by the islands councils. Many social work authorities find it increasingly difficult to fulfil their duties under existing statutes. I know that many local councillors have been so constrained by Government policy and the financial straitjacket in which they find themselves that they have reluctantly had to reduce certain services.
      For example, the number of home helps has been reduced in many areas and wardens for old folks' sheltered housing are being phased out. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) piloted the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill through the House when he was shadow Minister for the disabled. Under that legislation, local authorities have a duty to compile a fairly detailed register of all those who require assistance and those who, for example, suffer from disabilities and may require special services under that or other legislation. To this day, many authorities have not been able to find the time or, more

      529
      importantly, the resources to compile such a comprehensive register, so technically they are failing in their statutory duties because of the failure of central Government to provide adequate resources.
      Many extra duties have been put on the backs of local authorities over the years. The Goverment have imposed extra duties on them in relation to civil defence. To my mind, that is a complete waste of public money. Instead of handing out peanuts in support of so-called civil defence, the surest form of self-defence, saving billions of pounds, would be to cancel Trident and tell Reagan to take his cruise missiles home. The country would then be a much safer place to live in, without all the extra impositions on local authorities for civil defence. Most of the expenditure is supposed to be met by central Government, but some must be met by local authorities and they will find it increasingly difficult to do so.
      Clause 4 also puts an extra statutory duty on local authorities to consult non-domestic ratepayers. That might involve considerable extra expense, especially in rural areas. Members and officers of Strathclyde regional health authority, for example, may have to go to Oban and south Ayrshire to meet the local chambers of commerce as well as to the Isle of Mull to meet interested non-domestic ratepayers there. That statutory duty may involve thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of pounds in travel expenses alone, quite apart from subsistence costs if councillors and officials have to overnight in Tobermory because they cannot get back to their beds in Glasgow. The Secretary of State has not thought this through. If a local authority feels that it needs to raise extra revenue but the Secretary of State says that it must not increase the rates, the authority will find it difficult if not impossible to fulfil all those statutory duties.
      Quite apart from examples of trivial or secondary importance such as civil defence and consultation with non-domestic ratepayers, the essence of local government is in the quality of service that it provides for human beings. A great deal of the discussion on the Bill, however, has been about finance and economics and the general thinking behind it stems from the Government's macroeconomic theory of doctrinaire monetarism or whatever one cares to call it. As I said at the outset, we should be considering the consequences of this measure in terms of the essential services required to improve the quality of life of the people whom councillors are elected to represent. I refer to the right of children and indeed people of all ages to a decent standard of education. There are the social service needs of the elderly, the sick and the disabled — some of the most deserving members of society.
      Ministers have constantly talked about the need to control expenditure, but what about the quality of life of the human beings involved? We should put people first. If we do that, I believe that there will be support for my amendment.
      Mr. Michael Forsyth: I intervene briefly, if only to point out that the amendment appears to be defective in that we are asked to take into account the fact that an authority might not be able to fulfil its statutory obligations. How on earth can one assess that? Stirling has always claimed that services will suffer as a result of selective action, but whenever such action has been taken and the ratepayers have benefited from a rebate there have been no cuts in services. On the contrary, the services
      530
      about which the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) claims to be concerned have actually been improved. He dealt with the range of services at some length, but in housing, for example, considerable savings have beeen made in management and maintenance and the service has been improved by bringing in computers, and so on. In every area of activity economies have been found. When the money supply is turned off it concentrates the mind of the council concerned and the standard of services is improved.
      Although the Stirling authority has been subject to selective action, it is staging a jamboree on 16 April, in the middle of the election campaign, at a cost of £35,000 to ratepayers. Invitations have been sent to people all over Scotland on pieces of parchment sent in cardboard tubes at vast expense. Yet Opposition Members tell us to sympathise with such local authorities. There is no danger to education, social services, housing, or any of the areas which worry Tory Members, by exercising financial restraint. Ideological activities, which many authorities have embarked on, will be the only casualties.
      9.15 pm
      We are led to believe that action against local authorities must mean action against the most vulnerable in society. Authorities such as the Stirling authority still find money to fund the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, advertise in Labour party publications, provide support and resources for towns in Nicaragua, and be involved in many activities which have nothing to do with their statutory duties.
      The amendment is, once again, an attempt to divert attention from the real issue which dominates the Bill, which is to get value for money for ratepayers and better services by finding better means of provision.
      Mr. Michael J. Martin: I support the amendment, and shall use it to highlight the problems experienced by some sections of the community.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) mentioned the statutory rights of local authorities. They have a statutory obligation to raise rates both from football grounds and race courses. No doubt the Minister has received a great deal of correspondence from race course owners and football associations.
      Race courses in England pay a quarter in rates of what their counterparts in Scotland pay. [Interruption.] The Minister should not interrupt me. He is not the custodian of the rules of the House, but is here to listen to hon. Members. It is not his place to tell hon. Members whether they are speaking to the correct amendment. I wanted to put a matter on the record and would be happy to have the Minister's comment about it. The more he interrupts me the longer I shall take to make my point. I hoped to make a brief intervention, but he is making the usual mess of proceedings.
      I am worried that the Ayr race course pays five times more in rates than the Newbury race course, and that Scottish football grounds pay three times more than English ones.
      The Government have caused a great deal of unemployment in Scotland. It is deplorable. In some parts of my constituency, unemployment is as high as 50 per cent. because of the failure of the Government Front Bench, who have the cheek to call themselves Ministers. The only break for many of my constituents is to go to a football match and enjoy themselves. The pressures that

      531
      the Government are putting on football associations make it increasingly difficult for football clubs to maintain their premises. Conservative Members often tell us that business men have been hit by high rates. Why does the Minister therefore not do something about the problems of the rating system for football clubs in Scotland which have been brought to his notice? If he spoke up for football associations, unemployed people would be able to watch the national sport more cheaply. I am glad that I have woken the Minister up as he was looking a little cheesed off earlier. For the sake of the sporting fraternity in Scotland, I hope that he will do something.
      Mr. Ancram: I listened with great care and attention to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I suspect that he decided to speak now because he wants to go and have a meal or something. If he wants an answer, I hope that he will wait until we consider the clause that concerns the rating of football grounds. It would be wrong for me to comment on such rating on amendment No. 17.
      Amendment No. 17 suggests to me a misunderstanding of the working of clause 3 and of the way in which my right hon. Friend intends to apply it. In arriving at the rate support grant settlement each year, the Secretary of State is bound by section 2 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 to take into consideration, among other things,
      "any probable fluctuation in the demand for services giving rise to reckonable expenditure so far as the fluctuation is attributable to circumstances prevailing in Scotland as a whole which are not under the control of local authorities".
      I am sure that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) appreciates that those words mean the statutory duties to which he referred. Therefore, the Secretary of State must have regard to those factors at an early stage when rate support grant is being calculated. What might follow—I say "might" as clause 3 is an enabling and not a mandatory clause—will depend to a large extent on the Secretary of State's overall view of local authority expenditure. Part of that will be the same assessment as he made when arriving at the rate support grant.
      The factors that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is worried about will have been in my right hon. Friend's mind before he considers whether the powers given by clause 3 should be used. I took great pains in Committee to point out that we are discussing a reserve power which will be used only if local authorities fail to bring their expenditure into line with the Government's plans and impose unreasonable rate increases. No Government, let alone the present one, will set a rate limit that makes it impossible for local authorities to carry out their statutory functions. Such action would be in nobody's interests, and it cannot realistically be suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
      There might be exceptional factors outside their control which could cause some authorities difficulties. Clause 2 makes provision to meet that. The new section, 108C, which clause 3 introduces enables the Secretary of State to direct that the general rate limit shall not apply to any given authority. It will be open to any authority that is faced, for example, with unusual expenditure or a sudden drop in rate resources to apply for such a derogation which would receive careful consideration.
      I hope that I have reassured the House that the general considerations will have been taken account of in arriving at the rate support grant settlement and that if there are
      532
      individual cases in which authorities, for exceptional reasons, find themselves in difficulties, and particularly if they affect their statutory responsibilities, there is a power within this Bill for them to apply to the Secretary of State for a derogation.
      I therefore think that the provision and the security which the hon. Member is seeking are already in the clause and I hope that on that basis he will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Kennedy: I make the point, in supporting the amendment, that despite the assurance just given by the Minster from the Dispatch Box, he received pressure from various Highland Members—me, my hon. Friends the Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) and Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—at the new year about roads provision in the area of the Highland regional council. He must be aware that already that regional authority is unable to provide adequately for its statutory obligation in terms of roads provision.
      The reality of this is brought home particularly by the fact that, as was pointed out to us at a meeting which the three of us attended with the Highland regional council, 10 years ago the local authority before local government reorganisation spent in real terms half what the entire Highland regional council now spends on its roadways. Under the former local authority, the part they were talking about was for 400 miles of roadway in the island of Skye. Now, 10 years later, the Highland region has control of 4,000 miles of roadway throughout the Highland regional area. In real terms the expenditure is only double for 10 times as much roadway. That brings home very clearly that the amount of cash available to them, or certainly the amount of money that they feel able to spend, is quite insufficient.
      Therefore, as roads are such a crucial statutory function in the Highlands, I think that the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is important and should be supported. The assurance that we have had from the Minister is inadequate. I hope, therefore, that the House will give its full support to the amendment, which would certainly be warmly received in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends in the Highland region.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: This has been an interesting debate, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you have observed that the law-abiding Members on this side of the House have been attempting to advance a rather obvious case for keeping the law in local government as well as in Parliament. It was appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), a highly responsible and respected Member of the House, as you know, Mr. Speaker, should have been arguing for the right of local authorities to act in accordance with the statutes imposed upon them by this House.
      My hon. Friend was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), who ought not to be too perplexed because the Minister apparently did not understand his argument. I spent the entire time in the Committee getting a similar response from the Minister, because, although on those occasions he actually listened to the speeches, I found that he responded in the same perplexed way when I spoke.
      I did not, until tonight, understand the reason, but now I should like to assert publicly what I understand that

      533
      reason to be. Clearly, my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn pitched his argument on far too high an intellectual level for the Minister to comprehend. I now understand the difficulties which I encountered.
      My hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and — I should not forget — Skye (Mr. Kennedy), as that is an important part of the Highlands, referred to particular functions of local authorities. All of them are important. There was an exchange between hon. Members on the subject of education. When the Bill is enacted I shall be worried, because the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst)——
      It being half-past Nine o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [5 March] and the resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. Speaker: I am now required to put the Questions on any amendments up to the end of clause 8 moved by a member of the Government. I refer to amendments Nos. 3 to 7 inclusive. Does any hon. Member wish to divide against any of those amendments?

    Clause 5

      PREMISES QUALIFYING FOR RATES RELIEF FOR INSTITUTIONS FOR THE DISABLED
      Amendmen ts made: No. 3, in page 4, leave out lines 35 to 39 and insert
      'of so much of any building or, where there are more than one, those buildings as is comprehended in the lands and heritages'.
      No. 4, in page 5, line 36 after 'appeals)' insert `(a)'.
      No. 5, in page 5 leave out from beginning of line 40 to 'may' in line 41 and insert 'amount of rebate'.
      No. 6, in page 5, line 43 leave out 'those matters' and insert
      'the matters mentioned in subsection (5) of that section'.
      No. 7, in page 5, line 44 at end insert
      ; and

      (b) in subsection (6) after the word "(5)" there shall be inserted the words "or (5A)".'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

    Clause 15

      COMPARISON WITH HEREDITAMENTS IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 10, leave out from beginning of line 38 to end of line 6 on page 11 and insert—
      '(1A) It shall be competent to found, by way of comparison, on hereditaments in England and Wales comparable to those which are the subject of the proceedings to enable the committee or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, to draw conclusions as to the rent at which the lands and heritages which are the subject of the proceedings might reasonably be expected to let from year to year in the circumstances mentioned in section 6(2) or, as the case may be, 6(8) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 (ascertainment of gross and net annual values by reference to expected rent.)'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in page 10, line 39, leave out 'only'.
      No. 22, in page 10, line 39, leave out from 'Wales' to end of line 30.
      No. 9, in page 11, line 6, at end insert
      534
      'or if it is, in the opinion of the committee or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, equitable so to do'.
      Mr. Canavan: The aim of the amendment is to widen the opportunity for comparison between properties in Scotland and those in England and Wales for the purposes of valuation without—as the Bill presently proposes—the need to prove that there is insufficient evidence on Scotland for comparability. Before the Bill was published the Government issued a White Paper in which they referred to complaints that they received from many interested bodies, particularly sporting organisations in Scotland, and to anomalies between valuation in Scotland and that south of the border. The net effect is that many sporting organisations face a much heftier rates bill in Scotland on their properties than similar organisations and properties south of the border.
      The Government's White Paper clearly gave the impression that their aim was to eradicate that anomaly. They made specific reference to the effect that it would have on sport. Unfortunately, they produced clause 15. It does not do anything like meet the good intentions expressed in that White Paper. It would appear that the Government have deceived many people in Scottish sporting circles. They built up false expectations and many people thought that they were obtaining a concession from the Government which would enable them, when making representations to the appropriate committee or tribunal, to make comparisons with similar properties south of the border.
      It now appears that in most cases they will have no such opportunity, because the committee or tribunal can turn round and tell the person or organisation making the representations that it is sorry but that there are enough football stadiums, indoor bowling rinks and race tracks in Scotland for adequate comparisons to be drawn on a Scottish basis without going south of the border. I see that the Minister wants to intervene, and I shall give way to him, but I hope that he will do me a favour and give us the assurance that he failed to give in Committee—that clause 15 will definitely have a beneficial effect on sporting organisations in Scotland.
      Mr. Ancram: I shall make my own speech in my own time. The hon. Gentleman has been making assertions about football grounds and race courses. As he knows, I made it clear in Committee that where there was adequate rental evidence available in Scotland the powers of clause 15 would not be available. Where there was not adequate rental evidence, the person who felt aggrieved would be able to use the provisions of clause 15. I do not know of any football grounds or race courses that are let. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some examples, as he is making such statements. If he cannot give us examples of adequate rental evidence, he cannot claim that the clause will not work for those people.
      Mr. Canavan: In the first part of what he said the Minister merely repeated what I said, that if the committee or tribunal considers that there is adequate evidence in Scotland it will deem it to be irrelevant, whatever evidence is produced from south of the border.
      Mr. Ancram: Rental evidence.
      Mr. Canavan: I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will give a categorical assurance to all sporting organisations that have made representations on

      535
      this matter. If no stadiums, race courses or indoor bowling rinks are rented out, an assessor could take a notional rental figure out of his head and say that if they were put out for rental the management could get so much for rent, and use that figure to assess the rateable value of the property. The Minister is shaking his head, and I look forward to hearing his reply. There was a great deal of confusion in his skull in Committee, and that caused a great deal of disappointment to many sporting organisations and individuals in Scotland, who felt let down by clause 15.
      If the Minister means that if there are no football stadiums or few sporting properties that are rented out in Scotland, that will automatically mean that the person making representations to the tribunal or the committee will be able to call in evidence rentals from south of the border for similar properties, I should welcome a categorical statement to that effect.
      Mr. Ancram: That is what I said in Committee, and I shall say it again now. What is more, if there is no rental evidence available in England, the applicant will be entitled to look at the net annual value in the register in England and treat that as rental evidence, so this is even stronger than the reassurance for which the hon. Gentleman asked.
      Mr. Canavan: In other words, it will be possible for a football club or an indoor bowling club or whatever to make these representations. The Minister did not go as far as saying that in Committee. He was hesitant when we asked him explicitly whether the clause would be of benefit to sporting organisations or whether it would simply be left to the discretion of the committee or the tribunal. Neither the Minister nor any hon. Members will be sitting on the tribunal or committee, but we are charged with passing this legislation. My amendment is much tougher than the Bills. It will improve the opportunities for all organisations, not just sporting organisations, to make comparisons with the situation south of the border.
      I shall refresh the Minister's memory and that of other hon. Members on some of the anomalies. I notice an hon. Member from south of the border, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). In December, just before the Bill received its Second Reading, I had a letter from the president of the Falkirk indoor bowling club, enclosing some statistics given to him by the Scottish Indoor Bowling Association, which said:
      "To make the simple comparison, the rateable value of Auchinleck Indoor Bowling Club is £19,747, as against similar clubs in the north-east of England which have rateable values as follows: Hartlepool, £4,513, Teesside, £5,735, Darlington £4,972."
      The rateable value of Auchinleck indoor bowling club with premises similar to those of comparable English clubs is three or four times greater.
      Complaints are not confined to the sporting world. I have received complaints from the Central Region Licensed Trade Association. Mr. Prentice, the secretary, has told hon. Members that the rates of licensed premises in Scotland are out of all proportion to what hoteliers and publicans in England have to pay. Everyone knows the difficulties that the tourist trade in Scotland is experiencing because of the Government's failed economic policies. Any stimulus would be welcome.
      536
      One of the most glaring anomalies concerns football stadiums. Glasgow has at least three large football stadiums. Ibrox park has a rateable value of £82,500, Celtic park has a rateable value of £64,800, and Hampden park one of £55,000. I do not compare Scottish grounds with Wembley stadium, because I am sure that people south of the border regard Glasgow as part of the provinces, like Manchester.
      The rateable value of Manchester United's ground is £37,000. Everton's rateable value is £30,250. Leeds United has a rateable value of £28,650 and Anfield, Liverpool one of £27,000. In London, Arsenal's rateable value is £30,500. Rateable values of stadiums in Glasgow are double those of similar premises south of the border, and sometimes even three times greater.
      Football clubs are suffering from the economic recession. If we could eradicate the anomaly, football clubs would be helped, as would indoor bowling clubs. Other hon. Members have race courses and other sporting facilites in their constituencies and will cite examples of anomalies.
      The anomalies are not confined to sport. Anomalies between Scotland and England exist in relation to housing, office premises, shops and other commercial premises. Two or three years ago the Government tackled the anomaly in the rating of external industrial plant and machinery. I did not agree with what they did, but they claimed that Scottish industry was at a disadvantage and removed the anomaly by derating external plant and machinery in Scotland. Several Scottish local authorities, including Central regional council, were disadvantaged because they were deprived of revenue. The industrialists who benefited mainly were the big multinational companies such as BP and ICI.
      In this case, many small businesses are involved. Many small and medium-sized enterprises and sporting organisations are finding it difficult to make ends meet. If amendment No. 23 were accepted and this anomaly were eradicted, not just big business interests would be helped; it would be of considerable benefit to Scottish ratepayers in general.
      9.45 pm
      Many people in Scotland feel let down by clause 15 as it stands. The Minister shakes his head, but he cannot but admit that my amendment is superior to the clause as drafted. It would enhance the opportunity to make comparisons with what happens south of the border. If, in turn, that helps to eradicate the unfair anomalies that exist between Scotland and south of the border, that would be of great benefit, particularly to Scottish sport.
      The hon. Member for Dumfries, (Sir H. Monro) spoke out vociferously, courageously and eloquently in Committee. He was so persuasive that he even managed to get Opposition Members to support him. Unfortunately, his gifts of persuasion were lost on some of his own colleagues, most of whom are not present tonight. They have no interest in sport, whereas the hon. Member for Dumfries obviously has.
      The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) hardly opened his cheeper during the entire Committee stage. His sole contribution was to leak a gossipy piece to The Sunday Times in an attempt to discredit me. In fact, I had been up all night constructively fighting against the Bill and was trying to improve it, yet the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was on the verge of breaching

      537
      parliamentary privilege by giving snippets of gossip to The Sunday Times. Fortunately, the newspaper checked the story with me and got the true version from Hansard. Many of us had been up throughout the night when, for much of the time, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South had been lying outside on a bench paralytic and horizontal.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that paralytic is a medical term and that it has nothing to do with drink.
      Mr. Canavan: I obviously meant it as a medical term, Mr. Speaker. In addition, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) had a go at me in my absence when I was addressing a miners' meeting in Stirling in an attempt to save Polmaise colliery. As a result, I was unable to be here for the guillotine debate. The hon. Gentleman said that my contributions during one of the all-night sessions had not been completely rational. I stand by what is in black and white in Hansard, rather than on any distorted version by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden. He, too, was unconscious for at least part of that all-night sitting, or if he was not unconcious he was only semi-compos mentis.
      Unfortunately, we cannot on this occasion go through the night, because of the guillotine, but I hope that we can end with some constructive unity, with the hon. Member for Dumfries and I fighting for Scottish sport and supporting my amendment.
      Sir Hector Monro: I shall make only a brief intervention, because time is not on our side. I want to go over one or two points that we dealt with in Committee, but which are still important.
      There is no doubt at all, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) implied, that there were great expectations from the White Paper that clause 13 — or, as it now is, clause 15 — would improve the position of Scottish race courses, major stadiums and other subjects that are important in Scotland, which were accepted by the White Paper as paying significantly higher rates than the equivalent in England and Wales.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, West gave many comparisons from the Standing Committee, and I shall not go over the differences between race courses and football grounds in Scotland, but, broadly speaking, their assessment is three times higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. The Minister took immense pains, over several Committee sittings, to explain that clause 13 would, in fact, do what the Government intended, and that was to allow the sports bodies or race courses or other subjects to use the rental evidence as a comparison between England and Scotland. His firm words tonight have been of immense help to me in assessing the value of clause 15. I hope that when he winds up shortly he will tell us again, in his own strikingly clear words, what clause 15 will do to implement the White Paper, because, despite our prolonged discussions in Committee, the race courses, major football stadiums and many of the voluntary sports clubs still do not think that the clause will do what the Government wish it to do. Since the completion of the Committee stage, I have received letters showing that they are still concerned and do not understand how clause 15 will work in their favour. All I want my hon. Friend to do tonight is to spell out the matter for the last time so that there is no doubt about it.
      My hon. Friend explained in Committee that the revenue principle in England would be converted into
      538
      rental evidence to be set against the contractors principle in Scotland, again as rental evidence. Frankly, relatively few subjects will have rental evidence to provide. Many of the grounds are owner-occupied, the race courses are owner-occupied, and many of the sports grounds either pay a nominal rent or, again, are owner-occupied. So I hope that the rental evidence will be so sparse that we will be able to use the comparators with England, where the assessments are much lower.
      I hope, therefore, that the Minister will spell the matter out once more, so that there is not a shadow of doubt that the White Paper will be implemented through using the comparators of England and Wales.
      Mr. Dewar: This area of law is one of considerable complexity, in which few of us have any personal expertise. Certainly I do not pretend to have any such expertise. I enjoyed some of the discussions and arguments in Committee, and I felt towards the end that I had an inkling of the bones of the valuation system—or, rather, a better inkling than I had at the start.
      This is an obscure matter, and I entirely take the point that was made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that there is still a great deal of anxiety among a number of sporting interests, in particular—although, of course, it goes much wider than that—who feel that their rateable values put them at a distinct disadvantage as compared with comparable units south of the border. Despite what the Minister has said so far, and despite what he may say in the remainder of this debate, I suspect that those doubts will continue until we see what effect the proposals have in reality, when the Bill is enacted, on the financial burden which is such a disadvantage to race courses, football grounds, indoor bowling clubs and all the other people who have anxiously and understandably lobbied us on this matter.
      I have tabled several amendments, and amendments Nos. 8 and 9 in my name strike at the same end as amendment No. 23 which my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has propounded. The idea was to try to close the gap between the statement in the original White Paper, which gave the impression that there would be an unqualified right of comparison with hereditaments in England and Wales in Scottish valuation cases, and the heavily qualified right of comparison which emerged in clause 15 where there has to be an inadequacy of rental evidence in Scotland before the comparison can be introduced. That real gap is the basic cause of anxiety. It was to strike at that that the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend have been tabled.
      As I understand the Minister's case—I hope that I am not crudely over-simplifying or misunderstanding it —in at least a number of areas of tension, particularly race courses and football grounds, there is an inadequacy of rental evidence and that is why the contractor's principle is used in order to fix the rateable value. In that situation the criteria in clause 15 would be met and we are nearly in the position — so nearly as to make no difference—where if the contractor's principle has to be used in Scotland because of the paucity of rental evidence it will fall within the qualification of clause 15 and the comparison with England and Wales will be in order. Therefore, the Minister is reasonably confident that those areas where the contractor's principle has led to the anomalies and financial differences will benefit from the comparisons. I do not wish to push the Minister into

      539
      absolutes because I realise that he will not carry out the law. That is a matter for the assessor, the lands tribunal and the local valuation committee.
      What the comparisons will mean—I made this point in Committee and I make it again — is a matter for speculation because the large gap at the moment in rateable values between England and Scotland at least partially reflects the fact that there has not been a revaluation in England since 1973 whereas Scotland has kept largely to the quinquennial revaluation cycle until the recent hiccup because of the Government's abortive pledge for domestic rating reform. Once that revaluation takes place in England, or once there is an upgrading when the comparison is made, as must be done under clause 15, the dramatic differential, which is the foundation of many of the hopes of people looking at the comparison north and south of the border may be seriously eroded.
      As I understand it, the basic hope is that where the contractor's principle has led to anomalies it will go and we shall be able to import under the amendment to section 15 of the 1963 Act the kind of comparison evidence, not only of rents but also of valuations which the football grounds, race course owners and other various interests feel will be of help.
      If I have fairly stated that—I hope that I have—it may be that we shall see some help with the particular anomalies in the Bill. I hope that I have because it is on that basis I am prepared to look reasonably sympathetically at the position. May I say in passing that I do not think that one could possibly support amendment No. 14 at this stage? I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Dumfries will push it at this stage. To move on a one-off base for race courses to the revenue principle would be an anomaly that would create great difficulties. I do not think that the hon. Member would seriously wish to push that suggestion.
      10 pm
      If the Minister can say that I have rightly understood the case he is putting, and that he shares my hopes, and is reasonably confident, I would not press the matter to a Division at this stage. However, I want another assurance from the Minister, and I am sure that he will be prepared to give it. First, I hope that he will be prepared to look at further representations, or to hold discussions with interested parties during the remaining stages of the Bill when it goes through the House of Lords, if there are worries that he is over-confident in his expectations. Secondly, if it turns out, despite the hopes, that the anomalies remain as apparent as they now are, and that the difficulties are as serious as they clearly are at present, despite the effect of clause 15, I hope that he will give an assurance that he will be prepared to reconsider the situation at some future date. I hope that he will monitor it on a running basis, and will not regard this as the final full-stop to the argument. If his hopes are dashed, and if we do not get the kind of progress that he is confident will come from the attack on the contractor's principle in the way that I have described, I hope that he will be prepared to start further conversations and see whether an early opportunity can be found to reconsider the question. If he can give those assurances, I will advise my hon. Friends to let the clause pass in its present form, at this stage at least.
      Mr. Lambie: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I believe that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and the people connected with the supportive groups who have made representations to us, are being conned by the Government in this clause. Members of Parliament have received representations from Ayr race course, Auchinleck and Ardrossan indoor bowling clubs, and Bob Kelly, the chairman of Celtic football club, in support of the other senior football clubs in Scotland. They have all been demanding a reduction in the valuations based on a comparison with similar valuations in England and Wales. In the White Paper, the Government gave the impression that they would listen to the representations, but, now that we see the wording of the clauses in the Bill, I am not so sure that that is so. I should like further clarification from the Minister.
      Mr. James Hamilton: I should like to advise my hon. Friend that the chairman of Celtic football club is not Bob Kelly, but Desmond White.
      Mr. Lambie: I apologise, and I thank my hon. Friend for clearing up the matter.
      It is impossible to make a legitimate comparison between the valuations in England and Wales, and those in Scotland, because the people carrying out the valuation are different, as is the period of the valuation. As has been stated, the Inland Revenue completes the valuations in England and Wales and, because of pressure, revaluation has not taken place in England and Wales since 1973. In Scotland the assessors, who are nominally employed by the regions, but are independent of the regions, carry out the valuation of properties. Because they have a specialist interest, and that is their only interest, they have ensured that revaluations have been carried out in Scotland every five years, except during the period when there is a two-year delay. It is therefore impossible to compare valuations in Scotland with valuations in England and Wales because of the time lag, and the different methods of carrying them out. I put it to my hon. Friends, and to Conservative Members who are worried about the clauses, that they should look hard at how the assessors in Scotland have been operating in comparison with those in England and Wales, and other areas, with regard to properties in the region, and in Scotland.
      Following the 1978 revaluations, I received representations from the ratepayers of Troon. They formed the Troon action group on rates. We joined the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)—now the Secretary of State for Scotland—who was associated with the Ayr ratepayers' group. We organised a delegation to visit my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie), who was the Minister of State at the Scottish Office with special responsibility for valuations and rating. The right hon. Gentleman and I complained about the actions of the Ayr assessor in fixing valuations in Ayr and Troon that were well outwith comparable valuations in other areas of Strathclyde and other areas in Scotland.
      At that time, we were trying to get comparisons between valuations in Ayr and Troon with valuations in Fife. We visited my right hon. Friend and appealed for an inquiry into the action of the assessor in Ayr. My right hon. Friend said that he was in favour of an inquiry, but that it could not take place until we had been through all the processes of appeal to the local valuation appeal

      541
      committee and the land valuation appeal court. Unfortunately, before that inquiry could be held, there was a general election in 1979, with a change of Government.
      The right hon. Member for Ayr suddenly found himself not only a Member of Parliament but the Secretary of State for Scotland. He forgot about the deputation that he and I had led. He said that it was impossible to hold an inquiry because the assessor was independent, even though he was employed by the Strathclyde regional council. I advised the rate action group to appeal to the local valuation appeal committee, but that appeal was turned down. The group then appealed to the land valuation appeal court. However, because of the money involved, only 50 ratepayers took part in the block appeal. They won their appeal and obtained a substantial reduction in valuation, which meant substantial reductions in their rates. That proved that the criticism of the present Secretary of State and myself about the assessor was correct.
      Following that, 600 ratepayers from Troon submitted a block appeal on the ground that the new decision affecting the original 50 ratepayers should be taken into account. The court said that, although the ratepayers might have a case about being over-valued, they were time-barred because they had not put in their appeal at the time of the revaluation in 1978.
      I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will confirm that when the Bill becomes law, the Troon and Ayr ratepayers who were denied the opportunity of revaluation will be paid retrospectively from the time that they made their appeal.
      In Committee the Solicitor-General for Scotland stated initially that the Troon and Ayr ratepayers were not entitled to retrospective payments but, when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) intervened, the hon. and learned Gentleman was advised by his officials that the Secretary of State for Scotland had guaranteed that the ratepayers would be paid retrospectively. I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will state this evening that he will ensure that the Troon and Ayr ratepayers — unfortunately, I no longer represent them now that they are to receive a large payment—will be paid retrospectively.
      The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has been conned. I received today a letter on behalf of the Troon action group on rates and the Ayr and District ratepayers association which was sent to Mr. Robert Calderwood, the chief executive of Strathclyde regional council. It states:
      "we write to make a formal complaint against the actions of the Strathclyde Regional Assessor since revaluation 1978 on the grounds: — 1. of his intimidating and obstructing domestic ratepayers in their valuation appeals; 2. of his consistently refusing to disseminate information legitimately requested; 3. of his complete disregard for Her Majesty's Judge's opinion that 'the ratepayer is entitled to an intelligible explanation of the method employed in the valuation of his or her property'".
      There is further criticism in a similar vein.
      Whatever laws we pass in this place, they will not be implemented until we change the system that maintains the independence of the assessors in Scotland. My former constituents found that they could not challenge the assessor because it would be too costly to take him through the process of appeal.
      Instead of introducing the Bill and dealing with the various clauses and amendments, the Government should scrap the Bill. Why do the Tories not do what they said they would do in 1979 and abolish the rating system? I
      542
      think that that should be done. We should abolish the system; but the Tory Government do not have the confidence to do so. We are perpetuating anomalies that first arose at the end of the middle ages, and they can be ended only by getting rid of the rating and valuation system and moving on to block grants, which would allow local authorities the independence to decide how the moneys should be spent.
      That proposal will not go down well with local government officials and assessors. If the Government are not prepared to do that, they should scrap the assessors' department in Scotland and allow valuations to be undertaken by the Inland Revenue in the same way as in England and Wales. If the Inland Revenue is allowed to undertake valuations throughout the United Kingdom, the Government will receive legitimate comparisons.
      We are being conned this evening by the Government in the same way as the ratepayers of Troon and Ayr. The con will continue unless the Solicitor-General for Scotland tells us that the Troon and Ayr ratepayers will be paid retrospectively. If that happens, justice will have been done and the promise made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) in 1978 will finally have been carried out.
      Mr. Ancram: I shall deal first with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), who asked about the Troon ratepayers. Clause 16, which deals with that problem, will operate as from two months after this measure receives the Royal Assent. An appeal lodged then could lead to a reduction in rateable value from 1 April this year. Clearly, that must depend on whether the Bill gets through in good time. Because of the hon. Gentleman's hard work on behalf of the Troon and Ayr ratepayers and the keenness that he has shown tonight to see them receive the benefit as soon as possible, I look forward to his support in the Lobby on Third Reading.
      The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South asked what had happened since the 1978 revaluation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council to review the outcome of the 1978 revaluation and to review appeal procedures to be effective from 1985. The provisions in the Bill have in part resulted from that review. When the hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill as a con, he might ponder upon that point. I hope, too, that when some of the organisations for whom he spoke tonight find that they benefit from the Bill he will withdraw his suggestion that the Government have deliberately conned people on that issue.
      I shall deal first with the general point. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) set out his view of my view of how the provisions will work. He was correct, so far as I followed him. However, I shall carefully read Hansard to check what he said. The hon. Gentleman appreciates that the issue is complex and if II find that there is an area where he was not on all fours with the view that I put forward. I shall write to him. The hon. Gentleman was basically correct in saying that the clause tries to achieve a position in which an applicant can turn to English valuations—not just English rental valuations as at present — if no adequate rental evidence is available in Scotland in order to achieve a fairer valuation than that which they believe has been achieved under the contractors' principal.
      In cases where adequate rental evidence is not available—many cases mentioned tonight fall into that category

      543
      —the provision will be available to benefit those applicants. I cannot be categorical about who will benefit as I said many times in Committee. I must be fair to the House and say that it depends upon the circumstances of each applicant, the basis of the original valuation and whether adequate rental evidence is available in Scotland. It would be wrong for me to say today that this football club or that race course will be covered, and I am sure that the hon. member for Garscadden would not expect me to do so.
      Mr. Canavan rose——
      Mr. Ancram: Ishall not give way because time is short. The hon. Gentleman has made a lengthy speech.
      Although I cannot say that, I can say that the provisions are available to help in the circumstances that I have outlined.
      I shall raise a further qualification, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Garscadden. Where a net annual value is taken from the English register, the court must have regard to the time at which that value was ascribed. That must be right because, to claim a valuation that is so historically out of date and which would then pertain in Scotland for the next five years whatever happened in England, would create an equally anomalous situation. I believe that clause 15 brings about that improvement.
      The amendments go much further because they ignore adequate rental evidence available in Scotland. It is a fundamental principle of valuation law that where rental evidence is available it is used to estimate values, because rental evidence is real evidence, of what somebody is prepared to pay in rent. To ignore the best evidence available, which in those circumstances it must be, would make a mockery of the word "valuation".
      The amendments move away from that principle and undermine the basic principle that must underpin Scots valuation law. For that reason, I ask hon. Members to follow the lead of the hon. Member for Garscadden and not to press the amendments.
      I believe that the clause as it stands fulfils the commitment that we made at the election.
      Mr. Canavan: No, it does not.
      Mr. Ancram: Applicants told us that their competitors south of the border were rated much lower. Valuation north of the border was on the contrators' principle, whereas south of the border the principle was quite different and the applicants could do nothing about it. We are giving them the chance to do something about it if their complaint is justified. That was our commitment, and the Bill fulfils it.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 16

      ALTERATION OF MATERIAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES"
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 11, line 30, at end insert—
      '(c) after the word "means" shall be inserted the words ", for a period of three years from the coming into effect of section 16 of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984".'.
      544
      I hope to deal with this in two or three sentences. It relates to the area referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). As the Solicitor-General knows, the Bill will give, as it were, a running right of repair, giving the right of appeal to the valuation appeal committee on the basis of comparisons with like properties in Scotland. As the Solicitor-General knows, there are serious anxieties among assessors and others connected with the valuation system that the result may be instability and a situation in which the tone of the role will be constantly changing throughout the quinquennium so that many of the virtues of the Scottish valuation system with its five-yearly updatings will be lost.
      As I made clear in Committee, we support the general wish to ensure that anomalies can be put right and therefore do not oppose the right of appeal. I do not intend to press the amendment, but I ask the Minister for an assurance that he will keep a close eye on the technical anxieties that have fairly been brought to our attention and that, with the assessors and other interested bodies, he will monitor exactly how matters develop and take any remedial action that may be necessary on a technical level to ensure that we do not create problems for ourselves through what I know is a genuinely well-intentioned effort to put right anomalies which may appear in individual valuations during the quinquennium.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): With respect to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscaddan (Mr. Dewar), the effect of the amendment would be to give a limited life to the whole of the definition "material change of circumstances", both that which is on the statute book already and that which is proposed in the Bill. Three years from the date of the Royal Assent, there would be complete confusion because ratepayers, assessors and the courts would be left without any guidance as to what amounts to a material change although assessors would still have a duty to amend the roll to give effect to a material change and ratepayers would have the right to appeal on the same grounds.
      There can also be no question of limiting the amendment made by clause 16, as that improvement in the law is needed to remedy continuing inequities. It is not just a transitional measure.
      I think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the president of the Scottish Assessors Association has commented further on the clause since the debates in Committee. I think that it is fair to say that he has now given a nod of agreement in my direction, accepting what I said on the vexed issue of the effect of the deletion in section 37 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 brought about by clause 16. He is worried about the concept of value shift once it is permissible to consider rentals subsequent to the date of revaluation. I believe that my comments in Committee were correct and that the president now accepts that. If I am wrong, the difficulty of the amendment would be that within three years there would be no prospect whatever of anyone having the matter tested in the courts.
      I give the hon. Gentleman this undertaking. We appreciate that we have introduced a significant change in the way in which valuations are to be achieved in Scotland. We shall follow very carefully the effect of the changes in part II of the Bill, especially in clause 16, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State indicated would

      545
      be the interest in clause 15. We shall want to know, for example, what the value in comparable decisions proved to be to ratepayers and assessors. We shall also want to see what administrative costs and burdens are imposed on the assessors in the future.
      In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the amendment should be withdrawn.
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 2

      AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 11, in page 26, line 13, at end insert
      '13A. In subsection (2) of section 2 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (date of effect of alteration in the valuation roll) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "(cc) made under subsection (1)(ee) above following upon an appeal by virtue of section 3(2A) of this Act by a person who have become the proprietor, tenant or occupier of lands and heritages shall have effect only as from the date when he became such proprietor, tenant or occupier.".'. — [The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 19

      CITATION COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 12, in page 12, line 9, after '15', insert
      'and paragraphs 9, 12 to 14, and 16 of Schedule 2'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      10,25 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The purpose of the Bill is simple and, therefore, I shall not go into it in detail. We have covered many aspects of it on Report. Much has been made of the constitutional argument about the rate limitation provisions, but it is completely unfounded to say that it marks a significant constitutional change. Local authorities are not free agents, nor are they at liberty to decide what action to take regardless of Government. They are, and always have been, creatures of statute. They derive their powers from Parliament, and their actions take place within the statutory and economic framework set by a democratically elected Parliament. Since local authorities are responsible for a quarter of public spending, no Government, nor any party, can afford to ignore local authority spending when determining national economic policies — and no Government have.
      The Bill helps ratepayers. Two additional new clauses were added to the Bill in Committee, through the efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). They increase public access to accounts, improve accountability, and will be good for ratepayers.
      The Bill seeks to help ratepayers by protecting them from high expenditure and high rates, and by enabling individual valuation anomalies to be corrected. It aims at the two pillars on which excessive rate burdens can be based — over high rate poundages and anomalous
      546
      valuations. It is not, and never has been intended to be an attack on local government. There is nothing in the Bill which a responsible local authority need fear.
      When I listened, as I had to, to the dramatic scare stories and doom-laden predictions about the end of local democracy from Opposition Members, I wondered whether those prophets of gloom understood the Bill. Sometimes I thought that they did. They are so bereft of policies to put before Scottish people and ratepayers,— although I have challenged them to do so—that they have had to take refuge in a display of synthetic anger against the Bill. It may be good politics in the absence of anything more constructive, but it is undeniable that by that display they have shown total indifference to the feelings of Scottish ratepayers. Scottish ratepayers will not easily forgive or forget.
      The Government have fulfilled in the Bill the commitments made to the Scottish people at the general election. We have stood by ratepayers and have given them the protection that we believe should be theirs and, therefore, I recommend the Bill to the House.
      10.24 pm
      Mr. Craigen: The Bill is the Government's cover up on rates. It masks the Government's about-turn over the long-standing promise of rates reform. In Committee Ministers were unwilling to make amendments, and they have proved equally inflexible on Report.
      Under Part I the Secretary of State takes more powers than he needs, more powers than are good for him, and more powers than are good for Scottish ratepayers. He will fix the rate poundage and the rent level. In reality, it will be left to a few advisers effectively to act the gauleiters of Scottish local government and to do the job that ought properly to be done by paid local government officers and elected members.
      Part II on valuation was, I believe, born out of expediency. By changing some aspects of valuation, without in any way changing the basic principles of valuation law in Scotland, the Government will be found wanting. There will be a demand for a United Kingdom review of valuation methods and practice once it begins to penetrate, as it is already doing that what football and other sports people and others see in the Bill will not materialise.
      The Bill marks a further step, some would say a fatal step, towards the collision course with local government on which the Government have embarked. Even if right hon. and hon. Members are unable to defeat the Bill, I hope that they will register their disapproval of this abominable piece of legislation.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 138

      Division No. 215]

      [10.31 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Best, Keith

      Ancram, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Ashby, David

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Baldry, Anthony

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Batiste, Spencer

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Bendall, Vivian

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Bright, Graham

      547

      Brinton, Tim

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Holt, Richard

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Hooson, Tom

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Hordern, Peter

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hunter, Andrew

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jessel, Toby

      Chope, Christopher

      Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Churchill, W. S.

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Conway, Derek

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Coombs, Simon

      Knowles, Michael

      Cope, John

      Lamont, Norman

      Corrie, John

      Lang, Ian

      Couchman, James

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Crouch, David

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Dicks, Terry

      Lilley, Peter

      Dorrell, Stephen

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Dover, Den

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

      Dunn, Robert

      Major, John

      Durant, Tony

      Mather, Carol

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Eggar, Tim

      Moore, John

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

      Evennett, David

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Fallon, Michael

      Murphy, Christopher

      Favell, Anthony

      Neubert, Michael

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Newton, Tony

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Parris, Matthew

      Forman, Nigel

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Pollock, Alexander

      Fox, Marcus

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Franks, Cecil

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Freeman, Roger

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gale, Roger

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Galley, Roy

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Ryder, Richard

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Sainsoury, Hon Timothy

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Gow, Ian

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Gregory, Conal

      Shersby, Michael

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

      Sims, Roger

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Grist, Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Ground, Patrick

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Grylls, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Spencer, Derek

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Squire, Robin

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hannam, John

      Stanley, John

      Harvey, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Stern, Michael

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Stokes, John

      Hayes, J.

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hayward, Robert

      Sumberg, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Heddle, John

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Henderson, Barry

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Hickmet, Richard

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Thurnham, Peter

      Hirst, Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      548

      Trotter, Neville

      Watson, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Watts, John

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Viggers, Peter

      Wheeler, John

      Waddington, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Walden, George

      Wolfson, Mark

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Wood, Timothy

      Waller, Gary

      Ward, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Douglas Hogg.

      Warren, Kenneth

      NOES

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Anderson, Donald

      Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      John, Brynmor

      Ashton, Joe

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Barnett, Guy

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Barron, Kevin

      Kirkwood, Archibald

      Beith, A. J.

      Lambie, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Lamond, James

      Benn, Tony

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Litherland, Robert

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      McCartney, Hugh

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

      McCrea, Rev William

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

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      McKelvey, William

      Buchan, Norman

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      McTaggart, Robert

      Canavan, Dennis

      McWilliam, John

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Madden, Max

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Marek, Dr John

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Clarke, Thomas

      Martin, Michael

      Clay, Robert

      Maxton, John

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Meacher, Michael

      Coleman, Donald

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Michie, William

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Corbett, Robin

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Craigen, J. M.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Crowther, Stan

      Nellist, David

      Deakins, Eric

      O'Brien, William

      Dewar, Donald

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dobson, Frank

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Dubs, Alfred

      Penhaligon, David

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Pike, Peter

      Eadie, Alex

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Eastham, Ken

      Prescott, John

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Faulds, Andrew

      Robertson, George

      Flannery, Martin

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Foster, Derek

      Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

      Foulkes, George

      Rowlands, Ted

      Fraser, J. (Norwood)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      George, Bruce

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Gould, Bryan

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & Fbury)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Snape, Peter

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Soley, Clive

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Howells, Geraint

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Strang, Gavin

      549

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Winnick, David

      Tinn, James

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Torney, Tom

      Wallace, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      White, James

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. John Home Robertson.

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    That the draft Housing (Percentage of Approved Expense for Repairs Grants) (Lead Plumbing Works) (Scotland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 2nd March be approved. —[Mr. Boscawen.]
    Question agreed to.

    Oxygen Concentrators
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
    10.42 pm
    Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: It is a great pleasure to address the House on a very important issue. I am glad that the Minister who is to reply is, like me, the son of a miner.
    Perhaps I should begin by explaining how I came across the concept of the oxygen concentrator. An eminent consultant at St. Thomas's said, "It is all very well doing some work on kidneys, Lewis, but what about trying to do some work on oxygen concentrators?" I must admit that I did not know what an oxygen concentrator was. Indeed, I think that I would forgive the Minister if he had not known what one was until 12 months ago. However, that does not excuse substantial numbers of people in the Department and outside not knowing what an oxygen concentrator is.
    An oxygen concentrator is quite a small device. It is driven by electricity. It filters out the nitrogen in the atmospheric air and so allows the user to breath only oxygen. It may be said that it is the outcome of advanced technology, but it is not true to say that it has only just arrived. People were talking about it as long ago as 1968–69.
    I shall pay tribute to certain people. I thank Geoffrey Spencer for his help. I have tried to find somebody opposed to oxygen concentrators on medical grounds, but I cannot. I have tried to find people opposed to them on the grounds of pounds and pence, but cannot, so I am left with the imponderable of having a superb piece of equipment, recommended by the most eminent of consultants, cheap in use when compared with oxygen in cylinders, and still not being used extensively.
    I express my thanks to a substantial number of people in industry who have told me of ways in which things could be improved. I have received a fair amount of help from the House of Commons Library, and from Malcolm Dean of The Guardian. I pay that tribute because I had to go through a quick learning process. Having done so, I am astounded that this piece of equipment is not used more extensively than it is, because the £9 million spent on oxygen could be used to provide better treatment for five times as many people. That is the challenge, and it has not sprung up on us overnight. It has been with us for a long time.
    I am glad that the Minister is to reply to the debate, because he has a mining background, as I do. I recall an uncle of mine who died of silicosis. He died long before some hon. Members who are in the Chamber now were born, in 1929. I was a young boy, but I remember him coughing up his lungs. We could not have stopped him contracting silicosis, but the rest of his life would have been relieved if he had had access to something like an oxygen concentrator.
    In March 1969 the Lancet was talking about the oxygen concentrator and saying that it could be used. In the Medical Research Council, Dr. J. E. Cotes of the pneumoconiosis unit at Llandough hospital in Penarth was talking about its use, in view of the increasing cost of medical oxygen. He said, that there was a need for the change in the methods of dispensing oxygen.
    552
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman will notice that I am not picking out Ministers to attack in the period between 1970 to 1983. I am trying to get behind the problem. Between 1975 and 1980 there were trials with the DHSS and the MRC, which lead to a report saying that they were aware of the effectiveness of medical oxygen, but they were not aware of the cost. That is a load of rubbish. They were paying for the oxygen, the concentrators, the cylinders and the liquid oxygen. They must have known over 10 years ago about the effective cost.
    One of the people who took part in the trial, Dr. Howard of Sheffield, said that the economic savings would become obvious by 1976–77. I am talking about a process which has medical advantages and is preferred by the patient. Everything is in its favour—every mortal thing—and still it is not used.
    In 1978, the inventor, Dr. Cooper of Rimer-Alco, was sent a letter from the DHSS in which he was told that enough had already been done to establish the effectiveness of the oxygen concentrator.
    The Royal College of Physicians — not exactly a commercial concern—in a report on 2 April 1981 on work already done and on which it had produced interim reports said:
    "Points to be considered include that NHS resources would be used more economically for the purchase of oxygen concentrators than for oxygen cylinders."
    This is not a political issue. I hope to have a response from the Minister. I hope that he will accept the logic of the case and agree that the patient must come first. The process is desired by and acceptable to the patient. It is wanted by the physicians.
    Page 11 of the report states:
    "The high cost of cylinder oxygen is a material constraint which may be greatly reduced by the alternative use of an oxygen concentrator."
    The Royal college said that all that time ago.
    On page 18 its report states:
    "Equipment used by hospital departments of thoracic medicine for use in the home should be budgeted for separately from that for use in hospital. Treasury regulations should be amended to permit the use of oxygen concentrators".
    The Minister is not at fault, and nor were his predecessors. People within the Department handle the problem, when it should have been put to Ministers long ago. It is a clear case of administrators not bringing to Ministers' notice important issues connected with patient care in accordance with the best medical practice.
    In August 1983 the British Medical Journal featured the latest clinical experience of concentrators. It said:
    "Overall the concentrators appeared to be the most economical means of providing oxygen treatment at home and was much preferred"—
    we should note the words "much preferred"—
    "by patients who had previously used oxygen cylinders."
    Yet another report was commissioned. It was supposed to be the definitive report. It was produced by the North-West regional health authority, but before it appeared an internal memo was issued on the use of oxygen which said:
    "These machines replace oxygen cylinders for use in the home and are likely to show considerable savings (apart from any patient benefit) where patients required long term oxygen therapy."
    I have searched for a snag, but I cannot find one. There may be administrative difficulties, but the Minister and I are old adversaries and old friends. He knows that the difficulties must be overcome, because with the same money five times as many people could be treated more

    553
    effectively with the concentrators. If they are fitted properly in the home, they can be properly monitored and give better service and feedback to the physician.
    I must not go on for too long, as I must give the Minister plenty of time to reply, but the summary of this definitive report states:
    "A two-year project has shown that oxygen concentrators may be used to provide long-term, high usage oxygen therapy to patients in the community and were well accepted by most of them".
    Are you not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, now getting the message? It looks as though different people have written these reports but that the same man has drawn up the findings. They are always the same. It is much cheaper, much better and the patients want it, yet 13 years later they are still not getting what they deserve.
    The chairman of the British Oxygen Company would be well advised to ask some of his senior advisers, who know what is going on and are experts in the use of oxygen, why they have not taken the initiative in the production of oxygen concentrators, which can be provided at a lower cost for the benefit of the patient.
    I end where I began in the hope that if there is an altercation the Minister will allow me to intervene. At the end of the day we will judge this decision, if it is cheaper, by the attitude of the patients. The survey that was commissioned asked:
    "Have you ever felt the machine may have let you down?"
    Ten per cent. said, "Yes," and 90 per cent. said, "No". It asked:
    "Have you experienced any problems caused by the machine?"
    Eighty-six per cent. said, "No problem." It asked:
    "Have you encountered any difficulties in using the machine?"
    Ninety-six per cent. said, "No problem."
    If the patient wants it, if it is in his best interests, if it cares well for him, is cheaper and five times more people can be served by its extended use, why, oh why, cannot we have it now?
    10.56 pm
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on his good fortune in winning an Adjournment debate on this subject. I thank him for doing so. He rightly described himself as an old friend and adversary in the Chamber, but on this occasion he has—as we would all expect—raised a subject of considerable interest and importance. I am grateful for the opportunity of replying to his criticisms, which from time to time have been made in the newspapers.
    The hon. Gentleman is talking about long-term oxygen therapy, which without doubt is of considerable benefit to a large number of people. He talked about a new method of delivering that supply of oxygen, by changing to the use of concentrators rather than cylinders, which appears to have great economic benefits when one is dealing with patients who require large quantities of oxygen. Therefore, he is understandably concerned about the delay in moving over to this better and apparently more economical and efficient way of providing the treatment. It is necessary to reply to the allegations of delay.
    Let me begin by underlining what the hon. Gentleman has already said about the undoubted clinical benefits of the treatment that he has described. We now have enough work to establish the value of long-term oxygen therapy
    554
    for people suffering from a variety of chronic respiratory diseases, including some of those arising from exposure to industrial pollution, such as coal dust and so on.
    It is now quite clear that particular benefits can be given to people suffering from the more serious chest diseases, including those with cardiac complications. They acquire great benefit and relief, sometimes from large quantities of oxygen given over many hours during the day.
    At the moment, such long-term oxygen therapy is provided usually by means of cylinders installed in the person's home. The cylinders given for the majority of patients about whom we are talking provide 10 to 11 hours of treatment per cylinder. They are prescribed by GPs but provided by retail pharmacists, who provide the cylinders and all the associated equipment as if they were drugs. They deliver them to the patient's home and are reimbursed for so doing.
    It is true that the existing supply arrangements for cylinders are proving expensive, and as this form of treatment has become more popular, so the costs are rising and we are therefore looking at the alternative of moving to concentrators. No one denies that it could be more economical to provide the treatment by means of concentrators, and we shall look at that possibility, using our existing machinery through the family practitioner committees.
    That is where we are now. The hon. Member for Eccles asked why it has taken so many years to become so clear about the clinical benefits of long-term oxygen therapy, and why we appear still to be delaying in moving to a more economical system of providing large quantities of oxygen in a way which is cheaper for the Health Service — which then has more resources for other things, including more oxygen—and also seems to be entirely acceptable nowadays to the patients who receive the treatment.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, all these problems have been subjected to studies over the past years. The hon. Gentleman went back some years in his speech and pointed out that the first signs that concentrators might have some value go back to the early 1970s, and even before that. In fact, in the 1970s, as the provision of long-term therapy became more popular, there were still doubts about the use of concentrators. They were new, and although not too complicated, they were untried technology. There were still clinical uncertainties about the use of this form of therapy. Moreover, there was by no means unanimous medical opinion that patients could benefit from the long-term use of these quantities of oxygen.
    The machines themselves were more cumbersome in those days, and they were not always as reliable as they are now. As a result—entirely wisely—my predecessors as Ministers, and previous officials in the Department in which I am now a Minister, decided that there was a case for some studies, before plunging into the widespread use of this therapy or the provision of oxygen by concentrators.
    The Medical Research Council was the appropriate body to carry out the first studies. It was first commissioned to do so in the 1970s, and it carried out most of its work during the 1970s, when it studied the clinical efficacy of long-term oxygen therapy and had a look at concentrators as well. The work was carried out, as I said, in the 1970s, but the report took some time to compile. I have to say that the reports from the Medical Research Council—the first substantial evaluation of all that we are now talking about — was not received by our

    555
    Department until December 1982. The reports were favourable about the therapy and favourable about the concentrators. However, they included the advice that consultant specialist doctors were required to be involved in providing the treatment for patients, and that general practitioners should refer patients to consultants before long-term oxygen therapy was given to patients.
    Our Department did not wait, however, for the MRC to finish all that work before looking at other problems which had to be solved before matters could be taken any further. In particular, the Department began to commission work on the feasibility of providing concentrators and looking at the way in which we provided long-term oxygen therapy.
    A study was carried out in the North-West regional health authority, to which the hon. Member for Eccles referred. It was asked to start its studies in September 1981, and it did not provide its report until January of this year. That report is now available, and it clearly shows the economic advantages of concentrators in the case of patients who use large volumes of oxygen. I have recently been asked many parliamentary questions by a number of hon. Members interested in the subject, and I keep referring them in my answers to the report of the North-West regional health authority's study, which is now deposited in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Before I come to the main point of my intervention, may I point out that I was asking parliamentary questions before that report was produced? I say that to stress that the matter has been of interest for some time. It is sad that that study was using foreign-manufactured oxygen concentrators which had been initially made in this country. So other people had some work. The value of concentrators had been proved overseas. Why were there no consultations?
    Mr. Clarke: Investigations into the clinical value of long-term oxygen therapy has been carried out in the United States as well as Britain and, no doubt, elsewhere, as has the manufacture and use of concentrators. We commissioned the work at an early stage, but the results of the work reached us from the MRC in December 1982 and from the North-West regional health authority's study in January 1984. By that time there was a body of work available which showed the clinical value of providing long-term oxygen therapy and concentrators. The clinicians involved in both studies raised queries about the way in which oxygen was being prescribed in Britain. Both came to the conclusion that the provision of oxygen should not just depend on the decision of general practioners, which at the moment is the practice in Britain, but should also involve the advice of a consultant and specialist in respiratory disease.
    We had both reports by January this year. While the trials were taking place and we were awaiting the studies, doctors were finding that in practice the treatment was valuable to their patients and the prescribing of long-term oxygen therapy was daily getting more popular in Britain. That meant that more patients were receiving it, the cost to the NHS was going up, the machines were becoming more reliable and it was becoming increasingly clear that savings were possible. For some time now Ministers have not denied that since savings are possible.
    556
    The result was that we had to look at the possible solutions and some were being offered to us before we had either of the reports that I have described. In particular, BOC, the major supplier of oxygen in cylinders in Britain, began to put proposals to us a year or two ago. In August 1982, before we had the results of the MRC's work or the North-West regional health authority's study, BOC approached us with proposals to provide us with concentrators which were not costed.
    Since that time BOC has worked up its proposals in more detail and has put to us a proposition to provide the NHS with concentrators in a way that seems extremely attractive. The BOC deal is based upon the concept of direct delivery by the company to the patients, with savings, many of which are achieved by eliminating pharmacists, who at the moment deliver the oxygen cylinders to the homes of patients. BOC estimated that its proposals would save at least £1 million per year. Both sides are agreed that the savings could be more than that.
    Therefore, the clinical research by the MRC, the feasibility study in the North-West regional health authority and the proposals being put to us by BOC all pointed in the direction of clinical benefits and some financial savings. But we still required some testing of the proposition being put to us by the company to supply us. In effect, BOC was putting to us the suggestion that it should take over the monopoly supply of domiciliary oxygen to the NHS.
    I have no doubt that BOC was anxious to accelerate the provision of concentrators, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, or those who, as he acknowledged, helped him with his speech — he mentioned a Guardian journalist — would have welcomed the Government signing up with BOC on a monopoly deal to provide concentrators without further work into the financial feasibility of what was being suggested. Therefore, we commissioned further work and I have asked that Arthur Andersen and Company should advise us on the financial implications of the deal that we are being offered to ensure that we are achieving the most cost-effective service with the maximum benefit to patients. If it is not the best proposal, we should look at the options.
    Arthur Andersen and Company is carrying out the final study, which we are awaiting. I understand that it is likely to be in a position to report to us by April 1984, at which time we shall have all the advice that we need. We will have the Medical Research Council work, giving the clinical efficacy and the possible benefits of concentrators. We will have the work in the North-West regional health authority on the feasibility, establishing that it is practical to provide concentrators to family practitioner committees. We will also have some hard-headed financial advice of our own from Arthur Andersen and Company about the attractiveness to the Health Service, to its patients, and to the taxpayer of the deal that we are being offered by the British Oxygen Company.
    I do not think that the House would want to press the Government to anticipate and to rush to a decision before receiving the results of all the studies. By April 1984, I am sure that we will have firmly established the value for those patients who require domiciliary provision of large quantities of oxygen by means of concentrators.
    There will be obvious economic benefits from concentrators. We still have to address the question raised by the studies of who shall prescribe the long-term use of high volume oxygen. We now have two studies showing

    557
    that consultants and specialists should be involved, and that the matter should not be left to general practitioners only. That may well cause debate in the medical profession. We need to consult the profession before we issue advice to it. We shall also have to examine sensibly the financial propositions that have been put to us in a variety of ways to decide how we should finance the provision of concentrators to patients.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the Minister not think that the British Oxygen Company has had its chance? The people who are using concentrators have proved their usefulness. Why should BOC have a second chance? History has shown that it should have taken its chance years ago, when it had the expertise, but did not take advantage of it.
    Mr. Clarke: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's point. The British Oxygen Company has bought about 100 concentrators, made by various people,
    558
    and has put to us an arrangement whereby it would provide concentrators directly to patients. It is a very attractive proposition, but one that we must study with care. It would offer savings to the Health Service, and the savings would be not only at the expense of the cylinder provision, which is largely done by the British Oxygen Company at present, but also at the expense of the pharmacists who currently dispense the cylinders to the home. We must examine the alternatives to British Oxygen Company provision. The study that we await from Arthur Andersen and Company was provoked in the first place by the offer that was made to us by the British Oxygen Company.
    The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Eleven o' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Territorial Army (Information Leakage)
  Territorial Army (Information Leakage)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  16 and 17-year-olds
  16 and 17-year-olds
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Care in the Community
  Care in the Community
PRIME MINISTER
  L/Cpl Aldridge
  L/Cpl Aldridge
  Engagements
  Engagements
  European Community (Reform)
  European Community (Reform)
  European Council
  European Council
  European Community
  European Community
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  EC (Fishing Quotas)
  EC (Fishing Quotas)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Truck Production
  Truck Production
  Ministerial Speech (Violence and Terrorism)
  Ministerial Speech (Violence and Terrorism)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Ministerial Conduct
  Ministerial Conduct
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Exchequer and Audit Department
  Exchequer and Audit Department
  Health Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Health Authorities (Private Contractors)
WALES
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
  Independent Schools (Grants)
  Independent Schools (Grants)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  International Development Association
  International Development Association
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Industrial Buildings Allowances
  Industrial Buildings Allowances
  Investment Incentives
  Investment Incentives
  Pension Funds (Stock and Securities)
  Pension Funds (Stock and Securities)
  Public Sector Capital Assets
  Public Sector Capital Assets
  European Community
  European Community
  National Economic Development Council
  National Economic Development Council
  Non-competitive Contracts
  Non-competitive Contracts
  Retirement Benefits
  Retirement Benefits
  Government Departments (Running Costs)
  Government Departments (Running Costs)
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Civil Service (Motoring Costs)
  Civil Service (Motoring Costs)
  Charities
  Charities
  Take-away Food (VAT)
  Take-away Food (VAT)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Furnished Holiday Lettings
  Furnished Holiday Lettings
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
ENERGY
  Energy Conservation Consultants
  Energy Conservation Consultants
  British Gas (Sleipner Field Purchases)
  British Gas (Sleipner Field Purchases)
  Electricity and Gas Slot Meters
  Electricity and Gas Slot Meters
  Enterprise Oil
  Enterprise Oil
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fires (Statistics)
  Fires (Statistics)
  Polish Work Permit Holders
  Polish Work Permit Holders
  Flying Pickets
  Flying Pickets
  London Fire Service
  London Fire Service
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Public Order Act 1936
  Public Order Act 1936
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man
  Police Complaints Board
  Police Complaints Board
  Grendon Prison
  Grendon Prison
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Private Sector Employers
  Private Sector Employers
  Warner Communications and Polygram (Merger)
  Warner Communications and Polygram (Merger)
  Television Interference (Essex)
  Television Interference (Essex)
  Scott Lithgow Ltd.
  Scott Lithgow Ltd.
  Extended Guarantee Insurance
  Extended Guarantee Insurance
  Cosmetic Products (European Community)
  Cosmetic Products (European Community)
  Japan (Visits)
  Japan (Visits)
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Exporters (Payment Delays)
  Exporters (Payment Delays)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Youth Training Programme (Accidents)
  Youth Training Programme (Accidents)
  Employment Patterns
  Employment Patterns
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Ministerial Speech (Violence and Terrorism)
  Ministerial Speech (Violence and Terrorism)
  National Maritime Museum
  National Maritime Museum
  Departmental Manpower
  Departmental Manpower
THE ARTS
  Northern Arts
  Northern Arts
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Interests)
  Civil Servants (Interests)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Drink-Driving Offences (Breath Meters)
  Drink-Driving Offences (Breath Meters)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Land Drainage
  Land Drainage
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
  Horticulture Industry
  Horticulture Industry
  Norway (Cod Quotas)
  Norway (Cod Quotas)
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Fishing Vessels (Licensing)
  Fishing Vessels (Licensing)
  Newcastle Disease
  Newcastle Disease
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Milk and Dairy Products
  Milk and Dairy Products
  Milk Products
  Milk Products
  Trawlers (Log Books)
  Trawlers (Log Books)
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Bananas
  Bananas
  Pigmeat (Hungarian Imports)
  Pigmeat (Hungarian Imports)
  Milk (Producer-Retailers)
  Milk (Producer-Retailers)
  USSR (EC Exports)
  USSR (EC Exports)
  Milk (Quotas)
  Milk (Quotas)
SCOTLAND
  Uplands (Forestry)
  Uplands (Forestry)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
  Lothian and Borders (Picketing)
  Lothian and Borders (Picketing)
  USS Hanley
  USS Hanley
  River Conon
  River Conon
TRANSPORT
  Railway Sidings (Grants)
  Railway Sidings (Grants)
  Blisworth-Milton Malsor Bypass
  Blisworth-Milton Malsor Bypass
  East London River Crossing
  East London River Crossing
  Railway Lines (Road Conversions)
  Railway Lines (Road Conversions)
  Public Transport (Policing)
  Public Transport (Policing)
  Navigation and Air Traffic Control Services
  Navigation and Air Traffic Control Services
  Civil Aviation Legislation
  Civil Aviation Legislation
  Coastguard
  Coastguard
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health Services (Privatisation)
  Health Services (Privatisation)
  Drugs (Advertisements)
  Drugs (Advertisements)
  NHS (Treatment Statistics)
  NHS (Treatment Statistics)
  NHS Expenditure
  NHS Expenditure
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Animal Tests
  Animal Tests
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  West Midlands District Health Authorities
  West Midlands District Health Authorities
  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Heating Allowances
  Heating Allowances
  Health Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Health Authorities (Private Contractors)
  Contraceptive Advice (Doctors' Fees)
  Contraceptive Advice (Doctors' Fees)
  Drugs (Parallel Imports)
  Drugs (Parallel Imports)
  Departmental Land
  Departmental Land
  NHS (Pay)
  NHS (Pay)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Unemployment Benefit (Stockton)
  Unemployment Benefit (Stockton)
  Health Promotion Research Trust
  Health Promotion Research Trust
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Disabled People (Training)
  Disabled People (Training)
  Hazardous Substances (Disclosure of Information)
  Hazardous Substances (Disclosure of Information)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Iran-Iraq War
  Iran-Iraq War
ENVIRONMENT
  Halvergate Marshes
  Halvergate Marshes
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Local Authority Services (Privatisation)
  Local Authority Services (Privatisation)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Nature Conservation
  Nature Conservation
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Wirral Metropolitan Authority
  Wirral Metropolitan Authority
  Local Authorities (Employment)
  Local Authorities (Employment)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Merseyside County Council
  Merseyside County Council
  International Garden Festival
  International Garden Festival
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Speke Airport
  Speke Airport
  Land Registers
  Land Registers
  Housing Revenue Allocations
  Housing Revenue Allocations
  Land
  Land
  Council Houses (Waiting Lists)
  Council Houses (Waiting Lists)
  Rent Allowances
  Rent Allowances
  South Africa (Ministerial Meetings)
  South Africa (Ministerial Meetings)
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Radioactivity (Cumbria)
  Radioactivity (Cumbria)
DEFENCE
  Royal Marines Commando Forces Band
  Royal Marines Commando Forces Band
  Chile
  Chile
  United Scientific Holdings Ltd. and Avimo Ltd.
  United Scientific Holdings Ltd. and Avimo Ltd.
  Libya
  Libya
  Territorial Army (Information Leakage)
  Territorial Army (Information Leakage)
  Motoring Costs
  Motoring Costs
  Departmental Land
  Departmental Land
  United States Service Men (Drugs Offences)
  United States Service Men (Drugs Offences)
  J.L.C. Data (Patent)
  J.L.C. Data (Patent)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Exeter): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Meston—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Consumer Affairs Council
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the second meeting of the EEC consumer Ministers indicating what progress was made on the draft directives dealing with unfair and misleading advertising, product liability and doorstep selling.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my honourable friend Mr. Alexander Fletcher attended the Consumer Affairs Council on 2nd March. The council decision on the early-warning system for dangerous consumer products, which had been agreed in principle at the previous Consumer Affairs Council, was formally adopted. My honourable friend explained that the misleading advertising directive in its present form would require a disproportionate upheaval in our present law and practice. It is now to be reviewed in the light of our concern, with a view to giving member states as much flexibility as possible in the choice of methods used to control misleading advertising.
Discussions on the product liability directive centred on the question of the extent to which there should be a financial limit to a producer's liability. No agreement was reached, and the matter is to be explored further by the Committee of Permanent Representatives and experts. A broad consensus on the text of the doorstep-selling directive was achieved, although one member state has retained its general reserve. It is expected that there will be a further council on consumer affairs in June.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while being grateful for the amount of information which the noble Lord always tries to give the House, am I to take it from his Answer that we have not made a great deal of progress? Is it not true that after the meeting of the council in December the permanent representatives were asked to examine the question of unfair and misleading advertising? Were they not also asked to deal with the question of doorstep selling, and to deal with it actively? Finally, were they not also asked to deal with the financial limit for product liability? If what the noble Lord has been good enough to tell us is "actively progressing", does he think that we could
336
find another adjective to use in asking the permanent representatives to get on with their tasks?
Lord Belstead: They are active enough, my Lords. The early warning on dangerous consumer products has been agreed, and there is now only one reserve (which, incidentally, is not our reserve) on doorstep selling. Progress is being made in two ways, and certainly much work is being done in respect of misleading advertising and product liability.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell the House when the next meeting of the consumer Ministers is to be expected and whether he anticipates that we shall then have answers to the two questions which have been referred to them? Finally, can the Minister tell the House what progress is being made with the European Commission's second consumer programme? Does this programme contain more than the four directives we have been discussing? If so, will it be possible for him to let the House have that information?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the next Consumer Affairs Council will take place in the month of June. I am not aware of the exact date, but I know that the presidency intends that there will be another council in June. That means that there will have been three meetings taking the period from December to June, which I think is very desirable.
I can only respond to the second question asked by the noble Baroness by saying that I very much hope there will have been further progression on the three outstanding draft directives still to be agreed. The noble Baroness also asked me whether anything is remaining from the first consumer programme. Yes, there is: the consumer credit directive is still outstanding from the first consumer programme. It was not discussed on 2nd March, but we understand that the Commission has just issued a revised draft, amended in the light of the comments of the European Parliament.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that, with regard to misleading advertising, the United Kingdom system of having a self-regulatory body is preferable to having a directive?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government entirely agree with what the noble Lord. Lord Sainsbury, has said, and we are working towards that end.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the Minister be careful not to be over-stringent with regard to doorstep selling? The milkman calls at my house every morning and asks my wife, "Do you want one pint or two pints?". She answers according to our needs. That is doorstep selling.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there are exceptions in the draft directive at the moment, and I believe that they will set the noble Lord's mind at rest.

Chemical Weapons: Negotiations with USSR
3.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Government of the USSR has indicated willingness to discuss the abolition or limitation of weapons of chemical and bacteriological warfare; and what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the light of the attitude of the USSR.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (Baroness Young): My Lords, in the negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on a ban on chemical weapons, the USSR have recently confirmed their acceptance of one aspect of routine on-site inspection. We now urge the Soviet Union to agree quickly on all remaining aspects of an effective and verifiable ban, so that the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons can be outlawed for all time. The Soviet Union is a party, as are we, to the 1972 Convention banning biological weapons. We are considering with other parties to the 1972 Convention how the compliance provisions may be improved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords. I thank my noble friend for that interesting Answer. Can she indicate when further discussions with the Soviet Union in respect of chemical warfare, and in particular the inspection provisions, are likely to take place?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the negotiations are continuing. I understand there are two sessions a year on this question. As my noble friend will know, we ourselves have proposed procedures for investigating any doubt about compliance which normal inspection procedures might not be able to resolve.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, in view of the allegations that chemical weapons have been used in the Iraq-Iran conflict, the importance of the noble Lord's Question is beyond doubt. Is the noble Baroness aware that the United States, too, has recently sought consent to go ahead with the development of a new range of chemical weapons? In view of these factors—and apart from those mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter—will the Government use their initiative to bring about an agreement at the earliest opportunity, having regard also to the problems of verification?
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the renewed reports of the use of chemical weapons outside Europe and the existence of a very large Soviet chemical weapons offensive capability, we believe that a total ban is an urgent requirement.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the problem of verification—and we all wish it well—is particularly difficult in relation to chemical weapons once they are made? I understand that there arc between 200,000 and 300,000 tonnes deployed fairly forward in the USSR. Can my noble
338
friend confirm that that is still the estimate? Those chemicals take up a very small amount of space; and, therefore, can my noble friend also confirm that very difficult negotiations lie ahead to be sure of verification? Could she also confirm that it is with reluctance that the United States of America, against a position of not having these modern chemicals, has entered into development work again? Indeed, the noble Baroness might perhaps know whether that has been one of the factors that has led to the Soviet Union being prepared to talk about disarmament in this area.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. I can confirm that it is important to get verification, and that this is not easy to achieve. However, we are hoping that we shall reach agreement on this matter. I can also confirm that the United States has limited chemical weapon capability. It is very small in comparison with the Soviet Union's. which is assessed at over 300,000 tonnes of chemical warfare agent, with the weapons to deliver it. No new United States weapons have been produced since 1969. Last year Congress declined to authorise funds to modernise the ageing United States capability.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it the Government's understanding that the weapons being used by Iraq in the conflict with Iran were manufactured by the Iraqis themselves? If this is so, does it not indicate that measures to control should not be limited to the super-powers but that the important question to which the international community must address itself is how to restrict the technology of manufacturing these weapons and the transfer of that technology from the advanced countries to nations such as Iraq?
Baroness Young: My Lords, a team of specialists appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General has concluded that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict between Iraq and Iran. I cannot comment on where they were manufactured. However, I should like to reiterate that for all these reasons we believe that a total ban on chemical weapons is urgently needed.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the speed with which any country can manufacture chemical weapons after the outbreak of hostilities, and the likelihood that they would do so in self-defence, is there not a very unfortunate but strong argument that the world would be safer if all countries had chemical weapons as a deterrent to stop their being used, rather than having none and waiting for one side to break any agreement during hostilities?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that that is a hypothetical situation. We believe that the best way forward is to try to get agreement to abolish the use of chemical weapons in any country in the world.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that, after nuclear weapons, bacteriological and chemical weapons are probably the most hideous and deadly weapons still left in the armoury of a not particularly sane mankind? The endeavours of this Government in seeking to get a complete ban are to be applauded. Does the noble Baroness further agree that

339
here is an opportunity for the Soviet Union to show that it, too, along with our Government, believes this is one step it could take with the United States, after the lead given by the British Government, to get a total ban on these appalling weapons? The Government are worthy of all our approval.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have said, we are working towards a ban on chemical weapons; and, as far as bacteriological weapons are concerned, the next review conference takes place in 1985. This will provide an opportunity to discuss ways of improving the effectiveness of that convention.

Copyright Law: Reform
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to bring forward legislation on copyright, in particular taking note of the interests of the entertainment industries.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the Cable and Broadcasting Bill, which has now completed its passage in your Lordships' House, contains provisions for improving copyright protection which will benefit the entertainment industries. On a wider front, the Government are committed to a comprehensive reform of the copyright law as soon as possible, although no legislative timetable can yet be given.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his somewhat optimistic reply, is he aware that it is the considered opinion of the record industry, which I share, that unless legislation is introduced during the 1984–85 Session the enormous contribution that this important and influential industry makes not only to our balance of payments but also to our position as a world leader in the variety and quality of its products, and which is already seriously reduced, will be subjected to further very serious reductions?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am afraid we cannot say at
this stage what might happen as to future legislation since the details of the 1984–85 Session have not yet been finalised, but I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate that the programme is certainly very crowded. The Government are aware of the problems which have been spelled out by the noble Earl. I believe he will agree, and your Lordships will agree, that there are many problems but also many possible solutions. I am able to tell the noble Earl that the problem of home recording—which I think is the main problem that affects the entertainment industries that concern him and the royalties lost as a result of home taping—is currently under consideration by Ministers.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, does the noble Minister bear in mind that the Whitford report on copyright reform was published as long ago as 1977 and that, in a debate on the Government's Green Paper of 1981 which took place in this House exactly two years ago, the noble Lord the Minister himself remarked that all responses to the Green Paper should be in by August 1982 and, moreover, that every effort would be made to introduce legislative proposals as urgently as possible? Does not the noble Minister agree that the two years that have elapsed since that time have been adequate time to enable the Government to formulate legislative proposals for reform in this most important field, which affects, among other things, two crucial industries in this country—namely, the record and film industries?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Indeed, I have the Green Paper here. I seem to remember taking part in various discussions in your Lordships' House, then and since. We are very grateful for the noble Lord's continuing interest in this subject but, as he will be aware, the issues concerning copyright are very complex. Indeed, the continuing involvement of new issues, new technologies and a number of difficult and controversial issues has meant that continuing wide consultation is still necessary. I am afraid the position has not advanced further since my last comments on this subject.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister take very much to heart the record of the dates which my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead recited, thereby robbing me of the opportunity of showing the House my own historical knowledge in this matter? In taking those dates to heart, is the Minister aware that the Copyright Reform Group, consisting of all the organisations mainly concerned with copyright in various industries, wrote to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 9th March calling her immediate attention to the fact that legislation is urgently needed in this field and that promises have not so far been fulfilled in regard to legislation? Finally, is he aware that the two main concerns in the entertainment industry are unauthorised private recording, both audio and video, and point-to-point communication via satellite? Will he press upon those responsible for those matters the desirability of including legislation in the Session that has already been mentioned; namely 1984–85?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last question I shall do everthing I can to make my right honourable friends aware of the deep feeling that is felt not only by the noble Lord but all round your Lordships' House. The noble Lord referred to point-to-point and satellite broadcasting. On the letter to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, I regret that I was not aware of this, but certainly I am grateful for the information. The noble Lord referred to the Copyright Reform Group, with which I surmise he has some connection—
Lord Mishcon: No. my Lords.
Lord Lyell: He does not, I am sorry.

341
I was going to say that, if he did, it would have a very powerful advocate. I know that this matter of copyright reform is of great interest to many of your Lordships. We are continuing to have discussions with members of the Copyright Reform Group both in your Lordships' House and in the Department.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the very swift advance to which he has referred and the many changes which are taking place are the very reasons legislation is urgently demanded to cope with these new and extreme difficulties which were not envisaged in previous years? I fear that the report to which reference was made earlier is not now wholly relevant because so much has happened in between. I ask the noble Lord to use every ounce of his well-known persuasion to persuade those sitting near him and others who sit in another place to introduce legislation at the earliest possible date.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord for his flattery. He says "every ounce". I am trying to lose ounces every day. Indeed, it is in part the hospitality in your Lordships' House that causes me to gain ounces. I shall certainly take everything that the noble Lord has said to my right honourable friend, but I am sure that the noble Lord and all your Lordships would agree that, with the increase in technology, and the new issues that are arising such as satellite broadcasting, if we are to legislate, we must get it right. There is no point in legislating and then in three, four or even five years' time, finding that that legislation has been utterly overtaken.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is an urgent case for setting up a departmental committee to investigate immediately the incidence and the nature of piracy in these industries?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned piracy. I think that he will be aware that a Private Member's Bill dealing with video piracy has been through your Lordships' House and I think is coming up in another place. As far as a departmental inquiry is concerned, I shall convey that point to my right honourable friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would it not be desirable for the noble Lord to persuade his colleagues to pull out one or two issues on which there is widespread agreement, as is evidenced in this House this afternoon—for example, on the issue of home recording—and legislate on them rather than wait for another two or three years for a number of issues which are indeed changing technologically and are arguable? If the Government wait as they have been doing for the past two years, they will never legislate. Will they not legislate without further delay on those points which are widely agreed?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, that depends on how widely these points are agreed. I am sure that the noble Lord, and indeed one or two of your Lordships who spoke earlier, would agree that there are one or two pressing issues, but I stressed to the noble Earl earlier in my
342
replies that the problem of home recording was under urgent consideration by Ministers. I am sure that that point will ring a bell for the noble Lord with his ministerial experience.

The "General Belgrano"
3.23 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will comment on the allegations made in the recently-published book The Sinking of the Belgrano about the Cabinet decision to sink the Argentine cruiser "General Belgrano" on 2nd May 1982.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, as has been fully explained on many occasions, the "General Belgrano" was attacked because she posed an unacceptable threat to units of the task force, and for no other reason.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the noble Lord the Minister read the assertion that, when the then Chief of the Defence Staff, the noble Lord, Lord Lewin, (to whom I gave notice that I was raising this Question) heard that the "Belgrano" was under visual observation, he proceeded to Chequers where the War Cabinet was meeting, and stated:
"Here was an opportunity to knock off a major unit of the Argentine fleet";
and the Prime Minister then told him to go ahead? Secondly, will the noble Lord confirm that, before the sinking of the "Belgrano", no British serviceman had been killed, whereas after the sinking there were 255 British deaths and over 800 Argentine deaths?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, reminded your Lordships yesterday, he was not consulted by the authors of the book to which I think the noble Lord is referring, but would have been willing to talk with them had they approached him. I cannot therefore comment on the suggestions which the noble Lord makes. As I said in the main Answer, the "General Belgrano" was attacked because she posed an unacceptable threat to units of the task force, and that remains the position.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 13th July last in this House, my noble friend urged the Government to have an independent inquiry into the circumstances of the sinking of the "Belgrano" with the loss of 368 lives? In view of the continuing disquiet—quite apart from the book which has been published and to which reference has been made—do the Government not consider that it would be helpful to their reputation to reconsider their decision on that day?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that many British lives were saved by this timely action; and so far therefore from there being any disquiet in this country on this matter, the reverse is the truth?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I entirely share my noble friend's view.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that on 1st May there was an engagement between aircraft of the Argentine forces and aircraft of the British forces? Is not that in itself sufficient justification for the continuation of hostilities? Does not the Minister think that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, ought to give thanks for the fact that the submarine which was tracking the Argentine aircraft carrier, "Venticinco de Mayo", lost sight of her?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have said, the "Belgrano" was attacked because she posed an unacceptable threat. What your Lordships' view would have been had that threat developed into an attack upon our task force, I do not care to speculate.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will the Minister agree that nothing is more likely to encourage Argentina to renew hostilities, thereby putting our Armed Forces and the population of the Falkland Islands in considerable danger, than the constant stream of pro-Argentine propaganda emanating from certain quarters in this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord. Much has been made of the peaceful intentions of the Argentine at this time; but your Lordships may recall that on 4th April, I think it was, the Security Council passed a resolution calling for Argentine withdrawal from the Falkland Islands, with which it did not comply.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, do not Her Majesty's Government, and my noble friend in particular, entertain a certain sense of gratitude towards the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for giving them so many opportunities to justify the sinking of the "General Belgrano"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope there can no longer be any doubt on the matter.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, in case a feeling is forming that views about the sinking of the "Belgrano" fall along party political lines, could I make it clear that I and I believe many of us—
Noble Lords: No! Question!
Lord Glenamara: May I make it clear to the noble Lord that I and many others feel—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I and many of us feel that in the context of an entirely unprovoked war. however regrettable and
344
tragic the loss of life may have been, the sinking of the "Belgrano" was entirely justified?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister explain how he justifies his claim that the "Belgrano" was a threat to the task force when it has now been established, first, that it was sailing away from the task force; and, secondly, that for 25 hours it had been under observation by HMS "Conqueror"? If it was a threat to the task force, why was it not sunk much earlier than 2nd May? Secondly, will the noble Lord answer the assertion that has been made, in view of the new revelations about the Peruvian peace initiative, that either the War Cabinet authorised the sinking of the "Belgrano" knowing that the Peruvian peace initiative was on the brink of success or in ignorance of that fact, in which case the Foreign Office was in dereliction of its duty?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as has been said on many occasions, the Peruvian peace proposals did not arrive in London until some three hours after the "General Belgrano" was sunk. As for the direction in which the "General Belgrano" was sailing at the time, that ship had changed its heading on a number of occasions during the day in question and it was not therefore possible to say that she was sailing in any particular direction at the time.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the picture that the noble Lord. Lord Hatch of Lusby. paints is one totally dissimilar to anything I saw in the Ministry of Defence at the time of this crisis? Would my noble friend also confirm, in addition to what he has said, very succinctly, as to the one reason why the "Belgrano" was sunk, that every piece of advice to the Prime Minister from our military experts was that it did, without question, pose a threat to the task force and to British lives?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, certainly the "General Belgrano" did pose a threat to units of the task force and that is why the rules on engagement were changed as they were.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, having listened very carefully to what my noble friend has said, would he not agree that, having won the conflict, what is now much more important is to win the peace?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that will be possible.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Report stage of the Roads (Scotland) Bill may be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period and the Public Records (Commission for New Towns) Order 1984 and the Public Records (British Railways Board) Order 1984 will be taken during this adjournment.

Rent (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern):My Lords. I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consoli-date, in relation to Scotland, certain enactments relating to rents and tenants' rights and connected matters. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Health (Control of Disease) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I understand that no Amendment has been put down to this Bill and no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless therefore any noble Lord objects, I propose to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

County Courts Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Criminal Trespass Bill [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Earl of Onslow: I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House, or those Members of the House who have been present at previous stages of this Bill, will know of the personal views which I expressed from this Front Bench and will not appreciate it if I repeat them. I merely say, with great respect to the noble Earl and those who have supported him, that I have regarded this as a mistaken Bill for reasons, as I have said, which I have given beforehand. But no doubt in another place they will have the opportunity of saying whether my view is agreed with or his, and I pay my tribute to the very courteous way in which he has conducted his Bill throughout its passage in this House.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the delicious way in which he disagrees with me. I hope that it has been a useful Bill. I think it has been a useful Bill. It is a very minor piece of legislation on a minor irritant, but which causes a lot of people I think minor irritation. If we can just do a little bit to help our fellow citizens, then we should be reasonably satisfied with ourselves.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords. I should like to support the noble Earl in this Bill, and to say that I am only sorry we could not have widened the terms of reference. I feel that this is something that many people suffer for which there is no recourse in law. I only hope that in future we can have another Bill which will widen the terms of reference to include all private premises. I wish this Bill a fair passage through the other House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to express the full support of the Government for my noble friend Lord Onslow's Bill, and to thank and congratulate both him and my noble friend Lord Renton for their enthusiasm and diligence in taking this measure forward. I feel it is important to note that what is being sought here is a measure which found enormous support when the principle of the protection of homes from intrusion was raised for comment in the Government's consultation paper. It was quite clear from the response to this paper that people felt that it was both necessary and desirable to extend the protection of the criminal law to people in their own homes, and to punish intrusions into such homes.
This measure is. and should be, concerned with catching intruders; those who come into a building to "case the joint", those who snoop in corridors or prowl, unwelcome and uninvited, into places where people live. Such places can of course include not only the conventional family home but also nurses' homes, and residential homes for the old, the very young, and other vulnerable members of our society. Intrusions into people's homes is a thoroughly nasty and potentially harmful activity which my noble friends and the Government think it right to forbid by law. I am therefore most grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward this measure which I commend to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education (Grants and Awards) Bill
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[Reference is to Bill (86).
The Commons Reason is printed in italics]
LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
"No money provided under this Act shall be used in any school where admission is based on selective examination or sets of tests of ability."
The Commons disagree to the Amendment proposed by the Lords for the following Reason:
Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on the amendment to the Bill with which the Commons have disagreed. Your Lordships will see from the paper that the Commons

347
disagreed to the amendment proposed by the Lords for the following reason:
"Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient."
You will see that the other place have taken the view that this amendment infringes their financial privilege and have indicated that they do not wish to waive their privilege in this instance. The amendment was, however, fully debated and rejected in the other place on its merits, and the Government firmly support this rejection. In the interests of brevity, I do not propose to reiterate the Government's objections at this stage. However, I should make it abundantly clear that I am not hiding behind the cloak of Commons privilege, and I am more than willing to reply to any points raised. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on the amendment with which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Earl of Swinton.)
Baroness David: My Lords. I understand that before our amendment after Clause 3, inserting the new clause which reads:
"No money provided under this Act shall be used in any school where admission is based on selective examination or sets of tests of ability."
was discussed in another place, Mr. Speaker drew attention to the fact that Commons privileges were involved. I understand it is very seldom that this happens—in fact, it last happened six years ago, in 1978, when the Parliamentary Pensions Bill was going through Parliament—but that when it does happen it is customary for this House to accept the decision of the Speaker, and we shall therefore not disagree with the Commons in their disagreement to the amendment.
However, that does not prevent me from saying a few words on the merits of the case. I cannot agree with the Secretary of State when he said in his speech (as reported at col. 857 of the Official Report of 19th March):
"The amendment is simply a device to further the objective of Opposition Members to eliminate all forms of selective secondary education".
Our intention was that education support grants should not be used in schools where entry was based on selective examination; that is to say, we wanted the grants for innovation and experiment in the curricu-lum to be used in comprehensive schools. As the number of grammar schools remaining in the country was only 175 at the beginning of January 1983 and is probably slightly less now—the number has declined by over a quarter since 1979—it does not seem unreasonable that what the noble Earl has repeatedly referred to as not a large sum of money (£33 million) should be spent where the greatest numbers of pupils attend—the 5,000 or so secondary schools where entry is not based on tests of ability. A very wide choice therefore remains. It seemed right to us that the attempts to improve the quality and range of educational opportunities that Sir Keith said he wanted should be made where by far the greatest numbers of pupils were. Now nearly 90 per cent. of children are in comprehensive schools.
348
However, we have had the assurance from Sir Keith,
"that we are not proposing that education support grants be used to enable local education authorities to set up new grammar schools".
So we shall have to be content with that. We shall of course be watching with the greatest interest exactly on what, and where, the new powers given to the Secretary of State and the department will be used, and we shall have the opportunity to comment on the proposals when they come before us in the form of regulations, as Clause 3 of the Bill says they must.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I am very surprised that this matter should be pursued so strongly. For myself, I am very grateful for the fact that I went to a grammar school, and I have a feeling that a good many noble Lords who sit on these Benches owe where they are a great deal to the fact that they went to grammar schools. Recently the Opposition has been very strong in defence of the freedom of local authorities. It is the freedom of local authorities to decide whether to have grammar schools, and I am very sad that the Opposition should seek to punish those who make that decision by moving an amendment of this kind. Surely if there are children in grammar schools—
Baroness David: My Lords, may I please interrupt? I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has understood that we are not disagreeing with the Commons in their disagreement.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: No, my Lords, but what the Opposition is suggesting in the amendment is that if there is in a grammar school a child who would benefit by a project which the local authority is undertaking—for example, relating to handicapped children, or other similar purpose—that child should be debarred from benefiting from the Bill. That I find deplorable.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that I must answer one point that the noble Baroness made about this matter, and I am very glad to hear that she is not going to press it. She said that there are only 175 grammar schools in the country. That, I think, is the case, but even though there are only 175 there would be quite a lot of children who would be debarred if the Opposition decided to press this point.
Of course, were the clause to have been enacted as part of the Bill it would have been for the courts, ultimately, to rule on its precise meaning and applica-tion to particular schools. However, it seems clear to me that under this clause no part of education support grants could have been used to support any activity in a sixth-form college that based its admission on pupils' performance at O-level. After all, an O-level examination is a test of ability.
It is also arguable that an 11 to 18 school, for example, which admitted pupils into its sixth form from other schools on the basis of their O-level results might have been similarly excluded, and that exclusion would have applied not just to its sixth form but to the whole school. A further possible interpretation is that, within a local selected school system of grammar and secondary modern schools, the secondary modern schools as well as the grammar

349
schools might have been ruled out for ESG purposes. In such circumstances it could well be argued that the admission of a pupil to a secondary modern school is as much based on a test of his ability as is the admission of a pupil to a grammar school.
Finally, there would have been grave room for doubt about whether secondary schools maintained by ILEA might have been excluded by this amendment. The system of banding operated by ILEA depends partly upon primary pupils' performance in a verbal reasoning test. As I understand it, the test partly determines the proportions of children from each primary school going into each band of ability, and those proportions in turn affect admissions to individ-ual secondary schools. It therefore might well have been argued that ILEA's policy on admissions to secondary schools is based to an extent upon a test of ability, though the objective of that policy is of course to achieve a spread of ability in each school.
I do not think that I need go on at length, and the noble Baroness said that she was not going to do so. But while she spoke about only the children in 175 grammar schools being excluded, had the Opposition insisted on this amendment I think she would have found that it affected very many thousands of children throughout the country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Telecommunications Bill
3.47 p.m
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Telecommunications Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 3 [General duties of Secretary of State and Director]:
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 15, after ("disabled") insert ("or of pensionable age").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment asks your Lordships to agree that in Clause 3, after the word, "disabled", there should be added the words, "or of pensionable age". This is only a tidying-up measure to bring the point into line with the amendment with which my noble friend the Minister agreed at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill. The amendment brings the matter into line with Clause 54, subsection (4)(b) and subsection (5). I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, my noble friend has been a tireless advocate of the needs of both the disabled and the elderly, or, to be absolutely correct, persons of
350
pensionable age. Without further ado I can say that the Government are happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cockfield Lord Cockfield moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("providing") and insert ("producing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is little more than a drafting amendment. The word "providing" could have been interpreted as including imports. That is not what was intended. The word "producing" is not open to that misinterpretation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, leave out lines 7 and 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it is convenient to your Lordships, I should like to take with this amendment Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 55.
Amendment No. 17: Clause 8, page 11, line 18, at end insert—
("(1A) Where a licence granted under section 7 above to a particular person includes a condition requiring that person to provide such directory information services to which this subsection applies as are specified in the licence or are of a descrip-tion so specified, subsection (1) above shall have effect as if the conditions there mentioned included a condition requiring that person to provide without charge for subscribers who are blind or otherwise disabled such directory information services to which this subsection applies as are appropriate to meet the needs of those subscribers and are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified.
(1B) Subsection (1A) above applies to any directory informa-tion service which is provided for the purpose of facilitating the use of a voice telephony service and in that subsection "blind or otherwise disabled" means so blind or otherwise disabled as to be unable to use a telephone directory.").
Amendment No. 18: Clause 8, page 11, line 19, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (1A)").
Amendment No. 19: Clause 8, page 11, line 22, leave out ("paragraphs (a) to (e) of that subsection") and insert ("those subsections").
Amendment No. 55: Clause 107, page 97, line 16, at end insert—
(" "directory information service" has the meaning given by section 4(3) above;").
It is to one of the amendments to Clause 8, Amendment No. 17, that I wish primarily to speak. I hope that this amendment will find favour with your Lordships, as I believe that it meets the concern expressed on Report from all sides of the House. This was that there should be protection in the Bill for all those who, by reason of disability, cannot use the ordinary printed telephone directory. As explained at Report stage, we have already put such protection in the draft BT licence through Condition 34, which ensures that, if BT does introduce charges for its directory inquiry service, then those who do not have the alternative of printed directories will not be put at a financial disadvantage. However, we understood the concern expressed then that there should be something in the Bill as well, and this is what this amendment achieves.
The wording in the new subsection (1A) may be a little obscure so I will try to explain what it means as succinctly as I possibly can. Its broad effect is to ensure that, in the case of the major systems providing voice telephony to the public—BT, Mercury and Hull—before the operators of these systems can be designated as public telecommunications operators

351
under Clause 9, their licences must include a condition requiring them to provide,
"without charge for subscribers who are blind or otherwise disabled such directory information services … as are appropriate to meet the needs of those subscribers".
The new subsection (1B) clarifies the precise information service that is to be required. It must be information,
"for the purpose of facilitating the use of a voice telephony service".
This covers not only telephone numbers but also other information such as STD codes, which are essential for making a telephone call. Subsection (1B) gives some further clarification into which I do not think I need necessarily go now. I hope that what I have already said is sufficient to explain the amendments.
I should like briefly to turn to the other amendments in the group which are largely consequential to the main amendment. The amendment to Clause 3 simply deletes words that are now unnecessary by the inclusion, via Amendment No. 55, of a reference in Clause 107 to directory information services. The other two amendments to Clause 8, Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, are simply drafting consequentials. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the Government that we welcome these amendments. They will know that we had already considered putting down an amendment to achieve very much the same effect although with nothing like the complexity and skill of the Government, and indeed, lacking the help of the resources available to the Government, in moving such amendments. I have to confess that the amendment appears to us very much a second best. It had been our wish throughout that there should be directory inquiry services of the type described by the noble Lord available free of charge to all subscribers as they have been made available historically by British Telecommunications and, I assume, by the Hull telephone undertaking.
The difficulty that we saw at earlier stages of the Bill in the procedures proposed by the Government is not really overcome by the wording that they have proposed. It is, of course, possible for legislation to define what is meant by blind and disabled for the purpose of the Bill. What is much more difficult is for it actually to be carried into effect by telecommunications organisations. How, in practice, will it be possible to say who is blind and who is disabled without setting up a register?
My expectation and, indeed, my hope is that by moving this much more restricted amendment, the Government have paved the way for free directory inquiry services for all. I believe that telecommunications operators, looking coldly at the amount of bureaucracy and inquiry, the keeping of a register and the checking of credentials that would be required by the amendment that the Government have proposed, will say to themselves that the game is not worth the candle and that it is much more economical for them to continue to provide directory inquiry services free to all. In that way, I believe that the objectives that the Opposition and other noble Lords have put forward throughout consideration of
352
the Bill will in the end be achieved. I therefore welcome the amendment more warmly and widely than I believe the Government would wish me to do.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, having received much correspondence, as I am sure many other noble Lords have done, from the Royal National Institute for the Blind, I thank the Minister most warmly for inserting Amendment No. 17 to Clause 8. I am sure that it will be warmly received by the blind, not only those who earn their living but also those blind people who have so many problems in their own homes.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I welcome these amendments as making considerable progress towards the objectives that we had in mind. I have in my hand a letter from the Royal National Institute for the Blind expressing some unhappiness and unease on one point. I should like with the leave of the House to refer to Amendment No. 17 to which the noble Lord spoke. The letter states:
"Various assurances have been given that if charges were introduced for directory information services British Telecom would make special arrangements for blind people. However, no one has produced a satisfactory system for doing this."
My criticism is to ask what kind of system is envisaged in order to deal with this very real problem. The letter goes on to give instances of the difficulties that would arise. According to the letter,
"it would be necessary to distinguish the blind user of the enquiry service from his colleagues at work; the blind person at home from, say, his sighted wife".
These are practical difficulties that must arise in not having free directory information services. Although the theme of Amendment No. 17 is laudable in many respects, its practical application seems to me to be very difficult indeed. Perhaps, if not today, at some other time, we may have some explanation from the Government as to the scheme that they will adopt or will advise should be adopted to deal with this real problem.
Earl Attlee: My Lords. I welcome the amendment. I should like to ask three questions. Would those who are dyslexic be included in the group of "otherwise disabled"? Would people who cannot read be in that group? Thirdly, may I ask whether foreigners who cannot read English will also be included in the group?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply first to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Subsection (1B) clarifies among the other points that I made when I spoke earlier exactly to whom subsection (1A) applies. They are those who are,
"so blind or otherwise disabled as to be unable to use a telephone directory."
This seems to me to cover fully all the groups of people we are concerned about and whom the noble Earl is concerned about. Not only does it include the blind who, for obvious reasons, cannot read a printed directory, but it will also cover the dyslexic who cannot read a directory because of what is known, I understand, as word blindness. It will also cover those who, through physical handicap, cannot use a telephone directory. As to the question of those who

353
cannot read English, I am not clear on that point. I shall certainly let the noble Earl know what the answer is.
As to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, exactly how the condition will be implemented will not be decided until BT has concluded that it wishes to levy charges for the directory inquiry services. When and if it does, then the licence conditions will be drafted so that it must agree with the director how subscribers covered by subsection (1A) are to be identified before it can introduce any charges. I have no doubt that the director's special advisory group on matters affecting the disabled will have a valuable role to play in this respect.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, do I therefore understand him to say that this very important matter will be left entirely to the discretion of the director of Oftel? If that is so, it would seem to me that this is not a matter which should be left to the discretion of the director, and that somehow it should be put into the Bill, perhaps in the other place.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I will certainly note what the noble Lord says rather than go into it any more now. If it needs to be in any way amended at a later stage I will see whether that is possible. But at the moment all I can say is that I am happy that the main intention behind the amendment as proposed meets the concern which has been expressed on all sides of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Meaning of "telecommunication system" and related expressions]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 15, after ("conveyance") insert ("or switching").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, considerable concern has been expressed by large institutional and industrial users that the Bill in its present form would enable BT successfully to oppose the operation of what is known as "switching in systems" by present and future licence holders known as VAN licence holders. That is the technical term for those who use value added network systems, and the words "value added network" give the generic term "VAN". They are very important licences commercially, and I should like briefly to mention the kind of use which is envisaged and which takes place with them. They operate in telephone answering systems, view data arrangements and many others.
In the early hours of 13th March I discussed this matter with many noble Lords who were present on that occasion, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate (who, as well as being a very distinguished advocate, is a very kindly man) said that as his answer would be rather long would I mind if he wrote to me about it. Noble Lords agreed with that suggestion, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, asked to be sent copies of that letter. In due course a two-page letter was received, carefully drafted by parliamentary counsel, dealing with this matter. It seemed to me and to my advisers in this matter that this was rather a
354
complicated way of dealing with it, even if the letter did address itself to the problem that we had in mind. Consequently there have been very useful discussions—for which I and my advisers are very grateful—particularly with a Mr. Ellison, as to how more easily to solve this question. It was considered that the word "switching" should somehow be introduced into the clause in order to clarify the way in which the system was operated.
With the leave of the House I should like to refer briefly to Amendment No. 14, which has been put forward by the Government and which deals with this question. In that amendment the Government have said that the word "switching" or "switch" can be included everywhere after the word "convey" appears. So it will be "convey or switch" everywhere except in subsection (1). My purpose in addressing your Lordships is to clarify the position as to why there has been this limitation in regard to the use of the word "switching" in subsection (1). I rather gather that the broad reason for reserving the position with regard to subsection (1) is that in subsection (1) the Government are concerned also with communications as regards satellites. If that is the position I am prepared to accept it, and a brief reply from the Minister, even a "Yes", would enable me to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the point which is raised in Amendment No. 4 by the noble Lord is the point which, as he says, is dealt with primarily in Amendment No. 14, because we accepted the reasoning behind the noble Lord's Amendment No. 4 and tabled Amendment No. 14, which deals with exactly the same point in a slightly different way.
Amendment No. 14: Page 5, line 46, at end insert—
("(7) In this section, except subsection (1) above "convey" includes transmit, switch and receive and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.").
Let me explain how we understand it to work. The problem arises when apparatus is connected to a system and provides a service but does not itself actually convey a message. We ourselves attempted to deal with the problem originally by including a tailpiece to subsection (1) of Clause 4, which was criticised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for its complexity. We have since introduced subsection (2) as now printed in the Bill, but we have realised in the light of the discussions to which the noble Lord has referred that when a system is regarded as a system under subsection (2) it may not convey messages but may only switch them. However, we have also realised that such a system might receive messages without conveying them, or might transmit messages without conveying them.
To deal with this we considered the option of adding the word "switching" after "conveyance" in subsection (1), as the noble Lord has proposed, but thought it best not to do so because this would have cast doubt on the position of apparatus which received or transmitted without conveying. Also, we were influenced by the natural or dictionary meaning of the term "telecommunications system", which is, after all, an assembly of component parts which conveys sounds, visual images or signals from one place to another, and not a single piece of apparatus. We thought it best to stick with the natural meaning of the

355
term "telecommunication system" as we have done in subsection (1), and to make it clear that if an item of telecommunication apparatus is connected to a telecommunication system so that it switches, receives or transmits messages it should be regarded as if it were a telecommunication system. Amendment No. 14 therefore clarifies that when a single item of apparatus is connected to a system so that it transmits, switches or receives messages conveyed by the system or systems to which it is connected it is treated as itself conveying the messages. It achieves the result which the noble Lord seeks in a way which we think prefer-able to the one which he has chosen.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 12 relate to the same topic, so perhaps I can say now that they merely delete the word "switched" or "switching" in seven places where those words become redundant as a result of Amendment No. 14.
Amendment No. 6: Page 5, line 3, leave out ("or switched")
Amendment No. 7: Page 5, line 5, leave out ("or switching")
Amendment No. 8: Page 5, line 10, leave out ("or switching")
Amendment No. 9: Page 5, line 27, leave out ("or switching")
Amendment No. 10: Page 5, line 29, leave out ("or switched")
Amendment No. 11: Page 5, line 35, leave out ("or switched")
Amendment No. 12: Page 5, line 37, leave out ("or switching")
I hope that this meets the point that the noble Lord has made.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his full and careful explanation of this very important matter for certain institutional and industrial organisations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 40, leave out ("for supply or export of such apparatus") and insert ("of such apparatus for supply or export")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 12:
[Printed above.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Nos. 6 to 12 en bloc. I have given the explanation that these amendments leave out words which are now surplusage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 43, leave out ("be disregarded for the purposes of this Act if it") and insert ("not be regarded as a connection for the purposes of this Act if that other telecommunication system or that apparatus")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. It makes no change of substance, but as it was referred to earlier, perhaps I ought to say a little about it.
Subsection (6) of Clause 4 provides that indirect connection is not to be regarded as a connection for the purposes of the Act. Thus the telecommunication system in Hull, for example, is not to be treated as connected to the telecommunication systems in, say, America if the connection is made indirectly via the British Telecom or Mercury system. Under the Bill only the direct connections between the Hull and BT systems and between BT and the American systems are to be treated as connections for the purposes of the Bill.
The drafting of subsection (6) was criticised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway at the Committee stage, and I think my noble friend indicated that he had asked some others for their views and they had tended to agree with him. The amendment will, we hope, clarify the meaning of subsection (6), but it also avoids the implication that indirect connection must be disregarded completely for other purposes of the Bill. If the amendment is adopted it will, for example, be possible to insert one set of conditions into the licences for private systems which are connected to leased circuits which themselves are connected at the far end to the public switched telecommunication networks, and another set of conditions when the leased circuit connects to another private system. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 14:
[Printed earlier: col. 354.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment when I explained our attitude to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exceptions to section 5]:
4.11 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 8, line 27, at end insert—
("(4A") In the case of businesses and systems described in subsection (3) above, section 5(1) above is not contravened when the systems described are interconnected for the purpose of transmitting between the systems messages relating to the affairs of the businesses.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, it might be for the convenience of the House if, at the same time, I speak to Amendment No. 16.
Amendment No. 16: Page 9, line 14, after ("specified") insert—
("including systems described in sections 6(3) and 6(4A) above and public telecommunication systems").
Both these amendments are concerned with encouraging greater efficiency for business users. It is important to emphasise that business users are concerned only with making their own businesses more effective. They are not in the least concerned with trying to make profits by selling telephone calls or circuits to third parties.
Business accepts that British Telecom will require time to adjust itself to the new regime, and business also accepts that Mercury will require time to become

357
firmly established. Through these amendments business seeks the assurance that it can be neither delayed nor otherwise hindered from improving its own communications while public systems sort themselves out. The two amendments, in fact, deal with slightly different points, and briefly I should like to describe each of them to your Lordships.
The first amendment, No. 15, is designed basically to enable business to communicate more efficiently with those businesses with which it has close and mutual interests by linking their systems together. If they do not have significant interests in common, businesses will certainly not go to the bother and expense of linking their systems together. The amendment is designed to allow related businesses, such as a retail chain and its suppliers or a motor manufacturer and its dealers, to operate more efficiently by routing messages rapidly from any point on one system to any point in another system. This operation does not involve the public switched telecommunications systems, and allows the individ-ual business to optimise the systems they own and rent. By improving business efficiency, these interconnections will:
"promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users in the United Kingdom"
as required of the Secretary of State under Clause 3(2)(a).
I need hardly add at this stage that in this informa-tion age more efficient communication is a vital ingredient of more efficient operation, which, in turn, is good not just for the United Kingdom customers of the business, but also good for its export performance.
I now turn to Amendment No. 16. This amendment is designed to ensure that businesses can optimise the systems that they have purchased and rented by transmitting messages both between interconnected business systems and between any such business system and the public switched telecommunications systems. Such interconnections will allow messages entering business systems to be routed to the addressee, whether he is at his desk and on his system or out of his office, at home, or otherwise away from his system. They will also allow incoming callers to be connected and transferred by the business to the appropriate points on its own system. The basic principle of this amendment is the desire of business to communicate even more effectively by providing better communications into its business from the world outside, and by communicating quickly and directly with its staff, wherever they happen to be. These can both be achieved by connecting business systems to the public systems. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I intervene briefly to say that it seems to me that Amendment No. 15 is a very useful amendment for clarifying the position. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when he says that it would appear to assist in the more efficient operation of these systems. Therefore, I support this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in most of what he said, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, appears to be referring to systems of electronic mail. I may have misunderstood him, and if so I shall gladly
358
give way. But in so far as he is talking about systems which provide messages for individuals—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, certainly that would be included; but it is not mainly for electronic mail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in that case, I shall withdraw the guarded welcome that I was about to give to the amendment. If it is to be concerned primarily with electronic mail, I do not think anyone could have any objection. After all, electronic mail systems operate primarily through data networks. It is not my understanding—and here I would be glad of the Government's confirmation—that they would be considered to be part of telecommunications systems.
However, the noble Lord made two other points which I think deserve comment. First, he is saying that businesses in general are not interested in making money from the switching of messages. I had thought that a large part of our consideration of this Bill had been because a large number of noble Lords were speaking on behalf of businesses which want to make a great deal of money out of add-on services to the British Telecommunications network. I thought that they had achieved a certain measure of success. Therefore, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, should be giving us that blanket assurance.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that it was necessary for this provision to be made while British Telecom and Mercury "sort themselves out". British Telecom does not need to sort itself out. British Telecom is providing an effective service for business which is only being delayed and hindered by the unnecessary intervention of Government into the provision of its services by way of this Bill. If it were not for this Bill, there would be no question of British Telecommunications sorting itself out. It is because of the privatisation and the liberalisation—and I use the two words separately—that there is any possibility of any problem between British Telecom and its business customers.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, it might be convenient to deal with Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together. The Government sympathise entirely with the general aims which I understand underlie these two amendments. As I understand them, both seek to ensure that the Bill makes proper provision to ensure that businesses can use leased circuits provided by British Telecom or Mercury to improve their internal business communications and to communicate with other firms with which they have close links. I can assure my noble friend that, although I have to resist the amendments, we do in fact support that aim. I should also like to thank my noble friend for the trouble he took earlier in explaining to me at some length exactly what his amendments are aiming at, and on that account perhaps I am able to give him a fuller answer than might otherwise have been the case.
As he has explained, Amendment No. 15 seeks to insert in Clause 6 a new provision about the interconnection of business systems. It provides that when one business system is connected to another the interconnected systems would be exempt from

359
licensing. The amendment would, however, cover two completely different sets of circumstances. One of these causes no difficulty for the Government and it is already dealt with by Clause 6. But the other causes great difficulties and would have to be resisted. I think that these difficulties arise from the drafting of the amendment rather than from any difference of principle.
The first way in which the amendment can be read is to apply to different systems run by the same business. An example would be where a company had two different locations which each had a private switchboard and these switchboards were not connected to the public networks or to any other system. The firm concerned might then want to install its own circuit between the two locations, and might want to purchase the circuit itself, arrange all the installation work and then to control or run the link itself. The two switchboards in the different locations would then become a single system connected together by the privately-supplied private circuit.
This arrangement is already covered by Clause 6, just as it has been covered by Section 13 of the British Telecommunications Act. Any firm can provide its own connections between its own different offices or factories and does not need any licence to do so. It must, however, observe all the conditions set out in Clause 6(3) and (4) and in particular must not be connected to any system run by any other person including in particular systems run by British Telecom or Mercury. So long as the systems are entirely private and self-contained they are covered by Clause 6.
The second way Amendment No. 15 can be read is to apply to different systems run by different businesses. This would permit, for example, firm A to connect up to firms B, C and D, while firm B could connect up to firms E, F and G and firm G could connect up to firms H, J and K. Under the amendment all this would be done under an exemption from licensing. The result would be, or might be, to permit, without any licensing control whatsoever, the creation of an independent business telecommunications network providing widespread trunk by-pass facilities. This could seriously damage the economics of the public networks and could impair their ability to finance the present universal service. The Government could not contemplate this, and I believe that my noble friend did not intend to cover that situation. The mischief is in the use of the word "businesses" in the amendment. So much for Amendment No. 15.
Amendment No. 16 is partly consequential on 15, but, as I understand it, my noble friend is seeking reassurance that there are sufficient powers in the Bill to oblige British Telecom to provide circuits to connect different firms together. I can give him that reassurance. I think from the explanation that my noble friend has given that possibly he is concentrating on things as they are now, where British Telecom is in complete control of the matter and, because it owns its own systems, can decide what can and what cannot be connected to them.
May I ask my noble friend to look at the future, when, as I confidently expect, the Bill has become law and has done two important things? First, it will bring
360
to an end British Telecom's role in licensing; all licensing functions and the decisions on who does what will pass to the Secretary of State (or to the Director General of Telecommunications). Secondly, the Bill creates an unambiguous power to ensure that, when the Secretary of State licenses someone to run a system and to connect it to British Telecom's systems, then British Telecom will be obliged to make the connection.
I shall explain how these powers will work. Clause 7(1) empowers the Secretary of State to license any person to run any telecommunication system specified or described in his licence. Clause 7(4) empowers the Secretary of State to say in each person's licence which other systems the licensee is authorised to connect to his own system. My noble friend will see that sub-paragraph (a)(i) of subsection (7) uses the words, "any other telecommunication system". I should explain that the word "system" applies not only to the public switched telephone network run by British Telecom which is a single giant system but also to the switched telex and packet switched networks. Moreover, each of the different forms of leased circuit run by British Telecom, including those known as external extensions, private circuits and inter PBX extensions, can be treated individually as a separate system in its own right. Put another way, there are no exceptions to what connections may be authorised by Clause 7(4), and the Secretary of State can license any form of connection of a private system to any leased circuit run by BT.
I turn now to the other side of the equation and British Telecom's obligations towards those who are licensed to connect to its systems. Clause 7(5) authorises the inclusion in licences of such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks requisite or expedient having regard to his Clause 3 duties. Clause 3(l)(a), for example, requires the Secretary of State to exercise his licensing functions in the way he thinks best so that, if someone demands a telecommunications service, like the conveyance of messages over a British Telecom leased circuit, and if the other requirements of Clause 3 are met, that service may be provided. This means that the Secretary of State can include in British Telecom's licence the condition now numbered as Condition 13 in the published draft licence, which obliges British Telecom to provide connections to any person who is licensed to connect to its systems. Clause 8(l)(b) makes this doubly sure by specifying that British Telecom cannot be designated as a public telecommunications operator unless its licence includes a condition like draft Condition 13.
But British Telecom cannot be left in a position where the Secretary of State can authorise any system, without any conditions, to connect to the public networks or to leased circuits. Technical standards must be imposed on those who run private systems connected to the British Telecom systems and there must be arrangements to ensure that private operators are not able to exploit the use of leased circuits so as to damage the revenues British Telecom needs to finance its universal service. The way we intend to secure both these very necessary objectives is to say in British Telecom's licence that it must connect its systems—leased circuits and public switched circuits alike—to systems run by other persons under licences

361
authorising the connection of their systems to the British Telecom system.
We shall then include in the licences for private operators conditions, for example, about technical standards and provisions specifying the telecommunication services (including those involving third party use of leased circuits) which the private operator may provide. If we are to do this, we cannot go down the route suggested by the amendment. If we are to oblige British Telecom to provide connections between private systems on the one hand and leased circuits or the public switched networks on the other, it is essential that the private systems are subject to licensing controls for the two reasons that I have specified.
I hope that what I have said—and I have gone into fairly full detail on this matter—reassures those who have expressed an interest in the matter, and perhaps also enables me to take some comfort from the support of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in respect of these amendments.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble and learned friend not only for his clear explanation but for the time and trouble he spent before we got to this stage of the Bill to make sure that we understood these points. What comes out of the amendment is that it is going to be important, in order to get this efficiency which underlies both these amendments, that the licences that are given to the non-public networks are given swiftly and not delayed one bit once this Bill becomes law. I hope that both the director, when he is set up, and the Secretary of State perhaps even before then, will give great attention to the swift granting of licences when they are applied for. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 15.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved]
Clause 8 [Special provisions applicable to certain licences]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 17:
[Printed earlier: col. 350.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
[Printed earlier: col. 350.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 were also spoken to with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [The telecommunications code]:
4.29 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 13, line 19, at end insert—
(" ( ) A licence under section 7 above which applies the telecommunications code to any person in relation to any part or
362
locality of the United Kingdom shall include a condition requiring that person to cause copies of—

(a) the exceptions and conditions subject to which the telecommunications code has effect as so applied; and

(b) every direction given in a manner specified in any such condition by a person so specified or of a description so specified,

to be open for inspection by members of the public free of charge at such premises in that part or locality as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage the Government gave various assurances about amendments that they would be willing to bring forward in response to what were then Amendments Nos. 80B, 80C, and 129A, and it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak together to the amendments we now propose to Clause 10 of the Bill and to paragraph 24 of Schedule 2; that is to say, Amendments Nos. 71 and 72.
Amendment No. 71: Page 131, line 22, at beginning insert—
(" (1) Any notice required to be given by the operator to any person for the purposes of any provision of this code must be in a form approved by the Director as adequate for indicating to that person the effect of the notice and of so much of this code as is relevant to the notice and to the steps that may be taken by that person under this code in respect of that notice.")
Amendment No. 72: Page 132, line 4, at end insert—
(" ( ) In any proceedings under this code a certificate purporting to be signed by the Director and stating that a particular form of notice has been approved by him as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above shall be conclusive evidence of the matter certified.")
In commenting on Amendment No. 80C at Report stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said that we thought that the kind of arrangements it envisaged were, on the whole, eminently sensible. In essence those arrangements were that details of licences and related documents applying the telecommunications code to an operator should be available for inspection by members of the public free of charge at places convenient for individuals who may be affected.
This is what the amendment to Clause 10 is intended to achieve. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to include in any licence which applies the telecommunications code a condition requiring the licensee to make available a copy of the exceptions and conditions subject to which the code has been applied and a copy of any direction given under such a licence condition for inspection by the public free of charge. What this means in practice is that operators who have the privilege of installing their apparatus under the telecommunications code powers will have to take steps to ensure that the provisions of the part of the licence which are relevant to the application of the code and any relevant directions including for example a direction to follow a code of practice, are easily accessible to those who may be affected. In BT's case this will be achieved by including a provision in part 5 of its licence equivalent to the existing Condition 16(3)(b) which requires its standard charges et cetera to be published and made available in a publicly accessible part of every one of its major offices.
As far as other operators are concerned the precise requirements will be the subject of consultation under Clause 10 along with all the other code related licence conditions and exception. But the intention is clear from the drafting, namely, that the relevant

363
documents will be easily accessible in such premises as are specified in the licence.
May I turn now to the amendments to paragraph 24 of the code which deal with a closely related subject? Paragraph 24 sets out the procedures to be followed when, under one of the provisions of the code, an operator serves a notice, for example a notice under paragraph 5 of the code requiring the agreement of a landowner to the installation of apparatus on private land. The principal objective of the amendment to Clause 10 to which I have just spoken is to ensure that people face no difficulty in establishing whether or not an operator is complying with the terms of his licence or any code of practice to which the licence refers. Expressed another way, our aim is to ensure that people know what are the limits of the code powers conferred by the licence.
The amendments to paragraph 24, of which the first is the substantive one, serve a similar purpose. We have drawn heavily on the earlier amendment 129AA which was put down by the noble Lords opposite at Report stage. The amendment would require the operator to seek the director's approval of the form of notices issued by operators under the relevant provisions of Schedule 2. And the amendment gives the director clear guidance as to what his task is. It is to ensure that the people who receive notices from telecommunications operators are informed of their rights under the code so that they can take whatever steps are necessary (for example by issuing a counter-notice objecting to an operator's proposals) to protect their position. This amendment would also, I think, meet the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who gave the example of an elderly person who received a notice abut tree lopping. In response, my noble friend Lord Lyell said that we would envisage dealing with the matter via licence conditions. On reflection, we think that this amendment will achieve precisely the effect we intend without the need for individual conditions in each licence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Provisions supplementary to section 10]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 16, line 10, at end insert—
("`(d) provide for the purposes of any provision contained in the scheme by virtue of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above for such questions arising under the scheme as are specified in the scheme, or are of a description so specified, to be referred to, and determined by, the Director.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to clarify the effect of Clause 11 (4) of the Bill. Clause 11(4) gives the Secretary of State a power to make a scheme giving effect to transitional provisions in circumstances where the telecommunications code ceases to apply to an operator because his licence expires or is revoked. The Secretary of State can only make a scheme by means of an order which is subject to the negative resolution procedure. Within that framework of parliamentary control the Secretary of State is given a power by subsection (4) to make whatever transitional provision he thinks necessary.
Subsection (5) of Clause 11 then goes on to specify some of the things that he may need to provide for in such a scheme, for example requirements on the former code operator to remove particular pieces of apparatus and authorisations for certain apparatus to remain lawfully installed pending its being taken over by a future licensee. However, we have concluded that the clause is insufficiently clear about how these objectives are to be achieved. As it is currently drafted the Secretary of State appears to have two choices. Either he could frame a very general scheme which would require detailed matters to be referred back to him for decision (for example, whether the telegraph poles in a particular street were to be removed) or he could attempt to draw up a very detailed scheme covering all the issues which might conceivably arise during the transition.
In practice he might very well want to involve the director in detailed decisions and make provision in the scheme for the director's involvement. The purpose of the amendment to subsection (5), is therefore, to make clear that he can do this. The drafting follows the precedent set by Clause 109(5) and there are no substantive policy implications. I hope that on that basis your Lordships will accept that this is a modest improvement in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Modification of licence conditions by agreement]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 17, line 14, after ("sections") insert ("8 above and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small but very significant amendment. It is to include Clause 8 into the list of clauses which cannot be modified once they have had included in the licences the special provisions referred to in Clause 8. Clause 8 is an extremely important clause because the Government have set out time and again that there need be no anxiety about the problems of rural areas on the question of service, charges and things like that. The special provisions which Clause 8 will put into the licences will meet that point. I. and members of the official Opposition, have many times put forward the problems dealing with rural areas. They are so important that I do not apologise for taking up your Lordships' time in this matter.
I want now to read to your Lordships the answer given to me by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 19th of March at col. 1065 of the Official Report. In reply to my amendment suggesting there should be some safeguards about the position in rural areas, he started off:
"I think that most of your Lordships will feel as I do, that we have been here not once but many times before".
That was a mild and charming reproval for my previous persistence. Then he went on to say:
"Your Lordships at the Committee stage passed an amendment specifically designed to achieve the objectives set out in the noble Lord's latest amendment".
In response to that I moved two amendments at the beginning of Report stage. Those amendments were

365
accepted on a Division, and they referred mainly to Clause 8. He went on to say, at the end:
"Briefly, I would sum up the position like this. There is nothing between the noble Lord and the Government on the desirable objectives to be achieved. It is simply that we feel that we have done it in a rather more effective way than the noble Lord has succeeded in doing it".
At some stage the point was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I have not got the reference, but I see that the noble Lord, Lords Spens, is nodding his head in agreement with my general observation that he did raise some point.
Clause 12 deals with modifications of the licence conditions by agreement. Subsection (7) says:
"References in this section and in sections 13 to 15 below to modifications of the conditions of a licence do not include references to modifications of conditions relating to the application of the telecommunications code".
As I read that subsection it means, as it stands before my amendment is introduced, that, talking loosely, one cannot interfere with the conditions in Clauses 13 and 15.I am submitting that there should be inserted in that subsection a reference to Clause 8, saying, therefore, that Clause 8 and Clauses 13 and 15 are the clauses selected in relation to which no conditions to the licence should be modified.
The Government have been most helpful in this matter and most reassuring to people in rural areas. They have told us explicitly, "Do not worry about the conditions arising in rural areas now"—the difficulties on charges in rural areas that we on this side of the House have emphasised so frequently. "Do not worry about that; we have Clause 8. We have done it for you; we have brought in Clause 8 to deal with these problems far better than you on that side of the House have by means of your own amendments". Therefore, I want to enshrine Clause 8 among the clauses as to which, once conditions have been inserted under them, they should not be modified.
To deal with the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Spens and Lord Bruce of Donington, some argument was raised on this point by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I have read it with great care, and I do not think that that answer is appropriate in this case. Therefore, I beg to move that Clause 8 be enshrined in Clause 12(7) to safeguard the position of the rural areas.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no intention of wearying the House by repeating the arguments made on this at Report stage, particularly as the arguments have been made so effectively and freshly by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in his admirable and quite ingenious amendment. It seems that this Bill has various layers of protection moving down from the first part of Clause 3 to the second part of Clause 3, a long way down to Clause 8 and way beyond that to unprotected licence conditions. The amendment moved by the noble Lord would give effect to the assurances given by the Government when they rejected the amendment which we moved at Committee stage. It would seem logical and rational for them to accept the amendment which is now proposed.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, because I agreed with and supported him previously. I hope that Clause 8 will now be brought in with Clauses 13 and 15 to become a clause which cannot be altered in the licence.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, my first difficulty is to relate the excellent speech which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, made to the amendment which he has moved. If your Lordships will look with me at Clause 12(7) and the place into which he proposes to insert his amendment, as I understand it—there may be something wrong with my understanding, and I should be glad to be corrected—Clause 12(7) at present says:
"References in this section and in sections 13 and 15 below to modifications …do not include".
Before that makes sense we require to find in the sections listed a reference to "modifications". I do not think there is any reference to modifications in Section 8, and therefore the proposed amendment appears to be utterly devoid of effect.
That seems to dispose of the amendment fairly effectively. However, the noble Lord has asked a more general query which I should like to deal with, because I believe it is covered. He wants to be assured that under Clause 12 the director general could not modify out conditions which are imposed on the basis of Clause 8 from a public telecommunications systems operator's licence. In my view, on the terms of the Bill as drafted that would not be possible for this reason. Clause 9(1) permits designation as a public telecommunications system:
"any telecommunication system the running of which is authorised by a licence to which section 8 above applies".
In other words, there cannot be a public telecommunications system unless it is authorised by a licence to which Clause 8 applies. It goes on in the tailpiece (and I think this helps us further) to say:
"any reference in this Act to a public telecommunication system is a reference to a telecommunication system which is so designated"—
that is, under Clause 9—
"and the running of which is so authorised"—
that is, under Clause 8.
Clause 8 describes the licence by reference to "conditions", and if the conditions which are specified in Clause 8 are not to be found in the licence at any time then it is not a licence to which Clause 8 applies, because the necessary conditions are not in the licence—that is, the necessary conditions in order that Clause 8 should apply to it. The consequence is that if the licence were to be modified by way of removing any of the Clause 8 conditions it would immediately preclude that system from being described from then onwards as "a public telecommunication system". It is the public telecommunication system that is at the root of this matter.
In the light of that argument, which I hope is plain to the noble Lord and to others who have raised this, the result which the noble Lord seeks to achieve by his amendment is achieved in the Bill as it stands, whereas, as I have pointed out, his amendment, with the greatest possible respect, does not really go in that

367
direction at all. I hope that in the light of this explanation the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his courtesy in explaining that to your Lordships in the way he has. In fairness to myself, I must put another point to him, though I do not preface my points by saying anything rhetorical or anything about the noble and learned Lord's argument, as he did in relation to mine. I look at it in this way. Clause 12(1) says:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Director may modify the conditions of a licence granted under section 7 above".
The licence is granted under Clause 7, and special conditions are put into that licence under Clause 8. The conditions with which I am concerned are conditions which will be helpful and which will relieve the anxieties of users in rural areas.
Clause 12(1) says that the director can modify the conditions of a licence granted under Clause 7, and therefore Clause 8 above. Clause 12(7) goes on to say:
"References in this section and in sections 13 to 15"
should not, in effect, be modified. All that I am saying on this kind of argument is that Clause 8 should be included to ensure that there is no argument to say that the conditions in Clause 8 can be altered.
The other answer of the noble and learned Lord to me is, "Don't worry. Read Section 9(1). Read the definitions of 'telecommunications systems' or what-you-will in other parts of the Bill. Therefore, it is clear that the special conditions included in the licence under Section 8 cannot be modified". Therefore, if the licences have these conditions to help the people in rural areas, he says that the Bill itself says that they cannot be modified.
It seems to me that if that is the position—and I am not arguing with the noble and learned Lord so far as that position is concerned—and the conditions of Section 8 cannot be amended under any circumstances, then I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have accepted an amendment which enshrines Section 8 in the way that I have suggested. It should be made clear that once the special conditions in Section 8 have been introduced they cannot be altered and they should not be amended. Unless the noble and learned Lord wishes to make any further correction to my submission—I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in order that I may understand the sense of his proposed amendment, can he refer me to the reference in Clause 8 to a modification?—for that is the only way his amendment would make sense as I would understand it.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, you have a clause with terms in it. Clause 12(1) says:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Director may modify the conditions of a licence granted under section 7 above".
It is quite simple. Therefore, Clause 8 does not have to have the word, "modifications" or the words, "alleged
368
modifications" in it. There is no need for the word "modification" to be included in the way that the noble and learned Lord has submitted. I know that the noble and learned Lord disagrees with me, but this is a very fine point. There are other provisions of the Bill that I could call in aid, but I do not propose to do so at this stage.
4.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 111

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jacques, L.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kagan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kaldor, L.

Banks, L.

Kearton, L.

Beswick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Lawrence, L.

Bishopston, L.

Leatherland, L.

Blease, L.

Listowel, E.

Bottomley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bowden, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

[Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Caradon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mais, L.

Collison, L.

Milford, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn,

Oram, L.

B.

Phillips, B.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs B

Ross of Marnock, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Spens, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

[Teller.]

Stamp, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hale, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Stone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ilchester, E.

White, B.

Jacobson, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cathcart, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelwood, L.

Annan, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Avon, E.

Cockfield, L.

Bauer, L.

Cox, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Daventry, V.

Belstead, L.

De Freyne, L.

Caithness, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Digby, L.

369

Dormer, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Newall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orkney, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Gisborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glanusk, L.

Porritt, L.

Glasgow, E.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gormanston, V.

Reigate, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gridley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint

Sandford, L.

Marylebone, L.

Savile, L.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hives, L.

Somers, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Stathcarron, L.

Hood, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Hylton-Foster, B.

L.

Kitchener, E.

Strathspey, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Suffield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Luke, L.

Swinton, E.[Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Teynham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Margadale, L.

Torphichen, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Trenchard, V.

Avon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Vickers, B.

Milverton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Molson, L.

Westbury, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Morris, L.

Wise, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 [Securing compliance with licence conditions]:
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 21, line 38, leave out ("is likely") and insert ("has contravened and is likely again").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 en bloc.
Amendment No. 24: Page 21, line 41, leave out from ("securing") to ("that") in line 42 and insert ("compliance with").
Amendment No. 25: Page 22, line 3, leave out ("is likely") and insert ("has contravened and is likely again").
Amendment No. 26: Page 22, line 5, leave out from ("securing") to end of line 6 and insert ("compliance with").
Amendment No. 27: Page 22, line 12, leave out from ("if') to end of line 13 and insert—
(" (a) he is satisfied that the telecommunications operator is contravening, or has contravened and is likely again to contravene, any of the conditions of his licence; and
(b) the provision made by the order (with any modifications) is requisite for the purpose of securing compliance with that condition.").
Amendment No. 28: Page 22, line 31, leave out ("and").
Amendment No. 29: Page 23, leave out lines 3 to 5.
These amendments give effect to an undertaking I gave at the Report stage that we would reconsider the amendments which we then introduced to deal with the problem of intermittent breach of licence conditions.
The Bill, as introduced, empowered the director general to make an enforcement order only when an operator,
"is not complying with any of the conditions of his licence".
As explained at Report, this gave rise to problems where an operator committed an intermittent breach of his licence conditions, since an enforcement order could not be made when the operator had put matters right for the time being but was likely to commit a similar breach of his licence conditions in the future. This would expose those who depend on tele-communications to unnecessary uncertainty; they would need to be damaged again by a second breach of the relevant licence condition before they could obtain redress.
On Report we replaced the original formula,
"is not complying with any conditions of his licence"
by the words
"is contravening or is likely to contravene any of the conditions of his licence".
These new words are at line 38 on page 21 of the current print of the Bill but there is a printing error: the word "is" is omitted before "contravening".
It has been pointed out to us that some regard the words "is likely to" as going too far the other way. I think the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others suggested that to us when we put the amendment forward. There could be circumstances where the operator had not breached his licence conditions and had no intention of doing so, but the director thought it a good idea to make an order. This would have enabled the director to interfere unduly in the day-to-day management of an operator's system. That was the concern. We did not intend this; interference in commercial affairs should certainly be limited to circumstances where there is a need for it.
We therefore propose by these amendments that an enforcement order should be made either where an operator is contravening any of the conditions of his licence or has contravened such a condition and is likely again to contravene any of these conditions. This is an amalgam of what we originally proposed with what was then Amendment 116 on the Marshalled List at Report stage and which was removed in the light of our amendment. In our view, this will deal adequately with the problem of intermit-tent breaches of licence conditions by limiting the circumstances where the director can intervene to those where there has been an actual breach of the licence conditions.
This change has another desirable result. It makes it possible to revert to the drafting of the rest of Clause 16 which was originally introduced and which said that an order could make such provision as is requisite for the purpose of securing compliance with a condition that had been breached. The formula we introduced at Report, securing that the operator does not so contravene or continue so to contravene that condition, is suitable only for circumstances where

371
there had not been a breach and one was thought likely to occur.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 25 remove the words "is likely" and replace them by the words "has contravened and is likely again" to contravene. Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 delete the cumbersome formula to which I have just referred. Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 simplify subsection (4) by removing the complication of a relevant purpose which is currently defined in subsection (7) by referring to subsections (1) and (2). Amendment No. 28 merely deletes an unnecessary "and". I hope that this explanation gives your Lordships a clear impression of what we intend and that these amendments will be found acceptable. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): Amendments Nos. 23 to 29 have been moved en bloc. I will, however, deal with Amendment No. 23 in the usual way and then call Amendments Nos. 24 to 29.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord not only for the amendments but for the very clear way in which he moved them. I cannot avoid noting that on 22nd March the noble and learned Lord wrote to the Society of Telecom Executives, using the words with which he now proposes to amend the Bill, and in that sense I suspect he was rather jumping the gun on the position as it stood at that time. But these are improvements. They overcome some of the difficulties that we foresaw with some of the Government amendments when they were moved earlier; and we indicated that we did not think the Government were making these difficulties intentionally. We are glad to have it confirmed that this is indeed the case.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 24 to 29 en bloc.
[Printed earlier: col. 369.]
Clause 18 [Validity and effect of orders]:
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 25, line 2, leave out from ("actionable") to the end of line 4 and insert ("at the suit or instance of any person aggrieved by that contravention to the extent that the contravention continued after he had served a notice of complaint in respect of it upon the Director and the telecommunications operator in accordance with subsection (6A) below and he has suffered loss or damage thereby.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak to Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 with this amendment. Amendment No. 31: Page 25, line 4, at end insert—
(" (6A) A notice of complaint under subsection (6) above shall take such form and contain such information and be served in such manner as the Director may from time to time specify for the purposes of that subsection.").
Amendment No. 32: Page 25, line 5, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
(" (7A) If, in any proceedings brought against any person in pursuance of subsection (6) above, it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he ought reasonably to be excused, the court may relieve him, either wholly or partly, from his liability on such terms as the court may think fit.").
In moving an amendment to this same clause at an earlier stage—that is the amendment which now comprises Clauses 86 and 87—my concern was that the principle of the right to sue for damages suffered as a direct result of a breach of a licence condition should be enshrined in this Bill. I am most grateful to those of your Lordships who supported that principle. I was not a little sad that I had to divide the House at that time in order to attempt to persuade Her Majesty's Government on this issue. I had hoped that my noble friends would accept the principle and would have agreed to table their own amendment at this stage of the Bill. They did not; and, as a result, I felt it would have been irresponsible for me not to put the amendment to the House.
When moving that amendment, I had satisfied myself that all possible care had been taken to ensure that the amendment was neither defective in its drafting nor would have any undesirable consequences. Your Lordships can imagine my surprise when my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, whose support I highly value and who made a witty and trenchant speech on that particular occasion, had the temerity to suggest that the amendment might be faulty in its drafting. Not for the first time, my noble friend was absolutely right, and hence these amendments.
I listened with great care also to the reply made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, and to other noble Lords who spoke at that time. I was convinced then, and I remain convinced, that the principle of a right of action in relation to damage arising out of a breach of a licence condition rather than a breach of an order must stand. However, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who made the very important point at Report stage that they felt it was possible that the amendment which is now Clause 18(6) might have a retrospective effect.
I myself cannot see how Clause 18(6) can give rise to retrospective action, because liability only arises from the point at which a licensee breaches a licence condition and causes damage to another. It was to ensure that licensees had a good commercial incentive to take care to adhere to their licences that Clause 18(6) is now in the Bill. That was one reason.
Nevertheless, I now see one difficulty that might arise. It stems from the contention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate that it may not be possible in all cases to frame the licence conditions in very precise terms. There may inevitably be some uncertainty as to how exactly they might be interpreted. Circumstances may arise in which a telecommunications licensee is pursuing a policy that he believes is wholly consistent with the conditions of his licence, and he may even have consulted the director, who at the time may have concurred with the licensee's judgment. But it may subsequently emerge that the case is established that the action is not consistent with the intention of the licence conditions, and the director may then be bound to issue an order.
The licensee would be liable for damages from when he first unwittingly breached his licence conditions, not only to somebody who complained to the director but to all and sundry who, until that point in time,

373
were unaware that they were being damaged, and who may then wish to jump on the bandwagon. In these circumstances, I now believe that an element of retrospection would exist.
The clause attempts to deal with the problem by placing in the hands of the director the power to deny access to the courts in these and similar circumstances. However, I am now advised that the law with respect to ministerial discretion has changed in recent years, inter alia as a result of the principle of judicial review as applied to administrative law. It is doubtful whether this point would have any practical effect. I am therefore persuaded to put forward this alternative draft for the director's fiat. The amendment does not alter or weaken the principle of Clause 18(6), but it does prevent the potential incidental consequences of the original drafting.
Moreover, on further consideration I felt that there should be a trigger from which damage as a result of a breach of a licence condition should arise. The trigger would be that point in time at which a person who has evidence that he has suffered damage as a result of a contravention of a licence condition makes a complaint to the director. At the same time the licensee will be informed of the complaint, and he can take what steps he deems necessary to protect himself from the potential liability. Damages will only be owed to the person making the complaint. This would not preclude any other persons from lodging a complaint subsequently and thus entitling him to a suit if he can prove damage.
I should also point out to your Lordships that I had originally based the defence offered to the licensee on the words used by Her Majesty's Government as a defence to a breach of an order. Upon further consideration, I feel that that defence is too severe on the licensee in the circumstances of a breach of a licence condition open to interpretation, as I have outlined, as opposed to a breach of a precisely defined order. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that it will be preferable to replace this defence with the amendment in the Marshalled List, which follows very closely the wording in Section 48 of the Companies Act 1948 and Section 6(1) of the Trustee Investments Act 1961. The defence places greater discretion on the courts, and I believe your Lordships will agree that that is desirable in the circumstances.
These amendments are wholly consistent with the spirit of the issue fully debated and decided upon at Report stage, and I respectfully commend them to your Lordships as an improvement to the Bill as currently drafted. I hope that they will find favour with my noble friends on the Government Front Bench as well as with noble Lords opposite. I am confident that if your Lordships accept these amendments the Bill as amended will find even more favour in another place. I beg to move.
5.16 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord persuaded the House at Report stage that it was desirable that there should be this possibility of civil action. But I have to say that he did so on the basis of the wording of his amendment. That provided for very strict restraints on the litigation that might otherwise be possible. The first of those restraints was that the
374
consent of the director should be required before any action was taken. The second was that in subsection (7) it was a defence for the licensee to prove that he took such reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence as to avoid contravening the conditions.
The noble Lord is claiming that the amendments which he is now moving are merely drafting amendments. I suggest that they are no such thing. In removing the two constraints which were absolutely essential, in my view, to obtaining the consent of the House to the noble Lord's previous amendment, he has created a litigants' charter. It would be possible for anybody, without doing any more than notifying the Office of Telecommunications and the licensee concerned, to take civil action for breaches which have already taken place—albeit that they took place after an order under subsection (16) had been issued. The noble Lord is greatly extending the possible use of the civil courts from matters primarily concerned with trade disputes into the area of employment legislation.
I suggest to the House that that would represent a thoroughly undesirable and unprecedented in-novation. I hope that the Government will resist it.
Lord Torphichen: My Lords, I cannot see that this will apply mainly or only to trade disputes; there are many other reasons why litigation might be needed.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, as I understand the original Amendment No. 78, which is now incorporated in the Bill, and these amendments, then my noble friend Lord Torphichen is right when he says that they would cover quite a large variety of matters. The three amendments to which my noble friend Lord Morris has spoken seek to alter the effect of Amendment No. 78, which he successfully moved at Report stage. The deletion of the requirement to have the prior consent of the director general would open up a fairly free field for litigation. This is particu-larly the case where, because of the nature of things, the licence conditions will be imprecise.
To take an example, British Telecommunications has some 19 million subscribers. It is impossible to devise a licence in reasonable terms which looks after all of them in their individual circumstances in a precise way. All that can be done is to lay down the broad rules; and the types of conditions which are specified in subsection (8) illustrate that. In such a situation, the result of creating such a free field of litigation would, in our view, be to create complete uncertainty—uncertainty that would be inimical to investment and consequent commercial activity.
The second point, which I made earlier, was that the original amendment introduced the idea of damages from the time before the order, and this involved retrospection. The amendments proposed today introduce the idea of damages flowing from the time when a notice is served on the director and the operator. This may avoid damages being paid retrospectively over a long period of years, but it still involves retrospection. I can illustrate this in a practical way. An operator could have a licence condition which was imprecise; for example, an obligation not to show undue preference and not to exercise undue discrimination. He could discuss with the director how this applied to particular

375
circumstances. After careful thought the director could decide that a particular practice did involve some discrimination but that this was not in the particular circumstances undue and that he would review the matter, perhaps in a year's time, in the light of the circumstances as they developed.
An individual could then serve a notice, say a week later, to which the director would respond explaining what the position was but at the end of the year he might want to make an order requiring the operator to change the practice; perhaps substantially or only slightly. The notice would then come into operation and the individual who served it could obtain damages against an operator who had been acting in accordance with the understanding reached with the director. In my view, that would be a serious injustice. The retrospective element would still exist even if my noble friend's amendment is agreed; and this point of retrospection was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, if 1 properly understood it, on Report in the amendments which were proposed. The fact that a notice had been served might also complicate the director's decision on whether or not to make an enforcement order.
Clause 16(5) gives the director a discretion not to make an order if he is satisfied that the making of the order is precluded by his Clause 3 duties. These duties include securing that operators can finance the services they are obliged to provide and the director might realise that, once notices had been served, the making of an enforcement order would seriously harm the operator and prevent his continuing these services. In those circumstances the existence of a notice might act as a positive deterrent to enforcement action.
The notice giving procedure, as my noble friend envisages it in these amendments, would confer a right to damages only on the person who gave the notice. It would leave unprotected those who did not give notice but who might have suffered harm. This seems to create a differentiation which may not be particularly attractive. If this system proposed today by my noble friend was introduced it seems to me that an operator or a person who is dependent on telecommunications systems might be well advised to serve a notice as soon as possible in respect of every conceivable contravention by every operator on whom he depends in order to maximise the possibility of damages in the event of a dispute arising.
To summarise the position, I very much appreciate the effort that my noble friend Lord Morris has put into seeking to meet the difficulties which I raised on Report on his original amendment. What he has done would, I acknowledge, improve the situation in which the Bill would be left in some respects, such as limiting the possibilities of retrospection, while dropping the requirement for the director general's consent would throw up other difficulties. As I see the matter at present, the truth is that the fundamental problem lies in the original amendment and that the only answer is to allow damages to be claimed only from the date when the director general's order takes effect.
The views which noble Lords expressed on that in the Division on Amendment No. 78 obviously require very careful consideration because this is a very fundamental matter to the whole structure of the Bill
376
and the arrangements for enforcement by means of the provisional order and the final order at the instance of the director general.
My noble friend's present amendment goes some way to meet some of the difficulties which I raised, but, as I said, unfortunately they do not appear to us to meet all the problems to which I drew attention. May I therefore suggest to my noble friend that it might be desirable for him to withdraw these amendments, and the whole matter will of course receive very thorough further consideration.
Lord Morris: My Lords. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for his suggestion. I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I think that it is extremely important that the most serious consideration should be given to this point, and I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33:
Page 25, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In any proceedings against any person (which, for the avoidance of doubt, includes a trade union) in pursuance of subsection (6) above, it shall be a defence for that person to prove that he acted wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am advised that this amendment is out of order. I have reviewed the circumstances very thoroughly and I dissent from that view. Nevertheless, in view of the advice that has been given, I think that it would be in the tradition of this House if I said that I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
5.27 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 25, line 12, after ("duty") insert ("which causes that person to sustain loss or damage").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be convenient for your Lordships if I speak to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 together.
Amendment No. 35: Page 25, line 13, leave out from ("which") to ("and") in line 14 and insert (", by inducing a breach of that duty or interfering with its performance, causes that person to sustain loss or damage").
As your Lordships will appreciate, the first of these amendments, Amendment No. 34. merely paves the way for the second. It brings the drafting of paragraph (a) of Clause 18(8) into line with the paragraph (b), which is to be amended. I shall therefore concentrate on explaining the effect of the second amendment—the one to paragraph (b)—and our reasons for bringing it forward.
As I explained during the Committee stage and on Report the Government start from the basic proposi-tion that the users of telecommunication services are entitled to special protection for their security of supply. It was only on that basis that we were prepared to consider deleting the offence in Clause 45 of the Bill, as it came before this House, of interfering with a public telecommunications system. I make no apology

377
for referring to that point again; it is essential to the perspective with which we approach this problem.
I have also already sought to explain the effect of the Bill as it stands; but, if I may, I should like to do so a little more fully in order to explain the effect of the amendment. The Bill as it stands seeks to make it an actionable wrong to interfere with the performance of an enforcement order or induce its breach. However, it does so not in all circumstances but only if that result is the defendant's purpose, or part of his purpose. I should stress that for something to be in law a person's purpose or part of his purpose it is not, in our view, enough that he merely intends it in the sense that he knows that that thing is the inevitable or likely result of what he is proposing to do; for a thing to be a person's purpose it must be the thing or one of the things which that person is setting out to do. So the effect of the Bill as it stands is that for a person to be liable he must, in ordinary language, deliberately set out to bring about a breach in an enforcement order or to interfere with its performance and that must be the result he has in view.
In the debate at Report stage a number of anxieties were raised as to whether this basis of liability was sufficiently narrow to provide a proper level of protection for trade unions and their members, and indeed for employees generally in the area of industrial disputes. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, as well as noble Lords immediately opposite, suggested, as I recall, that in some circumstances it might be very difficult to separate out the purpose of disrupting the employer's business which, however much it may be regretted, is frequently a part of serious industrial action, from the ultimate purpose of achieving whatever industrial objective is in view—improved terms and conditions of employment, the avoidance of redundancies, or whatever might be the immediate matter of concern. The Government bring forward these amendments in order to meet those difficulties.
Before I go on to explain what I believe to be the effect of the amendments, I should say that this is a very delicate area. There is a balance to be preserved. Enormous harm can be done to particular members of the public, particularly in the business community, by interference with their telecommunication service. Any narrowing of the range of the liability imposed by this clause has to be scrutinised most carefully to ensure that we do not go too far. On the other hand, the Government recognise that within the appropriate limits the freedom of trade unions as representatives of employees, and indeed of employees themselves, to engage in industrial action against their employers ought not to be, within these proper limits, inhibited. So although we did not entirely share the anxieties expressed in the debate, we have attempted to meet them, while preserving what we regard as the essential balance in this highly delicate and difficult area, with this amendment.
The effect of the amendment is to change the basis of liability for the actionable wrong of inducing the breach or interfering with the performance of an enforcement order. The actionable wrong will exist not where the defendant merely has as his purpose or part of his purpose the bringing about of the breach or
378
interference, but only where he has as his purpose or part of his purpose the causing of damage or loss to the person affected by the breach or interference. Paraphrasing the amendment in ordinary language, to establish that there is a liability under this provision, the plaintiff (and I emphasise that it is the plaintiff or the claimant who will have to prove this) will have to establish that the defendant deliberately set out to cause damage or loss to the plaintiff by inducing a breach of a licence enforcement order imposed by the director. There can be no question of liability arising merely because the defendant sought to bring about the breach, which may be a necessary part of his tactics in harassing his employer; he must also have sought to damage the other party—the plaintiff—by means of the breach.
I hope that this explanation will be enough to convince your Lordships that we have gone as far as we can to ensure that there is scope under the Bill for legitimate pursuit of industrial action. But it is not acceptable that in this highly sensitive field a trade union, or indeed employees generally, should be free deliberately to set out to bring about a breach of an enforcement order for the purpose of causing loss or damage to customers of telecommunication operators by depriving them of the service to which they are entitled and which has been guaranteed to them by an order of the director. An enforcement order will have been made by the director under all the controls and subject to all the constraints imposed by this Bill. It will in a very real sense be the law of the land.
Your Lordships will remember that these amendments and the basic clause with which we are now dealing on this aspect was introduced in substitution for criminal sanctions which have been in the law in roughly equivalent form for a very long time. We consider that we are making a very substan-tial advance by the change which we originally made. We are endeavouring to adjust the balance as finely as we can in this area, and this is the purpose of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has explained so very carefully the nature of these amendments, it is perhaps not improper to relate them to the amendment which it was not proper for my noble friend to move. Very briefly, perhaps the noble and learned Lord can clarify two points further to his very profound clarification so far. First, it still is a little difficult for my noble friends and I to understand the distinction that he makes concerning the need for liability under this subsection. The case that he made, if I have not misunderstood it, was that a defendant (who of course will normally be a trade union or a trade union official) will be liable if he induces a breach of the duty as part of his purpose. That at least is the beginning point before the amendments come into play. It is not enough, he says, that he intends to do that. It must be one of the things that he is setting out to do.
With great respect, there has always been a misapprehension on the Government's part as to this matter. Industrial action is of course taken primarily normally to improve the conditions of those who are taking it. It is, however, always part of the consequence of that action that it interferes with the

379
business in question, and it must lead in the majority of the cases which by hypothesis we are discussing to a non-performance of the relevant duty under the order. Therefore to say that someone must set out to induce a breach of the order rather than intend to do it seems very strange. I suggest that you set out to do what you intend to do and you intend to do what you set out to do, at any rate in industrial action in the normal case.
It is just not the case that the courts would take the view that the noble and learned Lord proposes, in my submission. If one looks at the analogous case law concerning the liability for inducing a breach of contract (which is of course the parallel in industrial action), the test of intention (which is surely the one that the courts will use to test purpose) is that set out in the judgment, for example, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock—Lord Justice Diplock as he was in 1966—when he stated that:
"The element of intent needed to constitute the tort of unlawful procurement of a breach of contract is, in my view, sufficiently established if it be proved that the defendants intended the party procured to bring the contract to an end by breach of it if there were no way of bringing it to an end lawfully. A defendant who acts with such intent runs the risk that if the contract is broken as a result of the party acting in the manner in which he is procured to act by the defendant, the defendant will be liable in damages to the other party to the contract".
The principle that a defendant is taken to intend, and to have the purpose of intending, the natural consequences of his acts has been applied by the courts in those cases, and would it not be applied here? As the clause stood, and as it was to be confronted by the amendment to which we could not address ourselves, it still seems to my noble friends and to myself to be very unsatisfactory; which leads to the second and the third point, very briefly.
The Government—presumably acknowledging that it is unsatisfactory, as the noble and learned Lord suggested—now come to the matter by a different route and attempt to cure the difficulty by introducing, as I understand it, the new test of liability: that the defendant will be liable only if in organising his industrial action he deliberately intended damage to the plaintiff—almost a test of malice. That of course is an entirely new test. It is profoundly different from anything put forward before. It is very unsatisfactory to have such a profound change brought forward on a Third Reading. It rests entirely on subjective purpose and presumably it rests upon predominant purpose. To say now that someone wholly or partly intends damage for the plaintiff raises the issue of how far the part must go. In other words, the "wholly" or "partly" now relates not to an objective matter but to a subjective one. I was not clear from the noble and learned Lord just in what way he expected the courts to judge whether there was a sufficient partial malice or intent to do damage to create liability, because of course that would be a matter of very great import to those who wish to maintain the liberty of withdrawing their action collectively when they might be said to be intending damage to the employer in a way which the new amendment requires for liability.
The third thought, in a sentence, is simply this: is not that difficulty further proof of the fact that it would have been better for the Government to accept the
380
time-honoured way of dealing with this matter; namely, to allow for the normal law of trade union immunities—or such as are left and such as will be left after the next Bill on the matter and no doubt the next Bill after that—to apply to workers in this area as they apply to workers in other areas, by accepting that there would be no liability in contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute? I do not ask the noble and learned Lord to agree with me immediately; but I wonder whether, on further reflection, he would not feel that the new test of malice will be an unfortunate one to have to apply in trade disputes and that the old wisdom of the test of furtherance of trade dispute defence would not perhaps have been better.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I think that the situation so far as I am concerned is that this amendment is put down by us in order to deal with questions that were raised on the preceding occasion. In considering this matter I have had particularly in mind the way in which these questions were dealt with in this House, sitting in its judicial capacity, in the Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed case with which the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, will be extremely well acquainted.
A noble Lord: It is a Scottish case.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As the noble Lord observes, it is a Scottish case—and from my point of view all the better for that! Lord Simon, who again perhaps had qualities that were relating to that particular situation, said in that case:
"In some branches of the law, intention may be understood to cover results which may reasonably flow from what is deliberately done, on the principle that a man is to be treated as intending the reasonable consequences of his acts. Nothing of the sort appears to be involved here. It is much safer to use a word like 'purpose' or 'object'.
He then said, what is the reason why they did it? I am not quoting fully. Passing on to another relevant passage, he said:
"The test is not what is the natural result to the plaintiffs of such an action or what is the resulting damage which the defendant realised or should realise will follow but what is in truth the object in the minds when they acted as they did. It is not consequence that matters but purpose."
That is the reason that we have used this expression and then emphasised the purpose of damage to the other party. That is the reason that I consider that these amendments do make plain the correct balance in this very difficult area.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he agree that if he reads on in the relevant passage of Lord Simon, we will find that the noble and learned Lord said:
"The analysis of human impulses soon leads us into the quagmire of mixed motives, and even if we avoid the word 'motive', there may be more than a single 'purpose' or 'object'. It is enough to say that, if there is more than one purpose actuating a combination, liability must depend on ascertaining the predominant purpose."
It was precisely that passage that I had precisely in mind in wondering whether the noble and learned Lord was going to say that it was now the predominant purpose which would create liability. I do not think he answered that question.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I think as the noble Lord will appreciate as he reads the clause as amended by amendments that we are proposing, that the result is to test the question of whether the act which induces a breach of duty or interferes with its performance causes that person to sustain loss or damage and is done wholly or partly for the purpose of achieving that result. In other words, if part of the purpose is the achieving of the result of damage to the plaintiff, then liability would be established. But of course it would be for the plaintiff or the claimant to prove that.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 35:
[Printed earlier: col. 376.]
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of information
—(1) A person who otherwise than in the course of his proper duty as an employee of a telecommunications operator licensed under section 7 above—

(a) intentionally discloses information relating to the destination, duration or cost of a user's use of a telecommunication system licensed under section 7 above; or

(b) instigates any person engaged in the business of a licensee to disclose information relating to the user's destination, duration or cost of a user's use of a telecommunication system licensed under section 7 above,

except at the request of the said user, or unless acting in obedience to a warrant issued pursuant to the following provisions of this section, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both.
(2) Proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above shall not be instituted in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Attorney General, or in Northern Ireland except by or with the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.
(3) The Secretary of State may, on the application of a chief officer of police or the Commissioners of Custom and Excise, issue a warrant for the disclosure of information, if he is satisfied that—

(a) it would assist in the detection of a serious offence;

(b) normal methods of investigation have been tried and have failed or from the nature of things are unlikely to succeed if tried; and

(c) there is a good reason to think that the disclosures would result in a conviction for that offence.

In this subsection "serious offence" means—

(i) an offence for which a person not previously convicted could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years: or

(ii) an offence in which either a large number of people is involved or there is good reason to apprehend the use of violence or the financial rewards of success are very large.

(4) The Secretary of State may. on the application of a Chief officer of police or the Director General of the Security Service issue a warrant for the disclosure of information if he is satisfied that—

(a) it would assist in the detection of a major subversive, terrorist or espionage activity giving rise to external or internal danger to the Defence of the Realm; and

(b) normal methods of investigation have been tried and have failed or from the nature of things are unlikely to succeed if tried.

(5) An application for a warrant under this section shall be made in writing and shall specify—

(a) the person about whom the information is sought, and the nature of the information in question; and

382

(b) the facts and circumstances in support of the application.

But the Secretary of State may allow any information required under paragraph (b) above to be provided orally and not in writing in respect of an application for a warrant under subsection (4) above.
(6) Except in case of an emergency any warrant under this section shall be issued only under the hand of the Secretary of State; and, in any such case, shall be confirmed under his hand as soon as reasonably practicable after issue.
(7) Any warrant issued under this section should carry a time limit not exceeding two months from the date of issue and may be renewed for not more than one month at a time in the case of an application of the police, not more than two months at a time in the case of an application of the Customs and Excise, and not more than six months at a time in the case of an application of the Security Service.
(8) In this section "disclose" includes the doing of any act designed to enable a disclosure to take place, and "disclosure" and "discloses" shall be construed accordingly.
(9) Nothing in this section shall prevent a telecommunications operator licensed under section 7 above to collect and publish statistics on the operation of his telecommunication system.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. Your Lordships will recall that this question relating to the disclosure of information was dealt with in part by an undertaking given by the Leader of the House in respect of the intention to introduce specialist legislation in dealing with the whole question of telephone tapping. Your Lordships will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on our behalf, withdrew the amendment at a later stage when the original text of the Bill was reintroduced on Report. The noble Viscount, in the course of his undertaking, mentioned that it was his intention, when bringing proposals to deal with telephone tapping, to deal also with disclosure of information, which is of course the subject of the next amendment.
I said that in those circumstances I would not move the amendment at that stage and wait for discussions through the usual channels. Discussions have taken place, and I should like to inform the noble and learned Lord just where our anxieties are in connection with this whole question of disclosure, as distinct from telephone tapping. Interception itself implies the deliberate act of interception of matters that are normally confidential between the person making the call and the person receiving it. This particular clause, which is the subject of this amendment, deals with a slightly different circumstance. It is designed to protect the public in circumstances where there is, as distinct from deliber-ate interception, automatic monitoring; and it is the disclosure of information that can be derived from automatic monitoring about which we are concerned.
The noble and learned Lord will be aware, and his advisers will have told him, that the Miracle apparatus, for example, enables the monitoring of the duration of calls, their origin and all the rest of it, as described in this amendment itself. There are further technical developments on course now which may result in that being done, even more efficiently and even more automatically. Quite clearly, information of that nature will arise from the introduction of the apparatus—in the case of Miracle, its progressive introduction—and at a later stage by means of more efficient methods that are already in contemplation.
If the noble and learned Lord can inform us that the Government are already seized of the essence of the problem and that steps can be taken to deal with it at

383
the same time as the whole interception business is dealt with, we shall to some extent be reassured, because we do not want automatic monitoring to replace or to supplement direct interception. We do not mind the monitoring taking place for the ordinary purpose of measuring the duration of a call and for charging purposes, and so on, but information will be derived from that which ought to be confidential, save in the performance of the operator's normal course of duty. Perhaps the noble Lord can give an indication of which area the Government's mind is covering on this particular point, as well as a rough indication of how it is proposed to deal with it in the legislation to which the noble Viscount. Lord Whitelaw, referred. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, this amendment seeks to establish a statutory procedure for the disclosure of information about a customer's use of the telephone system. It does so in a way which closely mirrors the arrangements described in the White Paper, The Interception of Communications in Great Britain, for the authorisation of interception by warrant under the hand of the Secretary of State. These arrangements were discussed by your Lordships during the Committe stage of the Bill and, as has been mentioned, my noble friend the Lord President gave an undertaking on Report that the Government would bring forward legislation on the interception of communications in the next Session of Parliament. It was recognised in the debate that took place that interception is an exceptionally difficult and sensitive subject. The Government took careful note of the genuine concerns expressed in your Lordships' House and responded with what I think the whole House recognised as an exceptionally clear and firm undertaking.
The drafting of the present amendment suggests that there is a close similarity between the disclosure of information about a customer's use of the telephone system, and interception, and that the two ought to be regulated in much the same way. There are of course circumstances in which the disclosure of information about a subscriber's use of the telephone system can be an intrusion into the privacy of the subscriber, who may well not wish a third party to know with whom he has been in communication. But I do not believe that this disclosure of metering information raises quite the same acute questions of personal privacy as does interception, nor, therefore, that we should automatically assume that it must be regulated in the same way as interception.
We are talking here about information derived from the metering of telephone lines primarily for account-ing purposes. The information concerned is therefore a matter between the subscriber and the telecommunications operator and does not involve any disclosure of the content of the subscriber's conversations with other subscribers. One might perhaps draw an analogy with a travel agent, one of whose clients has bought a ticket to travel to a certain destination. The travel agent might in certain circumstances consider it his duty to disclose that fact to the police if it turned out, for example, that the client was a fugitive from justice.
384
There are of course a variety of circumstances in which an individual or organisation may be able to assist the police with information about the movements or whereabouts of a wanted person. The disclosure of metering information by a telecommunications operator is a similar instance where the public good may override the duty to preserve the privacy of information that has been obtained about a client's contacts or movements. One certainly does not wish to deny that some issues of privacy are involved, but that is the case with almost any form of investigation that the police may undertake and the issues are not, I would suggest, nearly so sensitive as those connected with interception.
The disclosure of information derived from metering is one of the issues that has been raised in the Malone case, which is presently before the European Court. The Government's submissions to the court have made clear the distinction which the Government see between the disclosure of metering information and interception. We recognise, however, that the court may conclude that metering raises issues under the European Convention and that its findings might include criticisms of our present arrangements.
In his speech during the Report stage of the Bill my noble friend the Lord President indicated that the Government would consider the implications of any such findings in the context of the legislation on interception which he undertook would be brought forward in the next Session. It may help your Lordships if I expand slightly on his remarks.
We cannot at the moment tell what, if any, the court's findings will be in relation to metering. The Government would of course have to take steps to respond to any criticisms that were made, and depending on the nature of the criticisms, legislation might be needed. The Government intend to look at the relevant findings in the context of the forthcoming legislation on interception, and if the Government judge that the best way to deal with the matter is to include provisions in the Bill on interception, that is how it will be dealt with. On the other hand, when we actually see the court's findings we might find that if there are any findings relevant to this matter, it would be more appropriate to deal with them in some other way, and as I have indicated, this may mean using some other legislative vehicle.
I hope that in the light of what I have said so far your Lordships' House will agree that it will be better to wait and see what the court has to say before we introduce new statutory provisions on this subject. Meanwhile, in our view the position is quite adequately covered in Clause 45(2) of the Bill, which already provides important new safeguards over the disclosure of the contents of statements of account.
There are also difficulties with the new clause which is now before us which would make it inappropriate even as an interim provision. For example, the new clause would mean that there could be no disclosure to the police, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, or the Security Service, except under a warrant issued under the hand of the Secretary of State. Parliament rightly expects the Secretary of State himself to exercise personal control over interception, and his ability to do this effectively will inevitably suffer if we add

385
further categories of case which he must supervise personally.
There are other difficulties with the clause as tabled. A significant one is that it makes no provision for the disclosure of metering information in criminal cases, except where serious crime is involved. But the great majority of meter check prints (other than in cases where there is a dispute over charges) are used to help identify the source of malicious or indecent calls, which were a subject of concern to my noble friend Lord De La Warr at an earlier stage. These do not qualify as serious crime, as we shall see if we compare the penalties provided in Clause 43 for this kind of offence with the definition of "serious offence" that is given in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. But, as I am sure your Lordships appreciate, this is something that can cause great distress to the victims, and I am sure that your Lordships' House would not want to close off an important means by which the telecommunications operator and the police can co-operate to put a stop to the activities of such callers. As your Lordships will appreciate, this is not covered by the exception which the clause provides for metering with the subscriber's consent, because it is the subscriber at the other end of the call one wants to find out about.
Perhaps I may summarise the position in the following way. In our view, the disclosure of informa-tion about a customer's use of the telephone does not raise precisely the same issues as does interception, and I do not believe that it would be appropriate to decide now anything about the introduction of provisions going beyond what we already have in Clause 45. Even if a case for further provisions were made out, the clause which is now before us (that is to say, the clause proposed in the amendment) has a number of serious drawbacks which we do not have the opportunity properly to discuss or correct at this stage in the passage of this Bill, and therefore it would be far better to judge the need for, and scope of, any additional measures in this area when we have received the judgment of the European Court. I hope that, in the light of those observations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment and that his purpose in putting it forward and moving it on this occasion has been served.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for his very full statement. In the light of what he says, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [General functions]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 45, line 40, leave out from ("any") to end of line 41 and insert ("matter in respect of which any function of the Director is exercisable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is drafting and I assure your Lordships is designed to aid general understanding of the Bill. Your Lordships will see that, as it stands, Clause 47(4), at the bottom of page 45 of the Bill before us today, places a duty on the director to give, as can be seen in line 38,
"information, advice and assistance to the Secretary of State".
as regards
"any of the matters in respect of which the Director has a duty under this section".
What we intended by this was that the director should give advice on all matters coming within his functions. We had thought previously that the duties in Clause 47(1) and (2) were widely drafted, indeed so widely drafted, to cover this point. But, on reflection, we have decided, for the removal of all doubt, that it would be helpful to spell out this intention more clearly. That is the entire purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 52 [Investigation of Complaints]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 50, line 37, after ("if) insert ("he is required to do so or if).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 39.
Amendment No. 39:Transpose Clause 52 to after Clause 48.
These two amendments are designed to improve and to help the understanding of this clause which, as your Lordships will see, places a duty on the director to consider complaints and representations made to him. This is, as we have found going through the Bill, a very important clause since such complaints and representations will be one of the main routes by which the director will be informed of all those matters in respect of which he should exercise his functions under the Bill.
One of the most important of these functions is to ensure compliance with licence conditions under his powers that we have always found in Clause 16 and shall continue to find them there, we hope. Your Lordships will see that Clause 16 places a duty—I stress the word "duty"—on the director to act where he is satisfied that there has been, or is likely to be, a breach of a licence condition. One of the ways in which he will become aware of possible breaches is by complaints and representations made under Clause 52. Therefore, since he has a duty to act under Clause 16, we think it appropriate to make reference to this requirement to act in subsection (3) of Clause 52. That is what Amendment No. 38 does. It inserts the words,
"he is required to do so or if.
Amendment No. 39 simply moves Clause 52 from its present position in the Bill to a place earlier in Part III. We think that this is appropriate in view of the importance of the clause, particularly in informing the director of matters relevant to the exercise of his functions. I give one example. The director is likely to exercise his functions under Clause 49 after he has received a complaint under Clause 52. We therefore think it sensible to bring Clause 52 forward. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 39.
[Printed above.]
Clause 54 [Power to establish advisory bodies]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 40:
Page 52, line 22, at end insert ("and who, not being employees of British Telecommunications nor of its successor companies, are members of trade unions.").
The noble Lord said: This proposed amendment was set down as another attempt to persuade your Lordships that members of trade unions as such should be considered for membership of the advisory bodies now to be set up by the Secretary of State under Clause 54.I have considered carefully what the noble Lord the Chancellor to the Duchy of Lancaster said on 19th March, at column 1078 of Report stage, and in view of the advice I have been given that this amendment it is not in order for Third Reading, I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved. ]
Clause 60 [Vesting of property etc. of British Telecommunications in a company nominated by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 57, line 6, after ("appoint") insert ("which shall not pre-date the publication of the findings of a Committee of Inquiry appointed by Her Majesty's Government to examine all aspects of UK telecommunications policy").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that we had a previous debate that suggested some delay on 20th March, the final day of the Report stage. Our proposal then was to defer the operation of Part V of the Bill until after 9th June or not before 9th June 1988.I had not intended that amendment to be a wrecking amendment. But having read the debate, and read it pretty thoroughly, I can understand why many noble Lords saw it as such. However, it is clear from the debate that there remain, in spite of the doubts about its being a wrecking amendment, considerable worry and doubt about the implications of Part V of the Bill and its likely effects.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for example, in a most apposite speech, recorded in columns 1112 to 1115, made a penetrating analysis of Part V. Although he expressed himself as not being enamoured of the interval of time proposed in the amendment, he nevertheless believed that it was desirable that there should be some postponement for further thoughts on the likely consequences of Part V and to allow British Telecom time to adjust to the changes that would be brought about by this part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, understandably expressed the view that the amendment moved at Report stage had been made the occasion to convert the whole matter into an election issue. It was perfectly reasonable that he should object to the amendment on that basis. Nevertheless, he made clear that he had objections to the Bill of a similar sort to those which I had expressed in my speech. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, although opposing my previous amendment, nevertheless believed that there may be some merit in delaying the Bill for perhaps 12 months
388
on the basis, for example, that the Stock Exchange is at present suffering from indigestion.
The amendment I am proposing takes into account all these views and recognises the considerable opposition to Part V during all stages of the Bill. It certainly cannnot be described and should not be taken as a wrecking amendment. It is a genuine attempt to get some period of delay while other thoughts that have been put forward from all parts of the House are taken into account. Indeed, there is every reason to have a quick inquiry into telecommunications policy before Part V is brought into operation. The Government themselves have been unable to show the way forward clearly and precisely. That is important. The Government should be leading on this and showing Parliament and the people the way forward in telecommunications policy.
There is, for example, confusion about objectives. On the one hand, Government Ministers laud the benefits of free competition and, on the other hand, seek to persuade Parliament that it is a necessary prerequisite of free competition to convert a public monopoly into a private one. That really is a paradox. A committee of inquiry could give attention to this apparent paradox and would be able to establish whether the Government guarantee not to licence other competitors to British Telecommunications for seven years had any other purpose than to protect Mercury from competition outside British Telecom itself.
An inquiry could also establish whether competition was desirable or undesirable in itself, and might well suggest ways and means as to how competition, if it were felt desirable, could be best achieved. An inquiry would also be expected, I imagine, to consider the financial implications of the proposed flotation of BT shares, and the effect it would have on the stock market itself as well as on other financial institutions. Certainly I would expect—and Parliament ought to consider this to be essential—that a committee of inquiry would want to consider the possibility, or perhaps even the probability, that foreign countries would gain a significant slice of British Telecom shares and therefore ownership and control of the British telecommunications service and of future telecommunications policy.
I believe that this amendment is helpful. I hope that it is helpful to the House; I hope that it is helpful to the telecommunications industry generally; and, indeed, I also hope that the Government will consider it helpful as well. They have been going through a pretty rough patch lately, and it seems to me that if they were to accept this amendment it would give them a short breathing space to reconsider the matter that I have mentioned. Indeed, it might prevent further mistakes from being made which would attract public attention and, perhaps, under certain circumstances, public condemnation.
The delay that would be engendered by a short inquiry would not really hurt the Bill; nor, in fact, would it conflict with the Government's objectives. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept this amendment from us tonight. But I should like to consider what they have to say before deciding whether to press it to a Division.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, hope springs eternal, and nowhere more than in the breast of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The noble Lord went to considerable length to try and explain that this was not a wrecking amendment. I entirely accept that his motives are pure, but I regret to say that I cannot say the same for his amendment.
The amendment is, at best, a dilatory amendment designed to hold up the process of privatisation while this particular body pontificates upon the issue. We all know what happens when we refer matters to committees of inquiry, to Royal Commissions or to bodies of that type. But quite apart from that, the amendment in fact cuts across the whole purpose of one of the main provisions in the Bill.
When we discussed this issue before I said that we had a manifesto commitment on this matter in the most specific terms. I read the words out then, and perhaps 1 might read them out again:
"We shall transfer more state-owned businesses to independent ownership. Our aim is that British Telecom. where we will sell 51 per cent. of the shares to the private sector"—
and there then follows a list of other state industries—
"shall become private sector companies.—[Official Report, 20/3/84: col. 1117.]
That was an absolutely specific commitment. There is no reference in it to committees of inquiry; there is no reference in it to delays while committees of this type sit on the matter. We won the general election, as the noble Lord well knows, and we have a mandate for this major part of the present Bill.
There is sometimes an argument for setting up a committee of inquiry when one knows that there is a problem but one does not know the answer to that problem. Therefore, instead of making up one's own mind one delegates it to a body or a committee or a commission. But that is not so in the present case. There is undoubtedly a problem, but the answer to that problem we have incorporated in this Bill. The Government's views on this are absolutely clear, absolutely specific, and there is no purpose whatever in appointing a committee of inquiry.
There is another aspect of this matter. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, did not intend it, but in some ways I find this amendment rather derogatory of your Lordships. I do not know a Bill which has been examined in greater detail than this one. I do not know a Bill where every single provision has been looked at, considered and, in many instances, amended. In fact, from time to time there have been complaints about the very large number of amendments that the Government themselves have moved. But whatever complaint there may be on that score, at least it disposes altogether of any suggestion that the provisions of this Bill have not been examined with the utmost care by your Lordships. Where it has been the wish of the House that amendments should be made, I have always done my best on behalf of the Government to meet the wishes of your Lordships. I feel, therefore, that for us now to say that all of these efforts have been of no avail and that what we need is a committee of inquiry to go over everything that we have done, and to tell us whether what we have done is right or wrong, is something that I find not only unnecessary but faintly objectionable.
390
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is not here this afternoon because I thought that his speech was a very statesmanlike one. and a speech which showed great penetration. It is important to make the point that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, of course was opposed to the principle of the Bill. Therefore, I am not quoting something said by somebody who was in favour of the Bill; I am quoting something said by somebody who was opposed to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said:
"Those of us who are seeking to become the next Government do not wish to establish a precedent which the Opposition party of the day can quote to demonstrate that one need not pay any regard to a mandate or to a decision of the other House, or to a decision on Second Reading, but that one can do what one thinks best to upset that Second Reading by means of an amendment".
I shall then leave out a few additional words. The noble Lord went on to say:
"To establish a precedent of that kind would be both unconstitutional and extremely unwise for any party that is pretending—and I use that word in its old sense—to form the Government in the future",—[Official Report, 20/3/84; col. 1122.]
That is what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said. I personally believe that he was entirely correct in what he said. This amendment is both unnecessary and also wrong in the sense that it is endeavouring to strike down one of the major provisions of the Bill which was approved by your Lordships on Second Reading. On those grounds I hope that your Lordships will decisively reject the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships I should like to reply briefly to one or two of the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. Of course one understands that political parties put forward manifestos at a general election, and one also understands that they may very well wish to put, and, indeed, perhaps should put those manifesto commitments into operation. But I am sure that the noble Lord was not suggesting that the Conservatives won the general election on the basis that they had gone to the country with the proposition to privatise BT and to sell 51 per cent. of the shares on the market. I feel quite sure that, had he put that proposition to the electorate—and that was the only proposition—the Government would probably have lost, and we should now be sitting on their side of the House. The general election was fought on quite different matters and the electorate made their decision on quite different grounds from the privatisation or otherwise of British Telecom.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, also suggested that I was being derogatory to your Lordships. That is the last thing that I would do; I have far too much respect for your Lordships than to try to do that. Our reason for proposing that there should be a committee of inquiry is not to suggest that your Lordships have not examined the Bill in Committee, on Report and, indeed, at this stage in the most intensive way. Your Lordships have. I have been very impressed, very pleased and, in fact, proud to be a member of a body that does it so well.
However, we are circumscribed by our own rules and constitution. We cannot at any stage, for example, examine witnesses. We cannot move around the

391
country. We cannot go into BT's headquarters or Mercury's headquarters and talk to Sir George Jefferson. A committee of inquiry would, in fact, be able to do those things, whereas your Lordships in a Committee stage or a Report stage of the Bill cannot. That is the difference between this House and a committee of inquiry. That is why we have suggested a committee of inquiry—not to be derogatory to your Lordships, but because we feel that it would be ancillary to what has already been done, and been done so well, in the hours of debate which we have had in this House.
Finally, I should like to refer to the speech which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on 20th March on the subject of the previous amendment. I should like to point out that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was not commenting upon the present amendment; he was commenting upon the previous amendment, which he believed was designed to put off the operation of this Bill until after a general election.
This present amendment does not seek to do that under any circumstance at all. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, may have a very different view on this amendment. I believe that what he said on that ocassion had great merit, and I read very thoroughly what he said. As I explained at the beginning, it was after reading the debate that I felt that perhaps I had been mistaken in moving the previous amendment which could be described, and was so described, as a wrecking amendment. However, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, were related to that amendment, and not to this amendment. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield has said and I have heard the remarks of your Lordships. Under all the circumstances, I shall not press this amendment today. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 [Application of law in relation to offer of shares or debentures of the successor company]:
6.25 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 65, line 12, leave out from ("offer") to end of line 13 and insert ("the successor company's activities, its business, trading, financial and technical position; its trading record during the preceding 5 years and its profit forecast").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. This amendment and the following ones concern, of course. Clause 70, which was briefly discussed by your Lordships on Report. Your Lordships will recall that the terms of Clause 70, which relates to the:
"Application of law in relation to offer of shares or debentures of the successor company",
were on the footing that, in view of the fact that the application forms for shares would be sent to a very large number of people—possibly including subscribers but by no means confined to them—it was desirable that there should be a shorter form of
392
prospectus. To this argument I, on behalf of my noble friends, dissented. But that was the footing on which the clause itself was discussed.
It was on the footing that a full prospectus would be available and would be advertised in at least four national newspapers; that a full prospectus would be filed with the Registrar of Companies so that, even though the large number of people to whom applica-tion forms were sent would only have a brief, abbrevi-ated prospectus, nevertheless the full prospectus would be available for inspection and would be available to those who had received a short form of description with the application form and who would probably wish to discuss the matter with their legal advisers, who might then wish to peruse the full prospectus.
It was nowhere anticipated that there would be any question but that the full prospectus would be embarked upon. I am, of course, referring to the full prospectus in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to the Companies Act 1948 and, of course, in compliance with Sections 37 to 41 of the Act itself.
If your Lordships look at Clause 70 itself you will observe that "prospectus", described in one form or another, abounds. There are five mentions of the simple word "prospectus" there are four mentions of the words "full prospectus"; and there are two mentions of the words "the offer prospectus". I am quite sure that the noble Lord's advisers have meant this clause to be extremely clear, but I must say that it is far from clear and, if the noble Lord will permit me, I should like to address this question to him.
On the assumption that the clause becomes operative, is it the Government's intention that, in addition to the abbreviated form which will go with the application forms, the full prospectus as required by the Stock Exchange will in fact be published and will in fact be available? I ask the question because, although no indication was given to us in the course of the debate in this House, in another place in answer to a Written Question on 27th March concerning exemptions from the rules, at col. 106 Mr. Kenneth Baker said this:
"Exemptions from the prevailing rules would be sought if necessary but whether such exemptions would indeed be needed will not be clear until closer to the offer for sale".
Your Lordships will be aware that under Section 39 of the Companies Act 1948 there is provision for the exclusion of the more rigid rules relating to prospec-tuses in the circumstances outlined. I have to read Section 39 to your Lordships because it is of a little importance. It says:
"Where—

(a)it is proposed to offer any shares in or debentures of a company to the public by a prospectus issued generally (that is to say, issued to persons who are not existing members or debenture holders of the company); and

(b)application is made to a prescribed stock exchange for permission for those shares or debentures to be listed on that stock exchange;

"there may, on the request of the applicant, be given by or on behalf of that stock exchange a certificate of exemption, that is to say, a certificate that, "having regard to the proposals (as stated in the request) as to the size and other circumstances of the issue of shares or debentures and as to any limitations on the number and class of person to whom the offer is to be made, compliance with the requirements of the Fourth Schedule to this Act would be unduly burdensome."
This is the first indication, on 27th March, that there is any intention by the Government to seek exemption in any way from the full prospectus requirements. For that reason I set down an amendment, which has been ruled as being out of order and therefore which I do not pursue, to leave out the whole clause, because, as your Lordships will appreciate, in the normal way unless it is intended to do something a little out of the ordinary there is of course no need for Clause 70 at all. If Clause 70 were not in the Bill the issue of the shares, the issue of the prospectus, and everything else would take place according to the provisions of the Companies Act 1948. This is evidently not to be the case.
Irrespective of that argument, and on the assumption that the original intentions, as we understood them, apply we consider that it is necessary for the abbreviated prospectus to contain rather more, and to be required to have, more information with it than is described in subsection (2) of the present Clause 70. Subsection (2)(a) at the moment reads:
"a brief description of the shares or debentures offered, the terms of the offer, the successor company's business and its financial position".
That does not cover very much.
What we should like to do is to ensure that if the people who are the recipients of invitations to subscribe for shares in the successor company are to be denied the full prospectus, they should at least be informed of the successor company's activities, its business, trading, financial and technical position—these are well-known business terms with which the noble Lord will be familiar, and are certainly familiar to accounting circles—and its trading record during the preceding five years, and its profit forecast. Those particular requirements are far less exacting than are those of the Stock Exchange, which require full prospectuses to go into much greater detail than that. But we think it fair on this side of the House that before subscribers, or anyone else, are going to be invited to subscribe they ought to have this minimal information.
On the assumption that a full prospectus is somewhere available and is in fact going to be made available, we feel that subsection(2)(b) ought further to be amended to specify the places where the prospectus should go. We therefore think that the full propectus should go to every post office or sub-post office in the United Kingdom where it can easily be inspected. Then we think also that it should be prominently stated, and should be known by the people to whom the invitations to subscribe for shares are sent, that the full prospectus has first been returned to the Registrar of Companies in accordance with Section 41 of the Act of 1948; secondly, that it is a prospectus for the purposes of Sections 37 to 41 of the Companies Act 1948; and, thirdly, complies with the Fourth Schedule to the said Act of 1948; and that the application for full listing submitted to the Stock Exchange has been accepted. We think that that would be reassuring to the general public to whom invitations are sent to subscribe for the shares or debentures in the successor company, and that it is the minimum assurance that they should get.
The next amendments, Nos. 46 and 47, which insert the word "full" in front of "prospectus" are for the avoidance of doubt. It may be that they are unneces-sary. I am sure that the noble Lord understands Clause 70 far better than I, because I find the greatest difficulty with it (and I am not entirely unaccustomed to reading law) and it may be that the word "full" before "prospectus" in the lines I have indicated is not necessary, and that it is the intention that the term "prospectus" used there refers to full prospectus. If that is so, then of course those amendments will be completely unnecessary.
It has always been our understanding that whatever shortened form of "prospectus" or description be issued to the subscribers, by advertising in the four national newspapers, by filing with the Registrar of Companies, and by placing it where the prospectus should be placed, it would in fact be a full prospectus. If the noble Lord gives me that assurance, then the word "full", as set out in Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47, becomes unnecessary. However, on the assumption that I am right, the amendments may be fairly helpful to the Government in clarifying their true position.
Many of us feel that governments should not use their position and their powers of persuasion to seek to induce the Stock Exchange to depart from the high standards which they have adopted, and which have similarly been adopted by the accountancy profession by reporting accountants who perform the various functions assigned to them in the drawing up of a prospectus. We feel that there is no cause for exemption, particularly in the light of the fact that, as the noble Lord well knows, the accounts for the last two years have in any event been subject to severe audit qualifications. I hope that the Government and the House will give these matters their earnest consideration because they raise fundamental questions of principle. I sincerely hope therefore that the noble Lord will find himself able to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques): Amendment proposed, page 65, line 12, leave out from ("offer") to the end of line 13 and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. I should point out a printing error in line 1 of the Marshalled List. Line "15" should read line "13".
6.40 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the noble Lord, in moving his amendments—and I think he has moved all the amendments in relation to Clause 70 with which he wished to deal—suggested that the principal concern was with respect to whether or not a full prospectus would be issued. I think he was particu-larly concerned whether or not there had been resort to some very short form of prospectus. The situation is, as your Lordships will see, that in this section "full prospectus" means a prospectus which complies, or is deemed to comply, with the requirements of Schedule 4 to the Companies Act 1948.
The question was asked, "Is it the Government's intention that, as well as the notice, the full prospectus will in fact be published and available?" The answer is, yes. The answer given in another place to which the

395
noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred I think mentioned the possibility that some exemptions might be asked for from the Stock Exchange. That, of course, would be a matter for the Stock Exchange. Exemptions are given by the Stock Exchange if they are satisfied that a proper case for it has been made out, and there is no suggestion of any shortening of the prospectus in respect of any basis except that. There is nothing unusual or dubious about a matter of that kind being referred to the Stock Exchange.
As my right honourable friend's answer indicated, and as the noble Lord read it, a decision about that matter would be required to be made nearer the time. So far as that is concerned, the Government's case would be dealt with under the section in the usual way. I emphasise that we intend that there shall be a full prospectus published in the normal way and very widely circulated.
I pass from that, which is the basic question, to the amendments. So far as Amendment No. 42 is concerned, in our view, speaking generally, the phrase already in the Bill would cover sufficient of this material to make this amendment unnecessary. There are certain aspects of the matter which this amendment might render rather difficult to fulfil in the circumstances of British Telecom. For example, the proposal requires the notice to include a profits forecast. The question of whether or not one has a profits forecast depends on the precise circumstances in which the prospectus is issued, and what the people who subscribe to the prospectus are prepared to say. It is a matter, therefore, of complying with the conditions in Schedule 4. In our view, to try to narrate the detail of what should go in the notice, as proposed in this amendment, is rather counter-productive.
Amendment No. 43 indicates the desire to mention every post office or sub-post office so far as the publica-tion of the prospectus is concerned. In this connection it is our intention that the prospectus should be made as widely available as possible to ensure that members of the public who receive the notice provided for in the clause should have ready access to the full prospectus. This is certainly our intention, and we are very firm that the full prospectus should be available extremely widely
We think, for example, that a very wide degree of access to the full prospectus is both necessary and desirable. The amendment might take us beyond what is reasonable and into unnecessary extremes. It would require the full prospectus to be available at each of the 1,500-odd main post offices in the country and in all of the 20,000 sub-post offices, as I understand it. It would be difficult and costly to provide a prospectus for every sub-post office in the country, and the task of ensuring that there was a prospectus in every sub-post office in good time would certainly complicate the logistics of the circulation of the prospectus, quite possibly to the detriment of our efforts to make the prospectus available elsewhere.
It would also, I suggest, be unnecessary to place a prospectus in every post office in situations where post offices happen to be close together and where there might perhaps be a number of other more suitable outlets, such as banks. Accordingly, making this a legal requirement would, it seems to us, put us into an
396
unnecessary legal straitjacket, whereas the need to distribute the prospectus widely is clearly recognised and is our firm intention.
Amendment No. 44 suggests that statements to the effect there set out should go into the notice. It does not seem to me that it would be of any assistance to the people getting the notice. It is clear that the prospectus would require to conform with the legal requirement which were then in existence, and to put something in the notice about that is really putting it in an inappropriate place.
Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 are seeking to put the word "full" into the conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will see. I think, that the places in which he wishes to put the word "full" in subsection (3) of the clause are all conditions which require to be satisfied by the full prospectus. Subsection (3) is introduced by subsection (2):
"If the shares or debentures are offered by a full prospectus as respects which the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) below are fulfilled"—
and then the rest follows. The conditions in subsection (3) are conditions which the full prospectus is required to satisfy if one reads it straight through. Accordingly, the words which he proposes are not required in subsection (3); they are already in the phrase "full prospectus" in the first line of subsection (2). I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am very disappointed indeed that the noble and learned Lord the Minister has not felt himself able to accept immediately Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44. In his observations on Amendment No. 42 the noble and learned Lord seemed to gib at making a profits forecast. As I understand it, it is the Government's intention to apply to the Stock Exchange for a full listing. After all, if it does not get a full listing there will be no extensive market in its shares. Is the noble Lord aware that a profits forecast is a requirement of the Stock Exchange? Any profits forecast which is included in a prospectus document is to be examined by independent accountants, and it requires the accountants' report to be published in the prospectus.
Does the noble Lord really think that he is going to issue a prospectus without any profits forecast at all? Is that his intention? I venture to suggest that if that is his intention there will be more than one raised eyebrow in the City. Presumably there will be a statement of the profits for the past five years suitably adjusted to ensure continuity in accounting practice. A statement by the directors that there are adequate working capital requirements will be required, and a statement which has to be stated by the directors and for which others have a responsibility. It is impossible to be able to assess the working capital requirements without arriving at some estimate of profit forecast because both are linked, as the noble and learned Lord knows. Is it the noble and learned Lord's intention to omit profit forecasts from the full prospectus? If they are included in the full prospectus is it not vital for the small investor, whose investment is being sought, to be taken into the Government's and the successor company's confidence about what profit it expects to make in the future? Is that asking too much and, if so,

397
why should that not be put into the Bill? For that matter, why mention anything in the Bill? The words,
"the successor company's business and its financial position
are not really enough. I do not see any reason why, dealing with the next amendment, the noble and learned Lord should not stipulate the posting of the full prospectus in all post offices and sub-post offices.
The noble and learned Lord complains about the expense of printing 30,000 prospectuses or thereabouts. The noble and learned Lord is already paying sums of over £1 million—in fact the total cost of the flotation will be £7 million—which will be spent in commission and other fees. Will he jib at the extra cost of printing 20,000 more prospectuses? It really does not make sense.
If the noble and learned Lord is to be frank with the public, why should not the abbreviated notice or circular to go round with the form of application not state, "on the authority of the directors" and, presumably,
"on the authority of the Secretary of State that all the legal require-ments have been complied with",
otherwise all kinds of circulars can be sent out. The noble and learned Lord is being unreasonable about this. He could have accepted these amendments without any injury to the Government's policy. He could have accepted them as a matter of sheer practicability, and he should have accepted them as an earnest of his frankness in the matter. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No, 42 was moved some time ago.
Lord Denham: Put the question, my Lords.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO.2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jacobson, L.

Amherst, E.

Jacques, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bishopston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kaldor, L.

Bowden L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Collison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn,

Oram, L.

B.

Phillips, B.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

[Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Foot, L.

Segal, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

[Teller.]

Stone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

398

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Marley, L.

Auckland, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Avon, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bauer, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Avon, L.

Bellwin, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Boardman, L.

Morris, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brookes, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norfolk, D.

Carrington, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Orkney, E.

Cockfield, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Dormer, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eccles, V.

Portland, D.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Glanusk, L.

Reigate, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Gormanston, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gray, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Savile, L.

Greenway, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hailsham of Saint

Somers, L.

Marylebone, L.

Spens, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Henley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hives, L.

Sudeley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Suffield, L.

Howard of Henderskelfe, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Teviot, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Trenchard, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lawrence, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Vickers, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lyell, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wise, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Young, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

7.1 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 47 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Amendment No. 48, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Out of order, My Lords.
The Lord Chancellor: Out of order, My Lords. I am so glad to be told that. It is the first time that I have been allowed to say that from the Woolsack.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 49:
Transpose Clause 91 to after Clause 89.
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the name of my noble friend, Lord Cockfield. This is a technical amendment and I beg to move.
Clause 95 [Power of Secretary of State to make orders under Fair Trading Act 1973 etc.].
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 88, line 6, leave out ("necessary to give effect") and insert ("requisite to give effect to")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 96 [Prohibitions and restrictions applying to lessees with respect to telecommunications]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 88, line 37, leave out ("public telecommunication") and insert ("telecommunications")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may speak to Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53 together, Amendment No. 51 is basically a drafting amendment to improve the Bill as it stands and the other two are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment No. 52: Page 89, line 37, after ("system") insert ("or a telecomunication system specified for the purposes of this section in an order made by the Secretary of State")
Amendment No. 53: Page 89, line 39, after ("system") insert ("or to a system so specified")
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 52:
[Printed above. ]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 53:
[Printed above.]
Clause 103 [Application to territorial waters and the Continental shelf etc.]:
Lord Cockfield Lord Cockfield moved Amendment No. 54:
Transpose Clause 103 to after Clause 107.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor rearrangement. I beg to move.
Clause 107 [General interpretation]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 55:
[Printed earlier: col. 350.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Clause 109 [Amendments, transitional provisions and repeals]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 100, line 27, after ("right") insert ("which is or may be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 2 [The telecommunications code]:
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 108, line 36, leave out ("and which, by virtue, of any") and inset ("under any enactment and which, by virtue of that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is also a drafting amendment which clarifies another drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 111, line 35, at end insert ("to persons who occupy, own interests in or are from time to time on the land in question").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 58 is an improvement to Amendment No. 86CA that we spoke to earlier on Committee. I think it helps the provisions for the code when expressed to that amendment. My noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord Caithness will be pleased by the amendment which helps them in what they tried to put forward earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 112, line 29, leave out from beginning to third ("the") in line 31 and insert—
(" (3) In any case where it is shown that a person with an interest in the land was entitled to require the removal of the apparatus immediately after it was installed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can speak to Amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61 together. They are clarificatory and also drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment No. 60: Page 112, line 33, leave out ("any telecommunication") and insert ("the").
Amendment No. 61: Page 112, line 34, leave out ("any") and insert ("the").
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 60:
[Printed above.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 61:
[Printed above.]
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 113, line 7, after ("above") insert ("for")
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 113, line 18, after ("above") insert ("for")
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 115, line 38, after ("keep") insert ("installed")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 116, line 41, at end insert—
(" (5A) The Secretary of State shall not approve a plan submitted to him under sub-paragraph (3) or (4) above unless he

401
is satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made for compensating any perosn appearing to him to be owners of interests in the tidal water or lands in question for any loss or damage sustained by those persons in consequence of the execution of the works to which the plan relates.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is also drafting. It improves a point foreshadowed by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord's peroration. My noble friend Lord Grimond asked me to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for having prepared this amendment and to thank him for the letter of 16th March that he wrote to him.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 66 to 70:
Page 129, line 25, at end insert—
(" (2A) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply in relation to any emergency works of which the relevant undertaker gives the operator notice as soon as practicable after commencing the works")
line 26, leave out (" (1) ") and insert (" (2) ")
line 47, leave out (" of or") nd insert ("and")
Page 130, line 19, leave out ("other than emergency works")
line 20, leave out ("this paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph (2) above")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I move Amendments Nos. 66 to 70 en bloc. They all clarify the Bill and improve the drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 71 and 72:
[Printed earlier: col. 362. ]
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 143, line 22, at beginning insert ("(1)").
line 27, at end insert—
("(2) This paragraph does not extend to Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 73 and 74, with the permission of the House, en bloc. They deal with the Cinematograph Act of 1909 and they exclude this provision for Northern Ireland.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 75 and 76:
Page 220, line 5, column 3, leave out ("by").
column 3, leave out line 9 and insert (" "the tribunal" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 en bloc.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. On an issue as important as this,
402
views are strongly held and forcefully expressed but that stage is now behind us. As a House we have carried out our traditional duty with a degree of application and thoroughness rarely matched. The Bill leaves us a better Bill than it was when we received it. We have reinforced and entrenched the role of Parliament; we have added further protection for the consumer and user; we have given clearer recognition to the role of the manufacturers; we have provided for the voice of the consumer to be more clearly heard and more effectively deployed; we have stressed the need to safeguard the position of the disabled and the elderly and of small businesses. We have protected the position of rural areas and written into the statute the requirement that there should be no undue discrimi-nation in relation to charges of all kinds.
We have provided for free directory inquiry services for the blind and the disabled. We have been even-handed in ensuring that the rights of the owner are protected when lines or apparatus are installed, at the same time ensuring that the tenant who wants a telephone cannot be frustrated by his landlord. We have made many other improvements; and should anyone be tempted to question what useful function your Lordships perform or what justification there is for your continued existence, the history of this Bill provides a convincing answer.
I would now make only two points. First, the battle has been strenuously fought, but always fairly so. Our proceedings have been marked by disagreement but a complete lack of acrimony. I pay tribute to those who have led from the other side of the House—the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord McIntosh of Haringey—to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who led for the Liberals; to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who led for the Social Democrats; to distinguished Cross-Benchers like the noble Lord, Lord Somers, the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, all of whose wit, wisdom and understanding have enlivened our proceedings; and to those of my noble friends, particularly Lord Orr-Ewing, and Lord Mottistone, as well as my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, Lady Macleod of Borve and Lord Morris, who both encouraged and at times admonished us. So many of your Lordships participated in our debates that the list would be too long for me to repeat, but I hope those whom I have not been able to mention by name will accept that their contributions have been both valuable and valued.
Secondly, now that the parliamentary battle is behind us we would all wish British Telecom—those who work in it, those who manage it and those whom it serves-—a successful and progressive future; and to all those in this rapidly-developing field of telecommunications, whether they are manufacturers, operators or service providers, we would wish success in taking advantage of the wider opportunities that are now open to them. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Cockfield.)
Lord Weinstock: My Lords, as Machiavelli lay on his death bed (from a condition possibly brought on by

403
a protracted legislative procedure) a priest came to administer the last rites. "My son", said the priest, "you must renounce the Devil and all his works". "My father", replied Machiavelli, "this is not time for me to be making new enemies". Although I hope the allegory is not too close to home, I seem to hear an echo down the centuries of that priest's words. I should like to believe that I do not take too much of a risk today in not responding to them in the same way as did Machiavelli.
I do not like this Bill, and whether or not it is in my best material interests (those interests having been duly declared) I am bound to say so. I do not speak on behalf of GEC, and my views are certainly not derived from GEC's membership of any "charmed circle", as was predictably alleged in another place. Neither is it true that I am part of an unholy alliance with the Labour party and the trade unions; although if such an alliance had existed it would not necessarily be unholy to share the view of those two institutions that the Government are mistaken in what they are doing.
Your Lordships' House has given this Bill long hours of thorough consideration. Noble Lords have tried to be helpful to the Government, while at the same time protecting the public interest. I congratulate noble Lords on the Government Front Bench who have handled these debates with skill and courtesy. I welcome their agreement to place the draft licences before Parliament, and I welcome the handsomely-made concessions of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House with regard to telephone tapping. These are by no means the only matters in which the Government have accommodated the feelings of this House. Another example was the acceptance by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, of the amendment to take account of the interests of United Kingdom telecommunications manufacturers.
I mention this particularly because of an article which appeared in the Economist on 21st October 1983 in which it was stated that the noble Lord had, at a Cabinet meeting,
"delivered his view that the sooner Britain ceased to be a manufacturing country the better".
I do not believe that the noble Lord thinks any such thing, and I hope he will reaffirm to your Lordships today that the Government do not think so, either.
The changes undergone by the Bill in its passage through your Lordships' House are not by any means unimportant; but they are not fundamental. The basic fact remains that this legislation is meant to transfer a national monopoly service to private hands, in the belief that this will further the cause of competition and of a free market in telecommunications services. Several noble Lords referred to this delusion during the Second Reading and subsequently, and I will not weary your Lordships with repetition of what was said then and what is anyway so obvious to an objective observer. Ministers have frequently asserted that British Telecom PLC is to be "a normal commercial company", essentially like any other commercial company. It will be no such thing. A normal commercial company does not need an Act of Parliament to make its existence possible, or a complicated and lengthy licence to lay down rules as to
404
how it is to operate, or the appointment of an official watchdog to see that the rules are kept.
The Minister for Information Technology said in another place at column 479 on 10th November 1983 that the draft articles of association of BT PLC,
"differ materially from what might be expected in the articles of a major telecommunications company".
Of course they do; for the simple reason that BT has an immutable grip on more than 90 per cent. of the market.
The last published accounts of BT, for the year 1982–83, are heavily qualified by its auditors. We are given by the press to understand that the accounts for the following year are undergoing treatment, presumably a course of what is these days called "creative accounting" in the profession.
The terms of the licence and the regulatory procedure contained in the Bill amount to what the Minister for Information Technology described in another place as a
"formidable array of protection for the consumer and the customer after privatisation [which will] be reinforced by the licence, the licence conditions and the powers of the Director General".
That appeared at column 405 on 8th November 1983 in another place.
These matters, among others, will have a material, and exceptional, bearing on the value of the shares of BT. It will be of considerable interest to see how they are dealt with in the prospectus; but it is disturbing that the Government propose to take short cuts under Clause 70 of the Bill and to give the Secretary of State a unique exemption from the normal requirements of the law with regard to the placing of shares as it applies to everybody else. When it is all done, the Government will still be the owner of 49 per cent. of the share capital of BT PLC, with certain entrenched powers under the articles of association. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said in Committee that the Government's 49 per cent. holding will have the same shareholders' rights as everyone else's, but that they did not intend to use their rights.
Other noble Lords may have shared my impression that the noble Lord did not deal with this issue with his usual incisive clarity. But what is clear, since no-one else will be allowed to hold more than 15 per cent. of the equity, is that the Government's share of 49 per cent. will constitute effective control of the company, and therefore any future Government will be free to rule BT without resort to renationalisation or other legislation.
Those who contemplate investing in BT PLC will no doubt take these matters into account. But it is less obvious that the apparent concessions to potential competition—partly offered by the Government and partly wrung out of them—will stand in danger of becoming worthless. Imagine that all the ministerial fantasies come to pass and that competitors to BT rise like mushrooms in the night. What will happen to their investments in the cold dawn of a different Administration? The risks are not confined to those who invest in BT. They encompass all who put capital into telecommunications services in the belief that the structure of the Government's policy is durable.

405
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said in Committee that the Government intended to rescue BT from the ownership of
'"an amorphous state corporation".
In his own words, he wants,
"the British people themselves to own an industry of this kind".
That is what the noble Lord said, and that is more or less what has been said on other occasions by the Secretary of State and by other Ministers. Why, then, do the Government retain an American banking house to advise on the placing of BT shares in the United States? Are the British people to be found standing around on Wall Street? And how strange was the Department of Trade and Industry's note of the meeting held in Tokyo on 20th and 21 st June 1983 to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred during Report stage. It records that officials of the department suggested that the Japanese public and large Japanese firms might provide a market for BT shares—a suggestion, incidentally, which was received by the Japanese authorities with incredulity.
The sale of these shares at a proper price will present considerable difficulties. Indeed, to achieve the issue on any terms which can be called reasonable will not be easy. The newspapers say that the Government propose to spend £8 million on promotional material alone in respect of the share placing. This will be only the canap'e—not even the hors d'oeuvre—of what will most certainly be a most expensive feast; including among its courses bankers' fees, brokers' commission and advisory fees, underwriting commissions, overriding commissions, legal fees, accountants' fees, public relations fees, printing costs, and Heaven knows what else. It sounds rather like the aptly-named Dr. Blind in the first act of "Die Fledermaus"—although perhaps a more appropriate theme song would be "Hello Folly" (and I hope that the Official Reporter will remember to write "Folly" with a capital F). But we are not in your Lordships' House today producing an agreeable entertainment—at least not intentionally. We are concerned with a serious matter.
No responsible body of opinion believes that BT PLC will constitute other than a monopoly or that its monopoly powers can be kept under control by Oftel through the proposed licence. If, as Ministers say, competition and liberalisation are their main aims, there is no reason why those aims could not have been achieved without altering the ownership of BT and by enforcing BT's assistance in the developing needs of potential competitors.
No—except for fleeting references to the PSBR, the reasons your Lordships have been given in support of this Bill do not bear the weight of close examination, and it is no wonder that the Bill seems to command so little enthusiasm among Government supporters. What is needed to improve and enhance communications services and to promote competition to that end is a coherent idea of how we can meet our evolving requirements in future years, and to make the best use of our national resources. That is not the route the Government have chosen.
We have not achieved the establishment of technical standards for connections to the main network. The plans for inter-active cable services—at least for the short and medium term—have already degenerated
406
for all practical purposes into no more than cable television installations. In cellular radio, there is little prospect of meeting the target set for a national system under the existing arrangements and the promise of the creation of many thousands of new jobs is already clearly seen to be illusory. And every piece of apparatus so far ordered for cellular radio has been bought from abroad.
In satellite broadcasting, the official plans for Unisat are in disarray and those who relied upon them are at risk for substantial sums. In contrast to their substan-tial achievements in other fields, the Government are making a pig's ear of these matters. Ministers have said that once liberalisation is accepted, privatisation of British Telecom inevitably follows. This proposition is nonsensical. The object of privatisation, in a single step and at a proper price, is in blatant conflict with the objective of promoting competition. The Government's answer to this dilemma is the regulatory procedure and Oftel. British Telecom themselves appear to be in favour of privatisation if the regulatory procedure is not onerous; they do not expect Oftel to bother them unduly. But if the regulatory procedure is not onerous, it will not work to bring about effective competition—even if that was a practical possibility under the terms of this Bill.
This Bill will not fulfil the Government's stated objectives, but it will no doubt go through all the same and we will all have to do as best we can with it. For the director genera! of Oftel, however, it will impose an horrific burden, requiring the qualities of a quite senior deity. Where is such a paragon to be found? Who better for the Government to turn to than one who understands this matter so thoroughly and whose experience as a senior officer in the Inland Revenue and as chairman of the Price Commission makes him uniquely qualified? In the unlikely event that the post is indeed offered to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I am prepared to lay, for those of your Lordships who like a wager, considerable odds against his accepting it.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I hope that I can now sign off as the chairman of our liberalisation group. In doing so I should like to thank the members of our group for the help and support they have given. Sixteen members have contributed to our debate—and that is not including the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, with whom we have kept in close touch. I want to thank also the Ministers on the Front Bench for their acceptance of some of our requests and their forbearance— particularly towards me in my anxiety to ensure that the director general of Oftel shall have a positive duty to tackle anti-competitive practices.
I must particularly thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his detailed letter to my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, which has since been published as a Written Answer in the Official Report of 22nd March. That Answer sets out in great detail how this business of tackling anti-competitive practices may be achieved. I suggest that all noble Lords should read that Written Answer.
There are three matters which still worry me. The first concerns the question of flexibility. Will the Bill

407
prove sufficiently flexible to cope with the speed of development, new inventions and technological change? I raised this point in my very first amendment in Committee and was told that the Secretary of State could not be given such wide powers as would allow him to create new functions for the director to cope with situations which may come upon us in the future. I am a little worried now because is that not something of what we shall be asked to do in relation to the rates Bill? Although I am not saying that I am opposed to the rates Bill, it is a pity that we could not have something of that kind in this Bill, to enable flexibility to be carried on.
Secondly, who is going to plan the strategy for future developments in the industry? Is this just to be left to the market place? If so, it will be dominated by British Telecom and we shall not get very far. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that he consider possibly linking up with the Alvey directorate some form of body which can study the future strategy for this industry, which is going to be involved so much with information technology and its conveyance to commerce and industry.
Thirdly, the licence. We have to wait to see what is going to be in that and I hope we shall be given the opportunity of having a good debate on its contents. With that, I wish the Bill well and again thank the Front Bench Ministers for what they have done.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, in the spirit of bonhomie which descended on the Chamber when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took his seat on the Woolsack, may I thank the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his kind reference to myself. I should like to thank him and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for their constant patience and courtesy, coupled with the assistance, of course, of their colleagues the noble Lords, Lord Glenarthur and Lord Lyell.
May I say to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that I shall remember with increasing delight how he often supplemented his rather inadequately drafted replies with his charming, piquant and even Victorian form of rhetoric. Referring to drafting replies reminds me, and I hope it is not considered inappropriate, that I would personally like to thank those silent members behind the scenes who, often at short notice, prepared replies to our amendments; many of us have been sometimes surprised at the speed with which they have passed written notes to welcoming Ministers in this House.
In conclusion, we on these Benches have spoken sincerely, mostly in the spirit of constructive opposition, and I think I agree with the words of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which I paraphrase, that at least one thing is clear arising out of your Lordships' proceedings: this Bill will leave your Lordships' House a far better Bill than it was when it came to us.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I briefly say a word of thanks on behalf of the various associations for the disabled and, indeed, for the disabled themselves, for the magnificent support I had from this side of the House and for the generous response from the
408
Government Front Bench. May I in particular mention the noble Lord. Lord Lyell, for the extraor-dinarily good speech which he made and which gave a vast amount of contentment to the blind as well as to the hard of hearing. I thought it was a remarkable response to my submission. It was so good that I am doubtful whether I ought to make submissions which I know he is to answer. Nevertheless, on behalf of the various associations for the disabled in our country and, as I said, for the disabled themselves, I thank all noble Lords in all parts of the House, and the Government Front Bench in particular, for the generous and kind review which they gave of our submissions and for the help we had from them.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, as I was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, I should like to thank him and the whole of his team very sincerely, and not only to thank them but to congratulate them on getting this splendid and important Bill through your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned the disabled but I should like to mention those in rural areas, the disabled, the blind, and those of pensionable age, to all of whom the Government have given way, perhaps due to persuasion from all sides of the House and have acceded to our requests on amendments. I should like to thank my noble friend for mentioning me and for all the work he has done on our behalf.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, very briefly, may I thank my noble friend the Minister for such measure of flexibility as he was able to afford having regard to the rigidity of the drafting structure of the Bill. May I also thank him for his free dispensation of indulgences for those afflicted with spasms of heresy and to welcome the spirit of this Bill.
May I raise three short questions? They are matters that have been canvassed during the pasage of this Bill but have not been resolved. The first is: how shall my right honourable friend proceed to secure that there is real competition, and how shall would-be cable operators be safeguarded against their manifest fears of abuse in the licensing procedures? Secondly, as this question that I have raised impinges on the concept of justice between man and an agency set up by the state, is it not essential that a code of practice should be prepared and issued prior to Royal Assent? Finally, is it not a matter of concern to Her Majesty's Government that as regards due administration, in this regard justice should not only be done but be seen to be done? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister might make some valedictory signal.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, at this late hour it would not be appropriate for me to ask the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, a series of rhetorical questions which the traditions of this House would prevent him from answering at this stage of the Bill. What I wish to do is associate myself with the remarks that he made about the very fine job of work that all Members of this House have sought to do on this Bill. I have always held the view that the main function of the House of Lords, on the assumption that it concedes that the will of the other place must always prevail, is to act as a revising Chamber. I am bound to say, although I have not been altogether satisfied with

409
the response that has been available to some of the amendments that I and my colleagues have put forward, that in my view the House has done a very good job indeed, of which it can be very proud. It has given this Bill sustained attention over a period of about 10 working days and it must have been very tiring not only for the noble Lord but also for the staff who have supported him throughout.
I come to the other function of your Lordships' House, to which I have always paid public tribute. It is the second forum in the United Kingdom in which public debate on matters of national issue may take place. There is, of course, the other place, which is one forum, and the other forum is this House. It is my hope that this House will continue to be one of the two national forums in which public debate takes place. It would be a great shame if either of these two national forums was to disappear.
In that spirit, and on the basis that I am now in the arena of the forum, I am bound to tell the noble Lord that this is a very bad Bill. It is very much better than when it entered, but it is still a bad Bill. It was badly motivated; the political motivation was wrong; even the financial motivation was wrong. But there it is. We have done our best to improve it. To end on a spirit of concord with the noble Lord opposite, and in order that I shall not disappoint him, may I say that immediately we are returned to office we shall undo all the good work he has performed on the Bill.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I add my feelings to the euphoria and wish to thank everyone for their courtesy and patience. With the help of the Public Bill Office I counted that we have passed 300 amendments. That is a formidable array, and must be close to a record for this House on a major Bill. If I could add one group of people to those who should be thanked, it would be the Public Bill Office. They have shuffled all these amendments, and many more, into order and presented them to us very punctually. I must add one caveat. The trouble is that we have really not had much manoeuvring space. The Government had made certain patterns of near monopoly in both the network and in cellular radio, and there was nothing that we could do to change that. It is sad that we have not made the situation more competitive.
We as a group—and I speak as the honorary secretary, Lord Spens being our chairman—have concentrated on three or four areas. Briefly, we have tried to give the regulating authority rather more power, because while so much power is concentrated in BT it means that more power must also be in the regulatory authority. Secondly, we have tried to ensure that the DTI makes better use of the scarce frequencies which exist. Clever designers go on being able to sandwich more information down the same radio channel as compared with 10 or 20 years ago. You get more and more information down, but one still has to make the optimum use of the channels. Up till now that has not been done within the DTI. We have also made efforts to move some of the liberalisation measures out of the proposed licence and into the Bill, but we have not succeeded in that area.
During the passage of this Bill we have looked at one of the judgments that the Office of Fair Trading has produced over the past three years on one area within
410
British Telecom's remit. I shall not go into the details now, but I hope that Oftel will be more circumspect and much quicker acting, because this took three years to investigate. Three years is a long time, and during that period BT increased its market share from 10 per cent. to 75 per cent. What is sad—and this is typical of an investigation—is that we have no facts to know why it found that there had been no cross-subsidisation. A huge amount of money was spent on television and on other publicity media. We see that every weekend on our television; but I do not know whether that was taken into consideration. Last year £2.4 million was spent just on advertising its paging. Normally, if one has 75 per cent. of the market one does not advertise with that sort of money, because it is very expensive to take a larger share.
I mention this only because we would wish that Oftel will be powerful and manned by people of the right calibre and resolve. The Office of Fair Trading has not quite matched up in speed, economy or findings. I have here a long list of dirty tricks that BT has been up to—20 of them, I think. I am sure that this is not the right place or the right moment to publish them—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Orr-Ewing:—but they exist. I am glad that that is recognised. Later on some of them may be put straight in front of Oftel, which is exactly what it is there to deal with—dirty tricks, or anti-competitive practices.
I want to say one thing about frequencies. I made the case in the Official Report at Vol. 449, cols. 579–580. I shall not repeat it here. I hope that my noble friend will see that the very small private sector which is left to compete gets a fair share of what is available.
I finish on a sad note. I think that the Government have been unwilling to undertake much genuine liberalisation and to create much genuine competition. They have been deliberately preserving, and even strengthening, the BT monopoly. We now learn that it is likely to have about 98 per cent. of the market, leaving only 2 to 3 per cent. for the beloved network, Mercury. No competitors will be allowed in until 1990, so BT has a very long run. One very large consortium was going to apply, spend £500 million and create all the jobs that went with that, with a very advanced technology. It has gone overseas, and, of course, the jobs have gone there with it.
The Government are willing to secure assets and frequency channels—and have been over the past 25 years—for the 47 or so companies which have pioneered and made the pace. What is sad is that when the Bill is through, complaints are likely to go to the EEC courts and perhaps even to the United States courts. We must remember that BT has now entered the United States and is working there. Therefore, it will be subject to all the very powerful anti-monopoly legislation of the United States. It will be more difficult to market its shares if it has a lot of court cases hanging over its head.
It is sad that British technology will not be given the opportunities that it might have been given. It is sad that the private sector companies which have

411
pioneered for 25 years have not been given the chance. This has not been written in. I can only hope that the jobs that go with them will be given an opportunity by this Government. Administration can do what this Bill has failed to do. I therefore wish all those who are working in British Telecom—and there are 250,000 people—well for the future. May they succeed in the private sector. When the monopoly is broken, they will have the opportunity at least of sacking their boss and of going to work for someone else. That is one of the freedoms which is essential.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I value and appreciate the tributes which have been paid, not just to myself but, more importantly, to my noble friends who have shared the Front Bench with me. I am precluded, as the noble Lord. Lord Bruce of Donington, said, from replying to Second Reading speeches which have been made, including the relevant portion of the noble Lord's own speech. I shall study everything that has been said and on specific points I shall write to the noble Lords who raised them.
On Question. Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.46 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister of State. Scottish Office, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved. That the Report be now received.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Lyell: My Lords, 1 believe that it would be for the convenience of your Lordships, not least the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, to deal with the two Motions on the Order Paper before continuing with the Report stage of the Roads (Scotland) Bill.
Accordingly, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
I understand that it is intended to resume consideration on Report at approximately 8.30 p.m. I hope that that will give noble Lords some guidance.

Public Records (Commission for the New Towns) Order 1984
7.48 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th March be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion of approval standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may say that, with permission, I shall speak to the two Motions in my name, but of course the Questions will have to be proposed separately. The new towns Motion has
412
already received the approval of another place. The other place has a slightly different procedure from ours, and the position about the British Rail Motion is that it has been before their Standing Committee but has not yet received Commons approval on the Floor of the House, which I believe is expected on Monday.
The records concern the Commission for the New Towns and the British Railways Board. Neither of these groups falls within the definition of a public record, which is set out in the schedule to the Public Records Act 1958. It has been decided that certain records in each of these bodies should now be treated as public records, and the only way in which this can be achieved under the Act of 1958 is by an Order in Council and that Order in Council has first to be approved in draft by Parliament.
The first draft order concerns the Commission for the New Towns. The records referred to consist partly of the records of the development corporations which were transferred to the Commission prior to their dissolution, and the remainder of the Commission's own records. These are records relating to the development of new towns, and thus are records of an important development in social history and as such, I hope it will be agreed, ought to be clearly preserved as part of our national collection.
It is not intended that this order should cover the records of the new town development corporations themselves since such a requirement would conflict with the discretion conferred on the Secretary of State for the Environment under paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 10 of the 1981 New Towns Act, as to their disposal. In the normal course, a corporation's documents would be transferred to the Commission when the corporation is wound up and then they will then be treated as part of the Commission's present records.
The second motion relates to the records of the British Railways Board which the Board has already transferred or will in future transfer to the Public Record Office. The 1968 Transport Act dealt with the transfer and disposal of historical records and relics belonging to the British Railways Board. These were sent to the National Railway Museum in York. A collection of the records became the responsibility of the Public Record Office, and in 1977 these were deposited at Kew at the office there. But they are not at present in the strict sense public records. Technically they form a private collection, in the control of the Public Record Office. It is desirable for two reasons that they should be made subject to the Public Records Act and public records.
The two reasons are as follow. First, Section 42 of the Copyright Act 1956 exempts the Keeper of the Public Record Office from infringing copyright but only when the records are public records. It therefore follows that there is a technical breach of copyright every time he allows a researcher, with whom these records are extremely popular, to copy them. Secondly, the agreement with the British Railways Board to transfer the records to the Public Record Office was not made under the Public Records Act, and it is desirable that all the records should have the full protection of that Act.
Your Lordships may notice there is one exception provided for in this draft and that relates to the personal records of staff. The proviso in the draft order ensures that personal records do not become public records until they are 75 years old. By that time their sensitivity will have evaporated and they can then become public records in the main collection. I understand that on signing certain undertakings, researchers are in fact allowed access to these records but the undertakings preserve the sensitivity of the records.
There have been I believe some articles and correspondence in several publications recently on the archives of the British Railways Board. This order is not made as a result of that correspondence, and it is not for me to discuss the archives. But I would point out that the effect of this order will be to guarantee the status and preservation, as public records, of many railway records.
When the order was debated in the standing committee in the other Place, my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General was able to announce the intention of the British Railways Board to set up an advisory panel, and this advisory panel whose composition was disclosed by my right honourable and learned friend will ensure that the remainder of the archives are disposed of among those organisations which have an interest in their preserva-tion. I hope in fact that the advisory panel will be able to prevent some of the matters for criticism which have been publicly ventilated. With that explanation, I hope your Lordships will agree that these orders are uncontentious. I ask the House to approve them accordingly. I beg to move the first of the two motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th March be approved.—[The Lord Chancellor.]
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for moving these orders. On the order regarding new towns I have nothing to say but praise. Railway records, however, is a subject that has raised some considerable comment, concern and even disquiet in the press and elsewhere recently. I have done my humble best to understand the complexities of the question and will therefore put forward a view as to how I see the situation as it stands at the moment, and make some suggestions as to how this problem can be put right in the future.
This order, as my noble and learned friend has said, formalises arrangements already in practice, which have been made by the British Railways Board and the Public Record Office. I am afraid I consider it regrettable that legislation does not go far enough as I feel it would have been desirable if British Railways had become a statutory record producing body under Section 3 of the Public Records Act, in the same way as the National Coal Board and the Civil Aviation Authority. I, too, have read with much interest the debate in the Standing Committee in the other place on this order. Many valid points were made which although I may touch on and develop I will not repeat in depth. The purpose of my intervention here is to ouline the practical implementation of some of the proposals as well as outlining some of their weaknesses.
414
I shall begin by referring to the importance of the advisory panel as proposed by the British Railways Board through my right honourable and learned friend the Solicitor General and indeed my noble and learned friend this evening.
In the absence of statutory legislation, this advisory panel will play a crucial role. Therefore I should like to put forward certain criteria for ensuring that it can fulfil its public role effectively. First, I urge the need for an early starting date in order to allay the obvious public concern. Secondly, I consider it would be important for an independent chairman to be appointed to this panel who can have the services of an independent secretariat. Thirdly, this advisory panel must not be confined to considering minor historical records as already stated. Indeed, it must be seen to have the role of a watchdog over this whole process of securing our national railway heritage in the form of the paper records. In mentioning paper records, I also include photographs and other such material.
Fourthly, I should like to elaborate on the membership. The British Railways Board have suggested a number of obvious bodies to be represented which are acceptable, but I notice there is nobody specifically representing the paper record of railway history. The fifth point—and your Lordships will be pleased to know that there is only one more after this—is that this panel publish an annual report of its proceedings with copies to be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
My final point is that this advisory panel clearly needs a basis of information so that it can make a constructive decision on this matter. I should like to suggest that the investigation, which was begun privately by Dr. Peter Lewis and Mr. David Challis must continue with the sanction of the British Railways Board and the Lord Chancellor's Office to provide this information. So far, this investigation has yielded very helpful replies from both the Public Record Office and the Scottish Record Office. I apologise to my noble and learned friend for not giving him prior notice of these matters and appreciate that it would be impossible to reply to them today. But I should be grateful if he could write to me after he has considered these proposals fully.
I do not in any way intend to attack the British Railways Board for the handling of this matter. I must say I was most grateful for their invitation to me to go and see them. The meeting was most useful. Equally, the Public Record Office again has been most helpful. Nonetheless, it is quite clear from these discussions, and others that I have had with interested parties, that the current situation and the situation that will persist, shows that this order has serious deficiencies that leave me with a feeling of concern.
First, the identification of items for potential disposal. Because the initial selection of these items can be made by staff who cannot be expected to have an adequate knowledge of railway history this process can lead to material not being made available for Public Record Office inspection. Secondly, the current situation whereby the Public Record Office makes a selection of material that is offered does not allow for it to recommend material which it does not require to be sent to public repositories except at the National Railway Museum at York.

415
May I suggest that any new arrangements must give the PRO authority to advise these other public repositories that material suitable for them is being disposed of. For example, the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum—about which I am sure we will hear from the noble and learned Lord opposite—gives information to part of the National Museum of Wales but does not at present have any right to be offered material relevant to the very involved history of Welsh railways. Items that would be of considerable interest to local record offices are currently to be found on the shelves of Collector's Corner at Euston, and I beg leave to suggest that the sale of paper records should be stopped forthwith at this establishment until such time as the advisory panel can make a full reappraisal of the contents there.
Finally, I appreciate that I have hurled a lot of "meat" at my noble and learned friend at short notice, and I hope that he will forgive me for doing so. Also I hope that I am in order in making other comments. I should like to express my sympathy with my noble and learned friend and the staff of the Public Record Office over the sad situation at Kew. I feel that although it is inconvenient for many members of the public, the office should be reopened later rather than sooner and not until all the authorities are satisfied that the problems of the building are solved.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I rise to support the orders that are being moved and to express our gratitude that they have come forward. But I am bound to say that I share the concern and anxieties about the practical implication of what is intended expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who is a tiger in these matters. My mind goes back to long ago and I recall the noble Lord's role over the years; it is good to know he is still active in this way.
The maintenance of public records and records such as those relating to the new towns and to railways old and new is a very important part of the fabric of our social history, and it is a good thing that probably there is more concern about the maintenance of public records now than there has ever been. To my mind that is a mark of maturity in our development.
I think that the first order, relating to new towns, is a very valuable one. My own recollection of new towns is that a large number of my constituents in West Ham and the East of London were given shelter and a new hope of life there from the squalour and difficulties that followed the Blitz and years of neglect in the poorer parts of our cities; that was, I fear, part of the pattern of our civilisation. So it is good that those records are available for the social historian and for the rest of us.
As to the second order—the Public Records (British Railways Board) Order—I hope that I shall not be accused of mere provincialism if I indicate, as the noble and learned Lord has suspected would be the case, that my interest is particularly in the records of Welsh railways. I am happy to be involved with the Welsh Industrial and Maritime Museum in Cardiff. It is a most admirable museum, which I commend to the public, and its mandate is to record and, wherever possible, to preserve the industrial and maritime history of Wales. I have had anxious correspondence
416
from the curator, Dr. Geraint Jenkins, in regard to the position which, at any rate up until now, has existed. He states, for instance, that the Public Record Office will accept only a representative 10 per cent. of the records in a collection which it has been offered. He suggests that, so far as railway records are concerned, the remaining 90 per cent. may be offered by the British Railways Board to the National Railway Museum in York, or to the commercial outlet, Collector's Corner, at Euston, where they may be sold to the general public, or they may be otherwise disposed of or destroyed. But at any rate it is reassuring to know from the responses of the board to those anxieties that there is at least an awareness of the existence of the records. How far the new machinery will be effective we shall have to see.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, certainly suggested— to use an unattractive but useful phrase, the "beefing up" of the advisory panel in various ways. I hope that consideration will be given to that—and I suspect that it can be done administratively without the need of legislation—in order to be sure that the records of this fascinating part of our history may become available to students and members of the general public alike.
There is of course a real enthusiasm for railways, especially for the good old days of the steam engine, and for the Great Western Railway, on which my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan and I depended so many times, over so many years. There is a great fascination, not only in boyhood but in later life, for what has gone on in railways, for their creators, and for the laying down of the railways. Accordingly, I hope that the practical points that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, raised will be given serious consideration. I agree with him that at this hour and without notice it is a little unreasonable to expect the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, fascinated as he, too, is by railways, to give us a full explanation and account. But there is anxiety in Wales, which I hope will be allayed sooner rather than later.
8.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to thank both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord for the gracious way in which these Motions have been entertained. I should particularly like to thank my noble friend for the reference to the unhappy state of the present office in Kew, which is not of the making of the staff, nor indeed of the Lord Chancellor, and which has caused me very great unhappiness and concern. I shall of course take advice on the subject, but it is certainly not my intention to let people in—either the staff or the public—until it is safe. Apparently the microbes are stacked up somewhere in the water supply and until it is safe I really do not think that I can do anything other than keep it shut; but I shall take advice about that.
As regards the railways, the records of the railways are of course a very important part of our national history, but they are quite different from the records of central government in this way. Some of them have a peculiarly local historical orientation; some of them are technical. It is a much more heterogeneous collection than the ordinary items which go into the PRO, and as I recounted rather briefly in my opening speech, the original idea was to send them all to York.

417
It was only after a while that people came to realise that there were quite unique and nationally important records which had to be placed in Kew in order to meet the very natural national interest in them.
There is no possibility at all of the Lord Chancellor being in a position to sort out these records. That I think will be understood. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord probably knows from his experience, the position of the Lord Chancellor in relation to public records is a singularly embarrassing one. He does not himself select the 1 per cent. of the public records which are preserved. He does, of course, close them for determinate periods of time. He tries to stop them from being clawed back, so far as he can, but he has only limited powers to do so; and in the meantime he does his best. Whether he was ever the ideal person to be in charge of the Public Record Office, his position there was consecrated by the report of the Wilson Committee. I do not think that I can go behind them this evening, at any rate.
The truth is that I am the guardian of the national archive. There is a constant coming and going between various places of disposal where primarily local records are released from the public records by my permission. There is equally the cross-current of local records which it has finally been decided are public records—the class of thing with which we are really dealing this evening.
It is, I think, quite interesting that these are, I believe, the only Orders in Council which have ever been put forward under the Act, although I may be wrong about that. At all events, I shall try carefully to see that what my noble friend said about the composition of the advisory panel, which is not my personal responsibility or my departmental responsibility, is brought to the attention of the British Railways Board and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I shall try to see that the noble and learned Lord's anxiety about the Welsh records is considered very carefully by those responsible. I shall see whether, in two letters, I can allay some of their anxieties, and I thank them for their useful suggestions. With that, I beg to move.

Public Records (British Railways Board) Order 1984
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th March be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.11 until 8.30 p.m.]

Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Further considered on Report.
Clause 1 [Powers and duties of local roads authorities]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("local roads") and insert ("highway").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it should be noted that it is just after half past eight and here we are starting a very important Scottish Bill. I do not know when the Government think that we should rise, but I trust that it will be by half past ten. I can give the noble Lord due warning that I have complained about the treatment of Scottish business in this House before. It is quite scandalous that a Scottish Bill should come on at this time on a Thursday night and I duly give the noble Lord notice—and I am not going to hurry up anything that I want to say, because Scottish legislation deserves to be fully examined—that if the Government do not respond and say that we are going to finish at half past ten tonight, come what may, I am going to finish at half past ten tonight come what may.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but arrangements about the business are made through the usual channels, and it is very much better that it should be left that way and not discussed across the Floor of the House. I think that the noble Lord will realise that we had a Third Reading debate which took rather longer than we all anticipated. I do not think that it is useful to have this type of discussion across the Floor of the House.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it may not be useful, but I think that the public in Scotland will be interested in what happens to Scottish business. I trust that the Government spokesman will realise that at one time the Scottish business was the first business on this day when we first arranged these things. Be that as it may, let us come to the first important amendment.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will well appreciate that I am no great friend of this Bill. In fact, we could have done well without it, and I still suggest to him that he loses it between this place and another place. It is not all that important and we would lose nothing at all by taking that course.
I should get a vote of thanks from the Government for tabling this amendment which seeks to remove the words "local roads" and insert "highway". If we took that course it would certainly improve Scottish legislation considerably and ease the work of those who have to deal with Scottish legislation, because we would be saving the Government from the endless consequential embarrassment as regards what has been a misguided decision on the part of the Government.
The fact is that the Government had to make changes in the roads legislation following the reorganisation of local government under the 1973 Act. That was nearly 12 years ago. This Bill was to follow on after the Civic Government Bill which was affected in the same way and which also was a pretty lengthy Bill. Then there was the Transfer of Functions

419
Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament, and which also deals with the functions of local government. New and desirable amendments were needed in respect of roads legislation in Scotland.
Then someone—I do not know who—probably had the bright idea of lumping them all together and doing a bit of modernisation at the same time. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—a very naive politician and not exactly experienced in the ways of Parliament and the wiles of civil servants—said, "Well, that is quite a good idea; let's carry on". So they decided that they would do something along these lines and that they would get rid of things like highways. It is not a strictly very modern term, but everyone knows what it means and everyone in local government knows about the highways department. The whole matter progressed from there.
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to look at Schedule 8. At the end of the last stage of the Bill the list of amendments had grown from 25 pages of minor and consequential amendments to 46 pages. If we look at the Marshalled List today we find that there are to be another 18 pages of amendments added to the schedule. So we have had nearly 60 pages of amendments for one schedule, and what does it do? Wherever they can find a Bill—and they have not found them all yet—where it says "highway", out it goes and in goes "road". Whenever they find the word "street" out it goes and in goes "road".
I remember asking the Government what they were doing about United Kingdom legislation which mentioned the word "highway" as regards both Scotland and England. Of couse, we eventually started trawling through those provisions and there were a considerable number of amendments. As far as I can see, so far they have trawled through about 62 Acts. That was the situation at the conclusion of the Committee stage. Then there were the sections to be repealed. I think that 11 whole Acts were repealed, and the 49 Acts involving repeal are all listed in yet another schedule.
It is quite crazy to interfere unnecessarily with something that everyone understands, and to throw us into this muddle and confusion which even the Government are experiencing—as I could show if we had time tonight—in respect particularly of some of the changes that they propose to Schedule 8. Let us get back to "highway".
It is interesting to see what has been done—for example, the 1972 Act, Chapter 20, Section 37; or the 1981 Act, Chapter 14, Section 88(2); and Schedule 7 paragraph 13. There is one thing in relation to "highway" that still exists, unless we are going to change it because "highway" is a tainted word. We still have the Highway Code. What will it mean in Scotland after we get rid of the word "highway" from all of our legislation? Will it be called the "Rules of the Road Code" in Scotland and the Highway Code in England? That may well be so before we get finished with the Bill in another place. I can assure your Lordships that it will not start at half past eight at night; it will start at half past ten in the morning. I cannot see the Government having the brass neck to guillotine this type of Bill. They might even try it; they are in such a hurry to get it—it is so important.
420
I can assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that we could talk for months on this Bill and introduce new clauses and new ideas in respect of roads, even as the Government have done in this Bill. It all stems from the strange idea that, as well as doing what is necessary in relation to Scottish roads—that is bringing them up to date in relation to the re-organisations of local government—and doing what is desirable (that is, the new sections which have been introduced) because they have started on this innovatory modernisation, they have made an impossible task for the draftsmen. No doubt the draftsmen invited it on themselves. I am wondering whether there has been an MSC project around Edinburgh and they have taken on about 25 draftsmen in order to get through this.
It has been a long time between the Committee stage and the Report stage, which is simply due to the amount of work involved in this, and it is not finished yet. I think that it is quite wrong that we should have spent our time and used draftsmen's time, which is absolutely necessary, on this matter. Time and time again we hear noble Lords talking and complaining about the draftsmen. I do not know how the printers feel about the kind of material that they are receiving at the present time. I think it is a complete waste of time.
There should be priorities in relation to the Scottish Office. If we had gone back to using "highway" we would have saved ourselves a great deal of trouble, and we still would if we left "highway" in the Bill. I even received a letter from a local authority which still referred to "the highways authority". Having spoken about the highways authority for a long time, they were quite happy with it. Everyone knows what "highway" means. But we have to get rid of it—in some places.
I have also got rid of the word "public". What does that mean? It means that there will be only one highway authority, which is the local authority with the responsiblity for highways. It means that we shall not have this nonsense of proclaiming the Secretary of State as a "roads authority". The Secretary of State is the Secretary of State, and he has taken unto himself functions in respect of special roads. That is another point. If we modernise, we quickly discover that nobody knows what a special road is. Ask anyone in Scotland, and they will not know what a special road is. In this modernised legislation we are to keep special roads. What is a special road? It is a motorway. Then why do we not call it a motorway? Therefore, I think that we can cut out the Secretary of State as being the roads authority. He can exercise the functions that are given to him, and which have been given to him, in which he was never called a roads authority.
Therefore, if we accept this amendment it will not exactly throw us back to where we started, but we shall go a good way towards it, and in doing so we shall get rid of much of the nonsense that is presently in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, his purpose is to change the structure of the Bill, which I tried to explain at some length earlier. The proposal to employ the new terminology was widely canvassed and was accepted as

421
desirable by many organisations, including those most closely affected, such as the roads authority itself and the police.
In view of what the noble Lord said on earlier occasions, on the basis of the common use, as it were, in Scotland, I have had a look at this. I see that the appropriate departments in Strathclyde, Tayside, Grampian, Central, Borders, Dumfries and Galloway and Highland are called the roads departments. The only department that is referred to as the highways department is in Lothian. It does not matter much which word one chooses, so long as one sticks to it consistently, and we have sought to do that in all the places where it is appropriate to be consistent on this matter.
Accordingly, I hope that your Lordships will not think it right to change the word at this stage. The time is clearly ripe to adopt a simple, comprehensive, unambiguous term for Scottish roads law, and what better than "road"? To be consistent and to accord with the nomenclature already used by most regional councils, the authorities responsible for roads should be called "roads authorities". Although I appreciate my naivety, and so on, to which the noble Lord kindly referred, perhaps he would be kind enough to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, had the Government know in advance how many changes would have to be made in legislation which already exists because of this desire to standardise on the word "road", I wonder whether they would ever have embarked on the Bill at all? It is quite obvious that the changes are very much greater than they ever anticipated, considering the number of amendments to existing legislation made at the last stage and the ones being made in amendments tonight.
Having said that, I wonder whether there have been any problems created in Scotland in the adminis-tration of roads because we have a road, a street, a highway or any other variation? I spent more than a quarter of a century in local government, I am not aware that at any time the local authority of which I was a member had any difficulty because it was administering roads, streets, avenues, lanes and so on. Given the unwillingness of governments generally to abandon their legislation, I cannot help thinking that it would be a great deal easier at the end of the day if this Bill just disappeared and in due course something much simpler took its place.
Finally, on this point, I was rather interested in my noble friend Lord Ross saying that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was a naive politician. On Tuesday he was giving some advice to the Minister of State for Scotland. He certainly does not have to give him any advice on this Bill, because the Minister of State had enough sense to keep out of it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I appreciate the desire of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that I should withdraw this amendment. He says that everyone agrees with him. I have a letter here from the Society of Directors of Administration in Scotland, and that letter does not talk about a roads authority; it talks about the "highways authorities".
422
Old habits die hard. Will the police call their patrols "road patrols" instead of "highway patrols"?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has not answered my point about the Highway Code. Once the name Highway Code goes out of Scottish legislative parlance, it will not mean a thing. Can the noble and learned Lord tell me why the Government have not made these changes in the United Kingdom Road Traffic Acts in relation to the Highway Code, and why that has not been changed? What is the point of changing 99.9 per cent. and leaving the other 0.1 per cent? Or did they realise, when dealing with this, how silly they had been in getting into it?
I do not mind getting rid of "turnpikes", although it is interesting to note that the word "carriageway", which does not exactly have the tang of modernity about it, still remains. It has managed to escape the wiles of the draftsmen—probably because they could not think of any term to replace it. It is still there, despite the fact that it was in the 1839 Act, which is one of the first Acts that we mentioned. We trolled through Acts from about 1839 to 1982. That never worried anybody. The result is that we have these 46 pages of Schedule 8 which, by the time we are finished tonight, will be about 65 pages. Why is the Highway Code left, and is it the Government's intention, either during another stage of the Bill or later on, to get rid of it before we finish with "Mackay's monster"? And it is! I described it before as a "moger". (If anybody wants to know how to spell it, he or she can spell it as it sounds.) It is just a Scottish expression which cannot be bettered for a description of this kind of Bill; an absolute "moger". I cannot withdraw it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("the") to ("; and") in line 13 and insert ("frontagers of that road").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 2 it would be for convenience if I could speak also to Amendments 14, 16, and 69 [63].
Amendment No. 14: Page 14, line 39, leave out subsection (8).
Amendment No. 16: Page 15, leave out lines 24 and 25.
Amendment No. 63: Page 91, line 9, at end insert—
(" "frontager", in relation to a road, means the owner of any lands and heritages fronting or abutting that road;").
These amendments arise directly from my undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, during Committee when I agreed to consider whether the definition of "frontager" would be more appropriately located in the interpretation clause. Having considered the matter, I see the force of what he was proposing and I hope that these amendments, which delete those definitions of "frontager" in the body of the Bill, insert it in the interpretation clause, and rephrase the text of Clause 1(4) in accordance with the definition, will be satisfactory to the noble Lord.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for having made these changes. My only regret is that he did not find it possible to get away from "fronting or abutting". Incidentally, by a slip of the tongue the noble and learned Lord named the last amendment to which he was speaking as 69. It is of course 63.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am obliged.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—
("and, where any representation is made within 28 days after the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) above have been fulfilled, the authority shall consider that representation:").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asked that the drafting of this phrase be reviewed. I have reconsidered the structure of the sentence and trust that the amendment meets the point that the noble Lord was making. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: My Lords. I am content.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("or").
line 23, after ("Act") insert ("; or
(iii) any deletion on transfer of such a road to another roads authority,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 en bloc. The Bill provides that a roads authority prior to making alterations to their list of public roads must publicise their intentions except in two cases where publicity procedures would be excessive. These amendments provide for a third situation—the transfer of a public road from one roads authority to another. As such transfer would not affect passengers or road users, I am sure your Lordships will agree that this exemption would be appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, can the Lord Advocate give us any information of how often this has arisen, and has there been any trouble about it?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not able to say how often it has arisen. The noble Lord will appreciate that it is a possibility that has to be taken into account that a roads authority, for example the Secretary of State, would arrange to transfer the responsibility of the road from himself to a local roads authority, or there might be a change from one local roads authority to another. It does not seem appropriate to have advertisement at that stage, and accordingly this amendment deals with a possibility that might arise, and it seems right to do so.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, that was inviting information before the Lord Advocate was seated. I shall now proceed to speak on the matter. He gave me the answer I was looking for. If he accepts my amendment to get rid of the Secretary of State as a roads authority—which is a piece of nonsense; fancy calling the Secretary of State a roads authority—this problem would not arise in the one instance he mentioned where the Secretary of State might want to get rid of it from himself and give it to someone else.
If that happens there are one or two questions which arise, and people might be interested as to what the
424
cost would be to the new authority to whom he is going to give it. If he is the roads authority in respect of trunk roads and special roads, then of course he is going to be 100 per cent. But it may well be that he will be handing it over to the local authority, transferring it to the present highway authority or new roads authority, and leaving them maybe to foot the bill for the actual maintenance and upkeep of that road. He could probably de-trunk it as well to ensure that they did have to pay a considerable sum of money. It is not quite so simple as the Lord Advocate suggests. In the instance to which he refers if there is a transfer, unadvertised, how are the ratepayers going to know, or find out, whether there is a new financial burden being placed on them by the Government?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, this provision is designed for dealing with frontagers and the like. So far as the financial responsibilities are concerned, the situation is that the rating burden will be a matter for the local authority, and in that situation one can well understand that they would be able to take the necessary action to bring what has happened to the attention of their ratepayers. This is not a provision dealing with ratepayers in general. This is a provision dealing with specific people who require notice.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I still cannot see how the Secretary of State could possibly come into it as a roads authority.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): In the light of Lord Ross's intervention, I think I should put the amendments separately.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
("(5A) In subsection (5) above, "the requisite number" means—

(a) a majority; or

(b) such number as together owns lands and heritages which either—

(i) include not less than half of the boundary between the lands and heritages fronting or abutting the road mentioned in subsection (4)(a) above and that road; or

(ii) front or abut that road and have a net annual value which is not less than half of the total net annual value of all the lands and heritages which front or abut that road.")

Page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (9).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 en bloc. During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, suggested that the definition of "the requisite number" would be more properly located after subsection (5) where the phrase is first used. In the light of the noble Lord's observations we have reconsidered the arrangement of the subsection and hope that these amendments meet the point that the noble Lord made. The definition of "the requisite number" will be amended, I hope, in accordance with Amendment No. 17 to subsection 4(a). I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this makes a lot of sense, far better sense than it was before where you referred to a requisite number and then had to wait until you got a few sections further on to discover what a requisite number was all about. There is an indication of hasty draftsmanship. Bearing in mind that the draftsmen in the Scottish Office have been looking at this for 11 years, it does not say much for their efficiency since they got under new managment of late.
I welcome the fact that the Lord Advocate paid attention to the criticisms that came not only from me but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, had something to say about this when it was going through on Committee stage, and we have to thank the Lord Advocate and the draftsmen who had a second look at this and saw just how wrong they were.
Clause 2 [Powers and duties of Secretary of State as roads authority: management and maintenance]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("special roads") and insert ("motorways").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think with this one we could take No. 9 as well, because it deals with virtually the same point I have already mentioned.
Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 6, leave out ("as roads authority") and insert ("in relation to the roads mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) above").
The first thing is at page 3, line 31, where there is the reference to the Secretary of State becoming a roads authority, which I think is a piece of nonsense, and in respect of which
"the Secretary of State shall manage and maintain—

(a) trunk roads;

(b) special roads provided by him; and

(c) any other road constructed by him under Section 18 of this Act",

and so on. Well, "special roads provided by him". As I suggested before, we wondered what on earth was a special road. We looked up section after section and discovered that a special road is a motorway. If it is a motorway, why not say it? It is as simple as that. It is far too simple, I know, for the Government properly to appreciate. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has to make up his own mind about this or whether he has to consult with higher powers as did the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is here so they can have a joint discussion about it.
The other point is getting rid of the Secretary of State as the roads authority. All we have to do is to wipe out "roads authority" and say that he will exercise the functions of A, B and C. That stops a lot of nonsense about calling it a local roads authority. They do not give the Secretary of State a special name; he is just a roads authority. They do not even say he is a national roads authority—but the local authority is the local roads authority. We had better get rid altogether of the differentiation between the local roads authority and the Secretary of State. We never had it before and we have never had any trouble about it. Let us get rid of it and it will once again simplify the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, this amendment may have—
Lord Ross of Marnock: Superficial attraction!
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I thank the noble Lord very much; with his great experience, he is able to anticipate.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have read these briefs before!
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Ross; but I think I ought to read what I have to say all the same. "Motorways" would certainly be a word which a lot of people would understand. The truth of the matter is, however, that not all the special roads are motorways and therefore to make the amendment superficially attractive to the noble Lord would I think be a mistake. I hope in the light of that consideration he may feel able to withdraw it.
A motorway is defined as a special road which is limited to certain classes of traffic, and the Secretary of State presently has power to provide special roads for any grouping of the classes in Schedule 3 and not just those which fit into the definition of motorways. He would not wish to lose that flexibility, and I feel certain the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would not wish to deprive him of that flexibility.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, what I want is a little more flexibility from the Scottish Office; we do not see very much of it tonight. If that is all he is worried about he could add a few words to "motorway" and people will then know that "special roads" are mainly motorways.
I hope that the Government have not closed their minds to this matter and will look at it again because it is time we got rid of this phrase which no one understands. In view of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said and the special pleas he has made to me in respect of this, I will not call a Division and will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved. ]
Clause 4 [Agreements between authorities]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12:
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)")
Page 5, line 36, at beginning insert ("Subsection (1) above does not apply as regards functions under section 53 of this Act, but")
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("section 53 of this Act") and insert ("that section")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if the House is agreeable, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 en bloc. Clause 4 empowers the Secretary of State to enter into agreements with local authorities for delegation of his functions. As the clause stands, it could be construed that the Secretary of State may delegate to any local authority his responsibilities with regard to trunk road picnic sites. The policy intention, however, is that these particular

427
functions should be delegated only to a general or district planning authority. In other words, a planning authority which is either a district planning authority or a general planning authority. These amendments bring the clause into line with that intention.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could expand on what is meant by "general planning authority"? The phrase "District planning authority" is understandable. Do I take it that when he talks about "general planning authority" he means, for instance, the Highlands Board or some area such as the GEAR project in the east or west end of Glasgow? I wonder whether he will kindly intervene to clear this matter up.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the ordinary authority would be the district planning authority; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, knows, there are situations in which you have a general authority: for example, such as the Western Isles which is a general authority not properly described as a district planning authority. It is to cover that situation that I mentioned that.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, that clears up the point so far as tonight is concerned. When one thinks of it, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate not introducing a new title or definition of the Western Isles, the Orkney Isles district council or the Highland and Islands Council, by calling them "general planning authorities"? I think it would be rather confusing, as it obviously was to your Lordships here tonight, when the noble Lord spoke suddenly about "general and district planning authorities". Tonight it is understandable; but I wonder whether in the future there will need to be some clarification in the Bill in order to spell out that a general planning authority would be the authority which had both regional and district functions as the Highlands and Islands authorities have. I find it slightly confusing. I believe from looking at other noble Lords in the Chamber that they have a feeling of puzzlement as well.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I should like to follow what my noble friend Lord Carmichael has said. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate instanced the Western Isles. Are there any other authorities which would require this reference to general planning authorities? If not, why does it not follow the normal pattern of saying an island as district authority?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the regional planning authority may be a general planning authority if the functions are so given. The definition of the "general planning authority" is in the 1973 Local Government (Scotland) Act and the general planning authorities are the Borders region and Highlands region, Dumfries and Galloway region and the Islands Council. I gave the Islands Council as the the most typical example that came to my mind quickly; but the general authorites have all of these. It is appropriate that in these areas these authorities
428
should be the ones to whom we might delegate this function.
Clause 7 [General provision as to special roads]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 8, line 44, at end insert ("and industry").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides for the Secretary of State to consider the requirements of industry, along with those of local and national planning and agriculture, before authorising the provision of a special road. The amendment is consistent with the alteration to Clause 5 made by the agreed amendment during Committee stage, which was moved by noble Lords opposite, and we were happy to accept that. This is a consequential amendment in another part of the Bill to make the policy consistent. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful we are to the Lord Advocate for adding this. When we are trying to expand industry and at the same time have additional roads where necessary it is important that industry should be included. I understand the special needs of agriculture when a new road can totally cut a field or a farm in two. It is important that industry should be considered in planning as well. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Clause 13 [Making up and maintenance of private roads]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 14:
[Printed earlier col. 422.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 15, line 2, leave out from ("appeal") to ("; and") in line 4 and insert ("by summary application to the sheriff").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment, consequential to the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and agreed during Committee, which changed the right of appeal from the Secretary of State to the sheriff. The appeal procedures outlined in this subsection before that change are no longer appropriate, and this amendment regularises the situation. I beg to move.
Clause 15 [Application for private road to become public road]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 16:
[Printed earlier: col. 422. ]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 16 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 15, line 29, leave out (" 1(9) ") and insert (" 1(5A) ")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which corrects a cross-reference to Clause 1. I beg to move.
Clause 20 [Requirement of consent for new roads built other than by roads authority]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendent No. 18:
Page 19, line 32, leave out from ("regulations") to end of line 34 and insert ("under subsection (7) below.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the procedure to be followed in relation to an appeal to him under subsection (6) above, and such regulations may, without prejudice to the foregoing generality make provision for the determination of any such appeal by a person appointed by the Secretary of State and for the powers and duties of such a person in that regard.
(8) The determination of an appeal under subsection (6) above may allow or dismiss the appeal, may modify any part of the decision of the local roads authority and shall be final.").
The noble and learned Lord said: my Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No 58.
Amendment No. 58: Leave out Clause 132.
These amendments arise from acceptance at the Committee stage of the view of noble Lords opposite that appeals under Clause 13 against a notice for the making up of private roads should be made to the sheriff and not to the Secretary of State. In consequence, the terms of Clause 132, which originally applied to Clause 20 and to Clause 132, now apply only to Clause 20 on construction consent appeals. With the changed circumstances, I think your Lordships will agree that it would be helpful to the reader of the Bill, on the same principle that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, made earlier, that Clause 132 be incorporated in Clause 20 since that is its only application now. These two amendments achieve that desirable aim.
At the same time the opportunity has been taken to make good an omission in Clause 132(2). That subsection enables the Secretary of State to allow the appeal, to dismiss it, or to modify the local roads authority's decision. It is obviously necessary that the same provisions should apply in the case of any person appointed by the Secretary of State under the regulations to determine appeals. Clause 132(2), as amended, will so provide, as a result of Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this meets the wishes of the Committee, as I remember it. It is desirable to get rid of the appeal to the Secretary of State; after all, we cannot have this old pals' act with one roads authority hearing appeals in respect of another roads authority. If we are to have the Secretary of State as the appeal authority he might be prejudiced
430
because he is acting as a roads authority. It is better to have an independent person. I quite accept the words,
"may modify any part of the decision … and shall be final".
I think that is right.
Clause 23 [Alteration of levels of public roads]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 21, leave out ("raise or lower or otherwise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I remember rightly, this is in relation to the altering of the level of roads. We do not need to say "raise or lower". If the level is altered and we could just leave it at that—the road will be either raised or lowered. These words are otiose. I am sorry that Lord Lyell has gone because I am perfectly sure the advice he would give the Lord Advocate would be to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I have carefully considered the suggestions which were made by the noble Lord at Committee stage. I wrote to the noble Lord with the considerations which led us to think that the phrase is better left as it is. I can see the force of his argument, but on balance I believe it is not wise to introduce a doubt by changing a provision where it would be better to make it clear.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I was grateful to get the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as to why the words "raise or lower or otherwise" should be retained; but I feel that it would help to reduce the wordage. I understand the question of a camber in the road: the road may be raised at one point and lowered at another. But I still cannot understand—and I may be rather dull—why "A roads authority may alter as they think fit the level of a public road" cannot apply to that. They could raise the outside of the bend by one foot and lower the inside by six inches, and that would still be altering as they think fit. I do not want to be pedantic about it, but I feel that it is something which would make it easier when it goes to the other place at a later stage if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could give it some thought. I hope he will think about it again.
On Question, amendment negatived.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22:
Page 22, line 26, leave out from ("if") to ("; and") in line 28 and insert ("the roads authority is the Secretary of State, he shall not carry out the proposed works without having considered the objection").
line 29, leave out from ("the") to ("without") in line 31 and insert ("roads authority is a local roads authority, they shall not carry out the proposed works").
line 33, at end insert ("and whose decision shall be final").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with leave, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 en bloc. During the Bill's Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, expressed concern regarding the wording of Clause 30(4), which specifies

431
procedures for considering unwithdrawn objections to drainage works. These amendments are intended to clarify the procedure to meet the points the noble Lord raised. I hope that the amendments do that adequately. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for dealing with this. The wording which I suggested at the last stage appeared in another part of the Bill. As the Bill stands, it almost looks as if the Secretary of State is not going to pay any attention to any representations which are made because it seems to indicate that he would go ahead anyway. The alternative wording later in the Bill is better, so I am glad.
May I take this opportunity of saying that the trains to my part of the world are earlier than the ones on which my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock can rely. I will not be staying until half past ten, but will be leaving very shortly.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we cannot either raise or alter or lower the levels at railway stations to enable trains to leave to suit the eccentricities of government business in this place, and I can appreciate the difficulties of my noble friend. Dundee is a lot further away than is Glasgow.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, it is Gleneagles.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, even better. I hope my noble friend has his golf clubs with him. This is a considerable improvement; there is no doubt about it. It seemed that you could appeal to the Secretary of State but he did not need to consider your letter of your objections before he made any decision. This makes it clear. It is what I would expect a fair-minded man like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to accept. I am very glad he has done it. The wording is quite good, too.
Clause 32 [Snow gates]:
The Deputy Speaker The Deputy Speaker My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 23, I would point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 24.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 23, line 15, leave out from ("when") to end of line 25 and insert ("snow is rendering or has rendered that road unsafe for such traffic; and where in the opinion of a constable such an occasion has arisen as respects a road he (or, where the constable is a chief constable, a person acting on his behalf) may, until the road is once again safe for vehicular traffic, close and secure any snow gate on the road against all such traffic except that engaged in the provision or restoration of essential services.
(2) In subsection (1) above—
"constable" and "chief constable" shall be construed in accordance with sections 50 and 51 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (interpretation);
"engaged in the provision or restoration of essential services" means in the opinion of a constable so engaged; and
"safe" means in such opinion safe.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that at Committee stage I
432
undertook to re-examine this clause in the light of the comments made during that stage. I have reconsidered the clause and the points that were then made, and I hope that this amendment satisfies your Lordships. I think it is a good deal simpler than we had before, and covers the two ideas of danger that has already occurred, or in respect of what has already happened, and what may be happening at the time. At the same time as meeting these points we have taken the opportunity to make it clear that any constable may close the gates when he judges it necessary to do so, and that where the chief constable decides to close the gates he may arrange for this to be done by, for example, a snow-plough driver employed by the local authority, on his authority. This was an improvement suggested to us by the chief constables. I think that it is a practical suggestion to meet a practical situation. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have looked at this clause, because it was in a pretty awful state. I am very glad that we have got rid of it, because if we accept this it will rule out my next amendment, a very important amendment, and will get rid of the words "precipitation or accumulation of snow". I think a special medal should be struck for the draftsman who thought of that one. But at the same time I do not think they have done very well—at least they could have done it much more neatly—in meeting the wishes of chief constables. My first objection would be to the fact that the wording says, "snow is rendering", and so on. Why not just use the word "made"? Why put "rendered"? What great glory is there in using the longer word? I think that "Mr. Precipitation" has come back again in respect of falling snow.
My second point is that I do not think it is a good idea, after you have a simple clause like this, to have to resort to an interpretation as to what you really mean. For example, it refers to a constable
" '… engaged in the provision or restoration of essential services' means in the opinion of a constable so engaged; and 'safe' means in such opinion safe".
Quite frankly, with the putting of these words "in his opinion" in places, we do not require this. This is bad drafting. I can understand the difficulties the draftsmen have had, because they had to go through all these Acts of Parliament and so on, but they could have paid a little more attention to this one since they realised how wrong it was. I know you have to cover the business of an argument about whether it is right to re-open a gate, and someone may have damage done and then they could sue the chief constable. This is what the chief constables were worried about, I am perfectly sure: as to whether or not, in exercising a function, they had acted unwisely. It would have been quite easy to cover that by putting these words into the body of the clause instead of using this very ugly and awkward way of doing it by putting in virtually an interpretation, and a rather queer one at that, at the end of the clause. So while I am prepared to accept these amendments now, I hope the Government will appreciate that they are far from finished with this and that they have not cleared it up.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Temporary prohibition or restriction of traffic etc. on roads for reasons of public safety or convenience]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 40, line 4, at end insert—
("(5) A person who contravenes a restriction or prohibition imposed by virtue of subsection (1) above commits an offence.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I would like to move Amendment No. 25 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 71.
Amendment No. 71: Page 109, line 9, at end insert—

(". Section 60(5) (contravention of temporary res-triction or prohibition of traffic or foot passage on road).

Level 2."

Clause 60 allows a road authority by order temporarily to prohibit or restrict traffic and foot passage on roads for reasons of public safety or convenience. Amendments Nos. 25 and 71 provide that it will be an offence to contravene such an order. This seems to be obviously appropriate, and I beg to move.
Clause 64 [Maintenance of vaults and cellars etc.]:
9.24 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 41, line 7, leave out ("things").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I have got to apologise to your Lordships in that, for some reason or other, I was not present during the Committee stage when we came to this particular point. This is one I feel very stongly about. It may well be that it goes back to my days as a schoolmaster when I taught English. I always regarded a person who used the word "things" as a person with an inadequate vocabulary. It was not a matter which I used to apply to the draftsmen and I think that the way they had drafted this particular clause is really shocking. We have got "things'; in line 7; we have got "things" in line 9; and I think we have "thing" in line 21. This is proclaiming an inadequacy of words. That does not do justice at all to the reputation of the Scottish Office.
I would have thought the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would have paid some attention to this aspect. After all, he is the boss of the draftsmen. They are not employed by the Scottish Office but are employed by the Crown Office; from my experience, I think I am right in saying that.
I should also apologise because I said that I would examine this clause and draft something much better. Unfortunately, we have been spawning legislation in the Scottish Office. We have dealt with tourism, inshore fishing, education, tenants' rights—and another local government Bill about valuation and rating is coming. Certainly my staff has been expanded very considerably by the arrival of my noble friend Lord Carmichael—but even the two of us find it hard going handling four or five Bills at the one time. It is rather like a juggler keeping balls in the air all the time. If there are too many, one is going to fall. I have to proclaim my inadequacy in this respect; I am not a good juggler. I was a good juggler but I am getting
434
rather creaky in my joints, and my eyesight is not what it was, so maybe one or two slip through—I am very glad that the cavalry have arrived back again.
Surely the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, could pay some special attention to this. He must agree with everything I have said about resorting to using the word "thing"; it is awful. In a country so proud of its education standards, to have this word in an important Scottish Bill is just too much. An improvement could be achieved simply by use of punctuation and dropping the word "things", certainly at the beginning. One could probably exercise a little more ingenuity in respect of the last "thing" that is mentioned in this clause. I hope, again, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will not be satisfied with second best because this is pretty poor stuff. I expect far better from the Scottish Office.
My amendment would take out "things", and the subsection would still make sense. It would read:
"(1) As regards any road, the following shall be kept in good condition and repair".
That makes sense, does it not? I also object to the description of certain items—for example
"arch, cellar and tunnel".
Is a tunnel a "thing"? Even the most elementary definition of a "thing" is something quite substantial.
I do not want to go on because it is getting far too late and I know that my noble friend may want to contribute to this debate before he leaves for Gleneagles and all points north. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appreciates that I am serious about this point and that I am not joking. I think it is a dreadful clause—in a dreadful Bill admittedly; but still, that does not mean we should accept it without some criticism. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. This wording is rather schoolboyish and we could do better. The word "things" could be left out altogether. I humbly suggest that we use instead the phrase,
"the following structures".
They are structures or structural features. Such wording would make this clause a little more dignified. In fact, the word "things" is wrong because one thing a "thing" is not is an open space; that it is jolly well not. It is really quite the wrong word to use. I do not suppose it will make a great deal of difierence to the law of this country but this clause might read a little better in ordinary English.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I should not like to leave—as my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock put it—for Gleneagles and points north (because that is a correct description of where I am going) without making it quite clear that I am in full agreement with him. I am not leaving at this point because I disagree with my noble friend.
As the noble Earl has said, this amendment would at least make the clause seem more presentable, rather than leave it looking, as it does at the moment, as though we were stuck for a word. I am quite certain that for an advocate of the distinction of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate himself it cannot

435
appeal to him that this word is the best possible way of dealing with the situation. The Lord Advocate will forgive me if I do not wait for his reply, but I will have the pleasure later on of reading what is reported. I have a feeling that I am leaving at a very entertaining part of the proceedings.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for their comments on this clause and certainly if we are able to think of a better word we shall do so. Up to now we have not been able to do so. We had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would help us, but I appreciate the task which he so eloquently described to us. So far we have not been able to think of anything better but we shall not discontinue our efforts.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government have not finished. Now that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has got the Telecommunications Bill out of his blood it may be that he, too, will be able to look at these rather awkward pieces of legislation because we cannot let a thing like this go on. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is right. This is schoolboy stuff. We can do better. I think we should write that at the bottom of this particular report sheet—we can do better and we have got to do better. With those remarks, I certainly shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Clause 66 [Power of roads authorities to stop up roads by order]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 42, line 13, leave out ("or cyclists") and insert (", cyclists or both").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which makes it clear that the provision will allow for reserving a right for either pedestrians or cyclists or both. I beg to move.
Clause 69 [Provisions supplementary to sections 66 to 68]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 43, line 29, leave out ("other") and insert ("another")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave I should like to move Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 together.
Amendment No. 29: Page 43, line 30, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Amendment No. 30: Page 43, line 44, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a")
These three amendment make slight drafting changes. Amendment Nos. 28 and 29 make "means of access" singular to clarify that only one alternative means of access is needed prior to stopping up a private access. The way it was in before was slightly ambiguous. Amendment No. 30 replaces the definite article in the
436
term "the special road" with the indefinite article because there is no previous mention of special roads in the clause and no necessary implication that proceedings under Clause 67 or Clause 68 will be as regards a special road. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 44, line 8, leave out subsection (7).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, may I speak to Amendment Nos. 31 and 34 together.
Amendment No. 34: After Clause 70, insert the following new clause: Expenses incurred under section 67 or by virtue of section 68 or 70.
(". Any expenses incurred under section 67, or by virtue of section 68 or 70, of this Act by a local roads authority shall be deemed for the purposes of section 3 of this Act to be incurred in road construction or improvement.")
These amendments remove subsection (7) from Clause 69 and put in a free-standing clause in an improved form as it applies equally to Clause 70. If it was in Clause 69 alone it would be somewhat ambiguous in that application. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we appreciate what is done here. We think it is right and thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for it.
Clause 70 [Stopping up private access to land or premises by agreement]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 44, line 21, leave out ("under") and insert ("by virtue of).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 together.
Amendment No. 33: Page 44, line 34, leave out ("under") and insert ("by virtue of").
These are minor drafting amendments. There is no direct power in the clause to stop up a private access, so stopping up cannot be achieved directly under the clause. It is for this reason that we have added the words "by virtue of. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it is a very important amendment. The Minister said that he was adding the words "by virtue of. As I understand it, he is not doing that. He is leaving out the word "under" and inserting the words "by virtue of. That may be right. The next amendment is Amendment No. 34. There is something there that rather intrigues me. Instead of "under" or "by virtue of the section, we have them both. It states:
"Any expenses incurred under Section 67".
"Under" is the offending word in the present amendments. Amendment No. 34 continues:
"or by virtue of Section 68 or 70, of this Act".
It is intriguing why we have them both.
I have a note here of a further thing that I spotted, and that is in Amendment No. 69. This may save the

437
Lord Advocate giving an answer which may not quite fit. It states:
"A power conferred on a roads authority by, under or—by virtue of.
We have the whole lot this time. Can the Lord Advocate sort all that out for my simple mind: why, first, the word "under" should not be used and the words "by virtue of inserted; why then "under"' and also "by virtue of are used; and why then it can be:
"by. under or—by virtue of
in respect of a power conferred? That is Amendment No. 69 when we come to it. If we are to do this thing fairly, we want to be absolutely sure of consistency and accuracy. There may well be an answer, but I have to be convinced.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course perfectly right that the words "by virtue of are being substituted for the word "under". I said originally, I think, that the word "under" was not accurate and I was wishing to add "by virtue of. That was intended to be instead of the word "under". The reason that the word "under" is not accurate in this particular context is that there is no direct power under the clause to stop up a private access; but the clause empowers the road authority to enter into an agreement to stop up the access, and it is under the agreement, and therefore by virtue of the clause, that the access is closed. It depends on the phraseology in the particular provision. If the provision does it directly itself, it would be appropriate to say "by". If the provision contains a direct authority, it would be "under". If the provision contains an authority to enter into something else, then it is "by virtue of. That is the reason for these three phrases or words occurring in Amendment No. 69. It depends on the context, as I am sure the noble Lord appreciates.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I think that the Lord Advocate is to be congratulated on that explanation.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords. I add my congratulations and my admiration of the Lord Advocate for the lucidity of his explanation. I am very glad that he thought of it himself and it was not designed for him in any brief from a draftsman or a civil servant, because they would have got it all wrong.
Clause 73 [Provisions supplementary to section 72]:
9.38 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 47, line 3, leave out from ("position") to ("and") in line 5 and insert (", clearances for the passage of vessels and dimensions of the proposed bridge;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to make a simplification. It makes a small change to the required content of plans and specifications to be attached to an order or scheme for the construction of a bridge over navigable waters. It is modern practice to make such an order or scheme before the bridge design is complete; and it is not realistic in practice, as we have discovered on this particular provision, to have a requirement to specify
438
details about the spans, headways and waterways. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it would be sufficient for the navigation authority and others to know the dimensions of the proposed bridge and the clearance for vessels. That is really what they need to know. I beg to move.
Clause 75 [Power to divert waters when constructing or improving public road etc.]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 36:
Clause 75, leave out clause 75 and insert the following new clause: ("Power to divert waters when constructing or improving public road etc.
.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, the roads authority may divert, or carry out works in relation to, inland waters (whether natural or artificial) or tidal waters where, in the opinion of the authority such diversion is, or as the case may be works are, necessary for the construction, improvement or protection of a public road or of a site or facilities provided under section 53 of this Act.
(2) Before proceeding under subsection (1) above, the roads authority shall—

(a) serve on the owner and the occupier of any land affected, and on any navigation authority concerned with or having jurisdiction over the waters or over the area comprising those waters, notice of their intention so to proceed, describing the proposed diversion or works and informing them that they may object to the proposed diversion or works by notice to the authority within 28 days after service of the notice of intention on them; and

(b) consult any local authority in whose area the waters are situated and any other body acting under statutory powers, being powers the exercise of which may, in the opinion of the roads authority, be affected by the works:

Provided that, as regards any diversion or works, consultation under paragraph (b) above shall not be required with an authority or body receiving notice under paragraph (a) above.
(3) Where such objection as is provided for in subsection (2)(a) above is made in accordance with that subsection and is not withdrawn, then—

(a)if the roads authority is the Secretary of State, he shall not carry out the diversion or works without having considered the objection; and

(b) if the roads authority is a local roads authority they shall not carry out the diversion or works without the consent of the Secretary of State who may grant such consent either unconditionally or subject to such terms and conditions as he thinks fit and whose decision shall be final.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to provide a requirement to serve notice on the navigation authority concerned and give that authority the right to object to proposed works, to divert waters in connection with construc-tion or improvement of a public road. The amendment also compresses the clause by drawing all provision about notices and consultation into one subsection and I think that achieves a simplification. I beg to move.
Clause 81 [Determination of questions arising out of section 80]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 54, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which removes an unnecessary

439
reference to the Arbitration Act of 1950. I beg to move.
Clause 83 [Removal of builders' skips causing danger or obstruction]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 55, line 29, at end insert—
(" ( ) Subsections (1) and (2) above are without prejudice to section 121(1A) of this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the first of a series in which the other amendments are Nos. 39, 52, 53, 54 and 72.
Amendment No. 39: Clause 84, page 56, line 3, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to sections 57 and 121(1A) of this Act")
Amendment No. 52: Clause 121, page 77, line 31, at end insert—
("(1A) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, places or deposits anything in a road so as to obstruct the passage of, or to endanger, road users commits an offence:
Provided that no person shall, in respect of the same actings, be convicted both under the foregoing provisions of this subsection and under sections 57(2), 87, 92, 97(a) or 98 of this Act, or subsection (8) of this section, of an offence.").
Amendment No. 53: Page 77, line 37, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to subsection (1A) above,").
Amendment No. 54: Page 78, line 23, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to subsection (1A) above,").
Amendment No. 72: Schedule 7, page 109, line 41, at end insert—

(". Section 121 (1A) (placing or depositing in road something which obstructs or endangers road users).

Level 2.")

My Lords, these amendments result from the undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, to consider whether Clause 57 might cover cases of danger to road users resulting not directly from something that was already set up, as it were, but from thorns strewn over the road during hedge cutting operations. I think the noble Lord mentioned that it was raised with him as a practical problem by one of the local authorities.
I think I said at the time that my impression was that it was probably covered, but having looked at the matter in more detail I think it is wise to make these amendments to make sure that what the noble Lord had in mind was as a practical matter covered. So Amendment No. 52 makes it an offence to place or deposit anything on a road which endangers or obstructs the passage of road users, but provides or ensures that offenders cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence where there is an apparent overlap in other clauses. That is the point in the way: the other clauses appear to me almost to cover all of these; but to make it certain, we thought we should put this in. But we have also to make sure that the person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence in respect of the same subject matter. The Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 53, 54 and 72 are a necessary result of that proposed new offence. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Lord Advocate for having looked at this point. It was actually the Automobile Association, through I think their legal department, who had some problems with this very subject with
440
ferns or nettles or something on the road that caused difficulties to certain vehicles on the road.
I am grateful for the very interesting way the Lord Advocate has sought to understand and meet my difficulties. There is only one point on the objections I raised: I wonder whether he could speak a little more fully on what powers there are so that this obstruction on the road can be abated or removed? What powers are there for the police to make sure that this obstruc-tion is removed, or this nuisance is removed and how will it be dealt with in terms of fines? I refer to section 160(4) of the Highway Act 1980. This applies to the Greater London Council but it seems appropriate in this particular instance. Perhaps it would be possible in some way to strengthen the powers of local authorities to deal with an obstruction although they may very well be the people—particularly in dealing with rural roads—who are causing the obstruction. The subsection states:
"In the circumstances mentioned … above the highway authority or, as the case may be, the Greater London Council may by notice require the person causing the obstruction to take such steps as may appear to the highway authority or. as the case may be, the Council to be necessary, and as are specified in the notice, to mitigate or discontinue the obstruction".
I wonder whether there are any provisions in the amendments to cover the two points. First, how can the offender be forced to remove the obstruction and, secondly, what would be the fine, and where is the provision for the fine if the person is convicted? How does that fine compare with a fine under the Act that I have quoted? I appreciate that it is unfair to ask the Lord Advocate at this time to give any positive view on the Act that I have just quoted—the Highways Act 1980—but perhaps the information that 1 have given him will be of assistance.
The motoring organisations have tried to point out to me the very real problem here. Perhaps it is covered in other parts of the Bill which the motoring organisations and myself have not been able to pick up. However, if the Lord Advocate cannot give an answer now. perhaps he will think about it and come back to it at a later stage. I am grateful for the efforts that he has made to meet the problem that I raised earlier. This is just another aspect of it that perhaps has not been totally met by the amendments.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, my impression is that the cleansing provisions would deal with the kind of point that the noble Lord has in mind so far as removal is concerned. With regard to the fine, it is level 2 on the standard scale, which as at this date is, I think, £50; I speak from memory. The figures are given at the moment in the schedule, though we are proposing later to take them out for the reason that they will become outdated, and it might be misleading to leave them there. Yes, £50 is the amount of the penalty under level 2 at the present time. Perhaps I may later have an opportunity to reply more fully to the noble Lord on the first aspect of what he mentioned in relation to the statute to which he referred. But I think I have answered the principal points that he has made, and I am obliged to him.
Clause 84 [Power to remove structures from roads):
9.38 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 39:
[Printed above.]
Clause 87 [Restriction on placing bridges, beams, rails etc. over roads]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 57, line 23, after ("may") insert (", within 28 days of the refusal or consent,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment limits to 28 days the time for lodging an appeal with the sheriff against a refusal of consent or a grant of conditional consent for placing apparatus over a road. It seems right to have a limit to the time in which one can appeal. I beg to move.
Clause 90 [Protection of road users from dangers near a road]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 59, line 31, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. It concerns a point that I have raised on more than one earlier occasion. Here the word, "obstruction" includes visual obstruction. It is defined as constituting, "a danger to road users". To my mind, in those circumstances there should be an obligation on the local authority, or for that matter on the frontager if he is a private person, to see that the obstruction is removed. It should not be left as a matter of choice, which is what the word "may" means. There should be an obligation that the obstruc-tion be removed.
I think that this arises in particular on roads with sharp corners where there may be a pile of soil or something else which makes the view very much worse. I am glad to make this proposal because here most of the obligations are on frontagers, those on each side of the road. It think that there should be a certain degree of obligation directly on the local authority itself, which is the major authority when it comes to seeing that the roads are in good condition. It is for these reasons that I should like to suggest that the word "may" should be "shall", to make it clear that there is an obligation to see that the danger is removed. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, surely this amendment must be right. The effect of the clause as it stands is to say that if the authority is of the opinion that something constitutes a danger to road users it may please itself whether or not it takes the appropriate steps to remove the danger. We really cannot leave it like that, can we?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I would respectfully doubt whether the clause, as it is worded,
442
has exactly the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, says. I am, however, extremely happy to accept the amendment, so possibly we need not conduct the theoretical argument any further.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord on this occasion.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord and say that I wish that we had had his retrospective presence when we discussed exactly the same point with the Minister of State, Lord Gray of Contin, in respect, I think, of the repairs clause? Obviously, the Government were giving a new right, they put in the word "may", and would not look at the need to put in the word "shall" to make it mandatory upon the Secretary of State. Solomon has come to judgment! I give notice that at the next stage of that Bill I shall repeat my amendment and I shall quote the Lord Advocate. It is a very good decision that he has made here. I knew that if the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, remained by his side we would get some good results.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 59, line 34, after ("may") insert (", subject to subsection (6)(a) below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 46.
Amendment No. 46: Page 60, line 24, leave out from ("person") to ("the") in line 25 and insert ("who considers that in all the circumstances he should not be required—

(a) to pay such expenses as are mentioned in subsection (1) above, may within 28 days of the first written intimation to him by the roads authority of their intention to recover those expenses from him; or

(b) to take such steps as are specified in a notice served on him under subsection (2) above, may within 28 days of such notice, refer").

At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, drew attention to the wide powers conferred on roads authorities by Clause 90 and the apparent lack of safeguards for the owner of land against improper or insensitive use of those powers. After consideration of the points made by the noble Lord and by others, I am happy to say that it seems right to extend the provision for appeal to the sheriff in circumstances where the owner of the land affected considers that he should not be required to carry out the work demanded by the roads authority or to pay for work done by that authority. The amendment makes that provision in the sense, I think, that the noble Lord indicated. I hope that it is acceptable.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for having taken the trouble to find a form of words that expresses fairly well what I was trying to explain to the Committee. I thank him.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 43 and 44.
Page 59, line 39, leave out ("a fence made with electric wire") and insert ("an electrified fence").
Page 60, line 1, after ("wire,") insert ("electrified fence",).
The noble and learned Lord said: If your Lordships agree, I should like to take these amendments en bloc. During the Committee stage your Lordships remarked upon the sweeping nature of this clause. As presently drafted, subsection (2)(b) of Clause 90 would catch any fence made with what is described as electric wire even if there was no intention of passing an electric current through the wire. The amendments limit the scope of the provision to fences carrying electricity. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, what is an electrified fence? I can understand the difficulties about electric wire. The only time I have ever heard of electric wire is in a celebrated poem:
"Across the electric wire the news came,
The King is no better, he is just the same".
I think that dates from the early part of the century. I can understand electric wire, but I cannot understand electric fence. It is capable of being electrified but it is not always electrified, as I understand it. It is a point that we want to get clear and it is another matter for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to ask his advisers to have a look at.
It is better than it was, but I still do not think that it is quite right. It would imply that the fence is constantly live and, as I understand it, these fences can be switched on and off on occasion.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, the point is that the danger arises from the fence as electrified. But obviously I am happy to consider what the noble Lord has said to see if we can get it even better.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I suggest that an electric light is not always turned on?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I know, and that is why it is wrong.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 60, line 5, after ("notice,") insert ("to").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is to correct a printing omission. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 46:
[Printed above.]
Clause 92 [Deposit of mud from vehicles on roads]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 61, line 9, leave out ("carriageway") and insert ("road").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment extends to footways and footpaths the offence of dropping mud et cetera from vehicles on to the carriageway so as to cause danger or substantial inconvenience to road users. The noble Lord, Lord
444
Carmichael, drew to my attention at the Committee stage that mud sprayed from vehicles on to the footway was equally dangerous and distressing to pedestrians as it was to traffic on the carriageway. That very much commended itself as a sensible improvement to the Bill, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for making the suggestion, and I hope that your Lordships will accept the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. As regards changing "carriageway" to "road" I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question relating to an earlier matter as regards which we should perhaps have put down an amendment. I understand that it has to be "road" because "carriageway" is merely the road upon which a carriage or vehicle will drive. Therefore, the road presumably extends from the heel of the pavement to the heel of the pavement—if we still have pavements; I am not sure whether we do have them in Scotland. Is that why the roads authority is now totally responsible for the removal of, for instance, snow and therefore there would need to be a much more complicated definition than "road" if the roads authority were not responsible for removing, for example, snow from the frontages of commercial and domestic premises? Is that one of the reasons behind the fact that we have been trapped into a situation where the roads authority on the day of a snowfall will need to get out and clear all the snow from the pavements and what we still call the road?
Because we have become trapped in words we have also become trapped in a very practical way. The roads authority will be doing a great job if they merely manage to keep the roads clear and traffic flowing, without also clearing the frontage of every shop and domestic premises in the area. I really want to get an explanation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate as to whether this was one of the reasons why we were unable to deal with the snow problem much earlier.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, so far as the structure of the Bill is concerned we have tried to distinguish between the carriageway, the footway, the footpath and so on so as to make it plain when we are dealing with, for example, only a carriageway. But "road" is defined to include the carriageway and also the footway, if there is one—in other words, the pavement as well. So it covers the whole lot and it makes it easier precisely to define the scope of any obligation. To take this example the noble Lord pointed out to me that before we did it only for the carriageway. That was not satisfactory for the reasons which he gave. We are able to make it precise as covering also what we might call the pavement or the footway simply by using the word "road". That extends to cover the whole thing. That is the explanation of why we do it this way. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I understand that it is comprehensive, and it is right in respect of things that fall off the back of a lorry. They might not just fall on the carriageway; they might fall on the pavement. But it is rather sad from a local authority's point of view when in using the word "road", it includes the

445
pavement and we place upon them a new obligation (such as my noble friend Lord Carmichael mentioned) of clearing what used to be called the "pavement".
It is terrible that we are losing all these words. Not only are "turnpike" and "highway" going but even "pavement" goes. It is far too simple. People understand what a pavement is. We cannot possibly have it in legislation if it is as simple as that! It is a very important matter from the point of view of a local authority, and expense. We shall probably need to wait until the next stage of the Bill to get this cleared up. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate had a little experience of this on about 19th January when pavements in Scotland—whether you call them parts of roadways, extensions of this, that, or the next thing—could not be seen. It was quite impossible for the local authorities to undertake the business of clearing them, which is a new obligation on them and to which they object. But it would be quite out of order in respect of this amendment.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carmichael for giving me a chance to raise this point and I hope that the Government will look at it. It is not included in this particular clause, but what the Government are doing here is right. I have already said that I am very grateful to them. I just do not know how the word "carriageway" has managed to escape the modernising eyes of the civil servant and the draftsman. As regards its original meaning, the carriage goes on the way, but very few carriages as such go on it now. It might have been a motorway or a vehicleway. Ordinary folk would just call it the road. But then it is no longer the road.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appreciates the kind of muddles we can get into by his misguided decision to get rid of highways and streets and by calling everything roads. It has not simplified matters at all, as, indeed, we have seen here. However, I have no objection at all to this amendment.
Clause 93 [Extraordinary expenses in repairing roads damaged by heavy vehicles etc. ]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 62, line 12, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 97 [Damage to wads etc. ]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 64, line 42, at end insert ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 50.
Amendment No. 50: Page 65, line 1, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e),
Amendment No. 50 removes from the Bill the offence of wilful damage to things associated with a
446
road. Amendment No. 49 makes a minor adjustment to the remaining provisions of the clause to accommo-date that change. Having looked at the matter in the light of a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in Committee, I am satisfied that wilful damage to road accessories is covered by the crime of vandalism in Section 78 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, and there is no need for duplication of the offence in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 50:
[Printed above.]
Clause 107 [General provisions as to acquisition of land]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 69, line 21, after ("or") insert ("sections").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 121 [Miscellaneous summary offences]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54:
[Printed earlier: col. 439.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 78, line 41, after ("paragraphs") insert ("of this proviso").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a very minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 123 [Penalties and mode of trial]:
10.5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 79, line 27, after ("offence") insert ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if I might I should like to take 56, 57 and 70 together.
Amendment No. 57: Page 79, line 28, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 30.
Amendment No. 70: Page 108, line 27 to page 110, line 8, leave out column 3.
Their combined effect is to delete references to the financial value of maximum penalties for offences under the Bill. When the Bill was drafted it seemed appropriate to set out these values, and your Lordships have seen these. As the sums concerned are likely to change over time, however, and indeed will change on 1st May 1984 as a result of a statutory instrument, the figures in the Bill will become outdated and their retention would not, in the light of the circumstances, be helpful and might even be misleading to the users of

447
the statute. In these circumstances it is better that they should be omitted and these amendments so provide. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 57:
[Printed above.]
Clause 132 [Appeals to Secretary of State: general provisions]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 58:
[Printed earlier: col. 429.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was taken with Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
Clause 136 [Regulations, orders and schemes]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 88, line 9, after ("instrument") insert ("—(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 60 and 61.
Amendment No. 60: Page 88, line 10, leave out ("—(a)") and insert ("and").
Amendment No. 61: Page 88, line 20, leave out ("be of no effect unless it is") and insert ("not be made under subsection (1) above unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and has been").
These amendments provide that regulations and orders subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses should be laid in draft rather than final form. This procedure would reduce parliamentary time in situations where amendments were found necessary; for example, in the light of your Lordships looking at them before the debate actually took place before the regulations or orders had been approved. There is a misprint in Amendment No. 61 as printed in the Marshalled List. There is an extra word: "to". It should read, "not be made". I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it really is nonsense that we should be doing this at such a time and be denied full consideration. This is an important amendment and I doubt whether people realise the importance of it. My noble friend Lord Carmichael, who was at the Ministry of Transport as a Minister, was just reminding me not long ago that if you introduced the Highway Code under a regulation you just could not amend it. It was there. So you had to let it go through and introduce it again knowing it was wrong and make the change, whereas if you introduce it in draft form the changes that come in relation to the advice you get from outside departments and from the House can be adopted and then approved in final form. This was the way I believe with even teachers' salaries when in those days they used to be introduced
448
by form of regulation in the House. It is not done very often now; but it has a lot to commend it in respect of the importance of what is being done. I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for having put this in the Bill, but regret that we have not proper time to go into the importance of it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
[Printed above. ]
Clause 139 [Application of Act to Crown land]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 62:
Leave out clause 139 and insert the following new clause:
("Application of Act to Crown land.
139.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, nothing in this Act shall apply in relation to any land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or otherwise, or belonging to a government department, or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department.
(2) The appropriate Crown authority in relation to any land and a roads authority may agree that any provisions of this Act specified in the agreement shall apply to that land and. while the agreement is in force, those provisions shall apply to the land accordingly, subject however to the terms of the agreement.
(3) An agreement under subsection (2) above may contain such consequential and incidental provisions, including provisions of a financial character, as appear to the appropriate Crown authority to be necessary or equitable, but the approval of the Treasury shall be required in so far as those provisions are of a financial character in an agreement which relates to land referred to in subsection (4)(b) below.
(4) In the foregoing provisions of this section "the appropriate Crown authority" means—

(a) in relation to land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown or otherwise, the Crown Estate Commissioners or such other government department or other person as has the management of the land in question; and

(b) in relation to land belonging to a government department or held in trust for Her Majesty for the purposes of a government department, that department;

and if any question arises as to what authority is the appropriate Crown authority in relation to any land, that question shall be referred to the Treasury, whose decision shall be final.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This clause has been revised somewhat to accord with Her Majesty's wish that the Bill should not apply automatically to Her Majesty's private estates, although, as with Crown lands, provision should be included to enable agreement to be made for application of any of the Bill's provisions to those estates. The effect of the clause otherwise remains unchanged. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this too is an important clause, if you go to subsection (4)(b) it says:
"in relation to land belonging to a government department".
That is important as to how you decide which land is related to a Government department. I remember that quite recently there was a case in respect of the sale of land and properties at Hamilton—Hamilton College—and that one of the devices which was used by some people to apologise on behalf of the Scottish Office for what happened was, "Oh, but it is not Crown land; it belongs to a college". But it was a Government department which had bought the land and which had put up the buildings, and in respect of which the troubles arose.

449
This, too, is a clause on which we could have spent a little more time, but it is certainly better than it was. I think we have got to take the necessary action in respect of the different kinds of Crown land, whether it be in relation to Her Majesty's private estates or in relation to Crown land held by the Crown Estates Commissioners, or in relation to a Government department, which is also Crown land. Much as I should have liked to expand my thoughts on this subject, I am certainly prepared, even with this cursory examination of it, to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask whether this includes the Duchy of Cornwall, for instance, which I gather does not belong to Her Majesty?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, so far as I understand the question this does not arise in relation to this matter.
Clause 144 [Interpretation]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 63:
[Printed earlier: col. 422. ]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65:
Page 91, line 24, leave out ("section 25(1)") and insert ("subsection (1) of section 25")
line 27, leave out ("cleansing") and insert ("such cleansing as an islands or district council are required by sub-sections (1) and (3) of that section to undertake").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 together.
These are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 65 extends the definition of "maintenance" to include the power to the appropriate roads authority to cleanse special roads and trunk roads which, as regards cleansing, are not provided for under the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we are taking these together, so I will put just one very quick question. If your Lordships look at line 26 your Lordships will see the words:
"restriction of powers of local authorities as regards street cleansing".
I hope we are going to get rid of the word "street". We cannot have Scottish legislation tainted with the word "street"! We have gone to so much trouble to remove it from the Bill, stemming from the Acts of 1839. Here we have the word which does all the damage daring to creep into the legislation. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate give a pledge that he will look at this to see if he can "cleanse" this particular phrase and get rid of this rather dirty word "street"?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, "cleanse" is appropriate in this situation, I suppose. This is a
450
sidenote to the provision, and it is intended to be helpful by way of reference. Certainly I will look at what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, everyone understands it, but we spent pages and pages of Schedule 8 getting rid of the word "street", which everyone understands and which it would be helpful to leave. And we have not even had a proper opportunity to look at this tonight.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 91, line 32, at end insert—
(" "obstruction") includes obstruction of view;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Selkirk helpfully drew attention in Committee to the importance of preventing obstruc-tion of view for traffic. Clause 80 provides for that, but only at corners, bends and junctions. In the interests of road safety it is desirable to enable clear views to be ensured where necessary in other circumstances. The amendment seeks to achieve this by providing that any reference in the Bill to an obstruction includes— and, of course, that depends on the circumstances— obstruction of view. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate very much for this. I think this is an extremely good amendment. Whether it was intended to be covered elsewhere I do not know, but it now makes it quite clear that the word "obstruction" is not necessarily physical; it can also be visual. I believe it is of quite far-reaching importance, and I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, this could include the obstruction of view by smoke from stubble burning. I have had to hold back my noble friend Lord John-Mackie from making a speech on this. But as long as we understand that that is included, I shall be quite pleased.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, with the leave of my noble friend, straw burning is an ad hoc operation, not necessarily a permanent obstruction. It would be difficult to include straw burning. I think that the noble Lord would be better not to push the straw burning and leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Alport's Bill which will deal with it better than this can.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to intervene between the noble Lords opposite.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 93, line 37, after ("than") insert ("a").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 94, line 14, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if I may, with leave I will take Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 together.
Amendment No. 69: After Clause 144, insert the following new clause:
(" Further provision as to interpretation and certain ancillary powers.
.—(1) A power conferred on a roads authority by, under or by virtue of this Act to provide, erect, construct, lay or plant includes a power to alter, remove, re-lay, or, as the case may be, re-plant; and in relation to the power conferred by section 24 of this Act also includes the power temporarily to close:
Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply where the context otherwise requires or where or in so far as such application would result in overlap with, or would admit avoidance of, express provisions of this Act.
(2) The power conferred on a roads authority by section 1(1) or 2(1) of this Act to determine the means of exercise of a public right of passage includes the power to redetermine by order under this subsection such means of exercise.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 69 of this Act shall apply in relation to an order under subsection (2) above as they apply to an order under section 66 or 67 of this Act.
(4) A local roads authority shall have power to carry out any works necessary for giving effect to an order by them under subsection (2) above; and in so far as the carrying out of any such works, or any change in the use of land resulting from any such order, constitutes development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, permission for that development shall be deemed granted under Part III of that Act.").
These are complementary amendments. Their effect is to take out Clause 144 and transfer to a separate clause provisions relating to certain powers of roads authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, pointed out to us at Committee stage that he regarded it as inappropriate to have these powers in the interpretation clause. Having heard what he said, I feel that he is absolutely correct about this and we have therefore given effect to that point by these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 69:
[Printed above. ]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved amendment No. 70:
[Printed earlier: col. 446. ]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 56. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 71:
[Printed earlier: col. 433. ]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 25. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 72:
[Printed earlier: col. 439. ]
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 114, line 9, at end insert—
("The Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 (c. 56)
.—(1) The Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 2 (interpretation), at the end there shall be added the following definition—
"Road" shall mean and include any way, other than—

(a) a waterway; or

(b) without prejudice to section 97(c) (damage to roads by fire) or 121(3) (camping in a road) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, a road within the meaning of that Act.".

(3) In section 3 (offences), the words "private", where it occurs for the second time, and ", or on or near any highway." shall cease to have effect.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 74 to 102 en bloc.
Amendment No. 74: Page 114, line 33, at end insert—
("The Entail Amendment (Scotland) Act 1875 (c. 61)
. In section 3 of the Entail Amendment (Scotland) Act 1875 (interpretation), in paragraph 5 of the definition of "Improvements"—

(a) for the words "private roads" there shall be substituted the words "roads (other than roads within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)"; and

(b) for the words "roads or streets" there shall be substituted the words "private roads (within the meaning of the said Act of 1984)".

The Settled Land Act 1882 (c. 38)
. In section 25 of the Settled I and Act 1882 (description of authorised improvements)—

(a) in paragraph (viii) for the words "private roads; roads or streets" there shall be substituted the words "roads (other than roads within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984); private roads (within the meaning of the said Act of 1984)"; and

(b) in paragraph (xvii), the word "streets" shall cease to have effect."

The Electric Lighting Act 1882 (c. 56)
.—(1) The Electric Lighting Act 1882 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 12 (incorporation of certain provisions), after the words "North of Scotland District" there shall be added the words "and as if 'street' meant 'road' as defined in this Act.".
(3) In section 13 (restriction on breaking up private roads etc.)—

(a) for the words "street which is not repairable by the inhabitants at large" there shall be substituted the words "road which is not a public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)"; and

(b) for the word "street", where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "road".

(4) In section 14 (restrictions as to above-ground works—

(a) for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) for the word "local", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(5) In section 15 (power of undertakers to alter position of pipes and wires), for the word "street" wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(6) In section 32 (interpretation), for the definition of "street" there shall be substitued the following definitions—
"The expression "road" means any way (other than a substitute road made under section 71 (1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or a waterway) within the area in which the undertakers are authorised to supply electricity by this Act or by any licence, order, or special Act, whether or not there is over that way a public right of passage and whether or not it is for the time being formed as a way; and the expression includes a square or court, and any part of a road; and
The expression "roads authority" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".

453
(7) In section 36 (application of Act to Scotland), the definition of "local authority" shall cease to have effect.").
Amendment No. 75: Page 115, line 10, at end insert—
("The Military Lands Act 1892 (c. 43)
.—(1) The Military Lands Act 1892 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) For section 13 (power to stop or divert footpaths) there shall be substituted the following section—
"13. In relation to a footpath crossing or near to land leased under this Act. the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 shall have effect as if in subsection one of section sixty six thereof (power of roads authorities to stop up roads by order) there were added to the grounds for stopping up a road the ground that the road crosses or runs inconveniently or dangerously near to such land.
In this section "footpath" has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1984.".
(3) In section 25 (application to Scotland)—

(a) subsection (7) shall cease to have effect; and

(b) at the end there shall be added the following subsection—

(10) In section 16 of this Act—

(a) for the references to "highway" there shall be substituted references to "road"; and

(b) after the word "footpath" in subsection (2) there shall be inserted the words "within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".")

Amendment No. 76: Page 115, line 37, at end insert—
("The Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899 (c. 19)
.—(1) The Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 1 (interpretation)—

(a) after the definition of "railway" there shall be inserted the following definitions—

"The expression 'road'" has the same meaning as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 except that the expression 'public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984:

The expression 'roads authority' has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1984:"; and

(b) in the definition of 'tramway', for the word 'street' there shall be substituted the word 'road'.

(3) In section 11 (additional provisions as to works), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(4) In section 12 (powers for execution of works)—

(a) for the words "street or part of a street not repairable by the inhabitants at large" there shall be substituted the words "road which is not a public road";

(b) for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(c) for the word "street", where it last occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".

(5) In section 13(1) (street boxes) for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(6) In section 14 (service of notice of works etc.)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "subject to subsection (2) below,";

(ii) for the words "street or public bridge" there shall be substituted the words "road, or any bridge comprised in a road and over which there is a public right of passage,"; and

(iii) in paragraph (a), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

"(2) Where the road (or bridge) in, under, along or across which the works are to be placed is a public road, subsection (1) above shall apply with the substitution for any reference to a local authority of a reference to the roads authority; except that where the roads authority is the Secretary of State—

(a) paragraph (c) of that subsection shall not apply in relation to amendments or conditions imposed by him or to disapproval by him; and

(b) paragraph (e) of that subsection shall apply as if the words "or by the Secretary of State" were omitted.

(3) Subject to subsection (2) above, in subsection (1) above "local authority" means the regional or islands council".
(7) In section 15 (exercise of powers of undertakers in relation to private streets, railways, tramways and canals)—

(a) for the words "street or part of a street not repairable by the local authority, including, where the area of supply is not wholly in a county borough, the county council" there shall be substituted the words "road which is not a public road";

(b) in paragraph (a), for the words "street or part of a street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(c) in paragraph (d), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".

(8) In section 16 (notice of desire to break up streets, etc. on behalf of undertakers)—

(a) for the words "street or part of a street", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(9) In section 17 (alteration of wires, pipes, etc. under streets), for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(10) In section 21 (laying of mains etc.)—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words "street or part of a street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) for the words "street not repairable by the local authority" there shall be substituted the words "road which is not a public road and"; and

(ii) for the word "street", where it occurs for the second and third times, there shall in each case be substituted the word "road".

(11) In section 22 (laying of electric line under special agreement)—

(a) for the words "local authority", where they first occur, there shall be substituted the words "roads authority (or, in the case of a road which is not a road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, the regional or islands council)";

(b) for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(c) for the words "local authority", where they occur for the second time, there shall be substituted the words "roads authority or council (as the case may be)".

(12) In section 24 (manner in which requisition is to be made)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "street or part of a street", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the word "road";

(ii) for the words "the local authority have the control and management of the public lamps" there shall be substituted the words "a roads authority maintain under section 34 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 the lighting"; and

(iii) for the word "local", where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in each of subsections (2) and (3), for the word "local" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(13) In section 26 (provisions on requisition by local authority)—

(a) for the word "local," in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) for the words from "lighting" to the end there shall be substituted the words "lighting maintained by them in the road in respect of which the requisition is made".

(14) In section 77 (responsibility of undertakers for damages), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(15) In the Appendix, in the words setting out section 12 of the Electric Lighting Act 1882, after the words "North of Scotland District" there shall be added the words "and as if 'street' meant 'road' as defined in this Act.".").
Amendment No. 77: Page 116, line 18, at end insert—
("The Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act 1916 (c. 63)
. In section 15 of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act 1916 (application to Scotland), at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—
"(d) for references to "highway" and "street" there shall be substituted references to a road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984."
The Electricity (Supply) Act 1919 (c. 100)
. In section 22 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1919 (way-leaves)—

(a) in subsection (2)(g), for the word "streets", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in subsection (4), for the words "street or public bridge" there shall be substituted the words "road, or any bridge comprised in a road and over which there is a public right of passage".").

Amendment No. 78: Page 116, line 41, at end insert—
(" ( ) In section 119(3) (power of local highway authority to borrow for purposes related to running public service vehicles)—

(a) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads";

(b) the words "for the purpose of the payment of the consideration for a transfer under section fifty-three of this Act or" shall cease to have effect; and

(c) at the end there shall be added the words "of this Act".").

Amendment No. 79: Page 117, line 46, at end insert—
("The Public Order Act 1936 (c. 6)
. In section 9(1) of the Public Order Act 1936 (interpretation), in the definition of "public place", after the word "highway" there shall be inserted the words ", or in Scotland any road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984,".").
Amendment No. 80: Page 118, line 9, at end insert—
("The Requisitioned Land and War Works Act 1945 (c. 43)
. —(1) The Requisitioned Land and War Works Act 1945 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 15(2)(c) (stopping up or diversion of roads), for the words, "Trunk Roads Act, 1936" there shall be substituted the words "provisions of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 relating to trunk roads".
(3) In section 60(3) (application to Scotland), after the word "Gazette;", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted a reference to a road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".
The Fire Services Act 1947 (c. 41)
.—(1) The Fire Services Act 1947 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 3 (supplementary powers of fire authorities)—

(a) in subsection (l)(c), for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "trunk road" to the end of paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the words "public road a fire authority shall (where they are not themselves the roads authority) obtain the consent of the roads authority; and—

(a) without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, the said powers shall not be exercised in a district except after consultation with the council of the district,".

(3) In section 14(3)(a) (marking of positions of fire hydrants), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(4) In section 30(5) (powers of firemen and police in extinguish- ing fires), for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(5) In section 38(1) (interpretation), for the definition of "street" there shall be submitted the following definitions—
" 'road' has the same meaning as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950; and
'roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".")
Amendment No. 81: Page 118, line 16, at end insert—
("The Electricity Act 1947 (c. 54)
.—(1) The Electricity Act 1947 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) in section 9(3) (application of certain provisions of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899), for the words "street or public bridge" there shall be substituted the words "road, or any
456
bridge comprised in a road and over which there is a public right of passage".
(3) In section 50(3) (exercise of powers relating to breaking up streets, etc.), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".").
Amendment No. 82: Page 132, line 46, leave out second ("of) and insert ("or").
Amendment No. 83: Page 133, line 15, at end insert—
("The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (c. 14)
. In section 1(4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (inter-pretation) after the word "highway" there shall be inserted the words ", or in Scotland any road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984,".").
Amendment No. 84: Page 133, line 40, at end insert—
("The Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958 (c. 30)
. In section 9(4) of the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958 (supplementary provisions with respect to stopping up and diversion of highways), for the words from the beginning to "right of way", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the words—
"(4) In section 8 of this Act and this section, in their applica-tion to Scotland, "highway" means a road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984: ").
Amendment No. 85: Page 134, line 25, at end insert—
("The Manoeuvres Act 1958 (7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 7)
.—(1) The Manoeuvres Act 1958 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 3 (powers to close roads)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "Special Roads Act, 1949" there shall be substituted the words "Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(b) subsection (5)(a) shall cease to have effect.

(3) In section 9 (interpretation), after the definition of "authorised forces" there shall be inserted the following definition—

" "highway", in relation to Scotland, means a road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984; "").

Amendment No. 86: Page 134, line 47, at end insert—
("The Road Traffic Act 1960 (c. 16)
. In section 257(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 (general interpretation), for the definition of "road" there shall be substituted the following definition—
" 'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".").
Amendment No. 87: Page 135, line 6, at end insert—
("The Pipe-lines Act 1962 (c. 58)
.—(1) The Pipe-lines Act 1962 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 15 (power to place pipe-lines in streets)—

(a) in subsections (1) to (9), for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substitued the word "road":

(b) in subsection (4) in each of paragraphs (c) and (d), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "road over which there is a public right of passage";

(c) in subsection (7), for the words from "shall be determined" to the end there shall be substituted the words "shall be referred to the arbitration of a single arbiter appointed by agreement between the parties concerned or, in default of agreement, by the sheriff; and in any such arbitration the arbiter may, and, if so directed by the Court of Session, shall, state a case for the decision of that court on any question of law arising in the arbitration."; and

(d) for subsections (10) and (11) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(10) In this section, except where the context otherwise requires—
"appropriate authority", in relation to a road, means—

(a) where the road is a public road, the roads authority;

(b) where the road is a prospective public road, the roads authority and the road managers;

(c) where the road is neither a public road nor a prospective public road, the road managers;

"carriageway" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;
"prospective public road" shall be construed in accordance with section l(4)(b) of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950;

457
"protected road" means—

(a) a special road;

(b) a trunk road; or

(c) such other road as is for the time being classified by the Secetary of State under section

11 (1) of the said Act of 1984 as a protected road for the purposes of this Act;
"public road" has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1984;
"road" and "road managers" have the same meanings as in the said Act of 1950; and
"roads authority", "special road" and"trunk road" have the same meaning as in the said Act of 1984.".
(3) In section 16 (modification of street works code in applica- tion to pipe-line works)—
(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the word "street", where it occurs for the first and fourth times, there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads";

(ii) for the words "street which is a maintainable highway or is prospectively a maintainable highway" there shall be substituted the words "road which is a public road or prospective public road";

(iii) for the word "street", where it occurs for the third time, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(iv) for the word "arbitrator" there shall be substituted the word "arbiter"; and

(b) in subsection (2)(b), for the word "arbitrator" there shall be substituted the word "arbiter".
(4) In section 66(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "in" for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Amendment No. 88: Page 135, line 39, at beginning insert—
(" .—(1) The Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 46 (protection and maintenance of public rights of way)—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words "footpath at the side of a road" there shall be substituted the word "footway"; and

(b) in subsection (3), after the words "than a" there shall be inserted the word "public".

(3) In section 47 (interpretation), at the end there shall be added the following definition—
"; and
'public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".
(4) ").
Amendment No. 89: Page 135, line 39, leave out ("of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967").
Amendment No. 90: Page 136, line 12, at end insert—
("(5) In section 78(1) (interpretation)—

(a) after the definition of "enactment" there shall be inserted the following definition—

" 'footway' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and

(b) for the definition of "road" there shall be substituted the following definition—

" 'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";").

Amendment No. 91: Page 138, line 31, at end insert—
("The Countryside Act 1968 (c. 41)
. In section 32 of the Countryside Act 1968 (traffic regulation orders for the countryside)—

(a) in subsection (8), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads";

(b) in subsection (10)—

(i) in the definition of "Crown road", for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road";and

(ii) for the definition of "road" there shall be substituted the following definitions—

" 'road', 'public road' and 'trunk road' have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".").

Amendment No. 92: Page 139, line 16, at end insert—
("The Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c. 52)
. In section 13(1) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (twin-unit caravans} for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Amendment No. 93: Page 142, line 13, at end insert—
("The Road Traffic Act 1972 (c. 20)
.—(1) The Road Traffic Act 1972 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 14 (motor racing on highways) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 15(1) (regulation of motoring events on highways), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(4) In section 20 (regulation of cycle racing on highways), in each of subsections (1), (2) and (5), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(5) In section 34 (requirements as to employment of persons to attend to locomotives and trailers), in each of subsections (1) and (2), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(6) In each of sections 36A(4) and 36B(8) (interpretation), for the words "1970" there shall be substituted the words "1984".
(7) In section 38(2A)(b) (duty of local authorities to promote road safety), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(8) In section 57(7) (power to prohibit driving of excessively heavy goods vehicle), for the words "highway authority other than the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted the words "local roads authority".
(9) In section 160 (weighing of motor vehicles)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(ii) for the word "arbitrator" there shall be substituted the word "arbiter"; and

(c) in subsection (4)—

(i) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(ii) the words "the Lord Chief Justice of England or, as the case may be," shall cease to have effect.

(10) In section 196 (general interpretation)—

(a) after the definition of "bridleway" there shall be inserted the following definition—

" 'carriageway' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";

(b) in the definition of "footpath", at the end there shall be added the words—

"(whether or not associated with a carriageway)";

(c) for the definition of "highway authority" there shall be substituted the following definition—

" 'local roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";

(d) after the definition of "prescribed" there shall be inserted the following definition—

" 'public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";

(e) for the definition of "road" there shall be substituted the following definitions—

" 'road' and 'special road' have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and

(f) after the definition of "trolley vehicle" there shall be inserted the following definition—

" 'trunk road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".

(11) In section 200 (provision, etc., of weighbridges), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(12) In Schedule 4 (prosecution and punishment of offences), in column 2, in the entries relating to sections 14, 15 and 20, for the word "highways" there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads".").
Amendment No 94: Page 147, line 2, at end insert—
("The Gas Act 1972 (c. 60)
.—(1) The Gas Act 1972 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 39(2) (application of Pipe-lines Act 1962), for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In Schedule 4 (gas supply code)—

(a) in paragraph 1—

(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";

459

(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "street", where it occurs for the first, third and fourth times, there shall be substituted the word "road", and for the words from "highway" to "of the street" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority or road managers";

(iii) in the proviso to sub-paragraph (3), for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";

(iv) in sub-paragraph (4), for the words from "street" to "the public expense" there shall be substituted the words "road or bridge which does not constitute a road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984", and the words "In the application" to "1970" shall cease to have effect;

(v) in sub-paragraph (5), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(vi) in sub-paragraph (6), for the words from "15" to "mains" there shall be substituted the words "125 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (restriction on laying of apparatus"; and

(b) in paragraph 36, for the definition of "street" there shall be substituted the following definitions—

" "road", "roads authority" and "road managers" have the same meanings as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.".").

Amendment No. 95: Page 147, line 24, at end insert—
(" (8) In section 77(4), for the words "69 and 70(2)" there shall be substituted the words "and 69".
(9) In section 80 (general interpretation)—
(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) there shall be inserted in the appropriate places in alphabetical order the following definitions—

"carriageway" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;

"local roads authority" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;

"roads authority" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984; "; and

(ii) for the definition of "road" there shall be substituted the following definition—

" "road" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984; "; and

(b) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.").
Amendment No. 96: Page 149. line 8, at end insert—
("The Safely of Sports Grounds Act 1975 (c. 52)
. In section 17(1) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, in the definition of "means of access", for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Amendment No. 97: Page 150, line 4, at end insert—
("The Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 (c. 11)
. In section 12(6) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 (application of certain provisions in relation to compulsory purchase of land), for the words "street or public bridge" there shall be substituted the words 'road, or any bridge comprised in a road and over which there is a public right of passage, ".").
Amendment No. 98: Page 155. line 10, at beginning insert—
(" .—(1) The Civil Aviation Act 1982 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) ").
Amendment No. 99: Page 155, line 10, leave out ("of the Civil Aviation Act 1982").
Amendment No. 100: Page 155, line 15, at end insert—
("(3) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 (application to Civil Aviation Authority of enactments relating to statutory undertakers)—

(a) the words "section 39 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970" shall cease to have effect; and

(b) at the end there shall be added the words "; section 133 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".").

Amendment No. 101: Page 155, line 21, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
Amendment No. 102: Page 156, line 42, at end insert—
("The Litter Act 1983 (c. 35)
. In section 7(1) of the Litter Act 1983 (litter bins in Scotland), for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(a) in or adjacent to any road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984) maintainable or maintained by a local authority,".
The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (c. )
. In section 2(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, after the word "highway" there shall be inserted the words ", or in Scotland any road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984,".")
These amendments make consequential amend-ments to a number of statutes in conformity with the new arrangements and structure povided by the Bill. I sought to explain earlier that this is the most practical way of achieving consistency of structure between this codifying measure and other enactments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I take it that the first one would be paragraph 5 of Schedule 8. 1 wondered why "5" is not included or "5(a)"' I imagine it should be included in that position.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, that is my understanding, that it will go in that place and the appropriate numbering will go in.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 74 to 102:
[Printed above: cols. 452–460. ]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, with the agreement of the House, I put Amendments Nos. 74 to 102 en bloc. The Question is that these amendments be agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I should draw attention to Amendment No. 74 where we have the words:
"street which is not repairable by the inhabitants at large"—
substituted by the words—
"road which is not a public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984).
Then if we go to page 14 of the Marshalled List—there are 18 pages of amendments to this schedule which we clearly ought to examine carefully—in relation to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899, we find it says:
" 'street or part of a street not repairable by the inhabitants at large' there shall be substituted the words 'road which is not a public road'."
Why is there the difference in the definition there? There should be consistency in something as misleading and confusing as all this.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I wonder whether we are going to get ourselves into the Guinness Book of Records for the largest number of amendments that have ever been taken en bloc.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot answer that question. These amendments would be described by many of my colleagues. I think, as drafting amendments in the ordinary situation. Whether it helps to repeat that for the number of times that it would be necessary I am not certain.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, with all due respect, they are not drafting amendments. These are not in the original Bill. They were not there at Committee stage; were not put in at Committee stage or promised at Committee stage. They were completely new arising from the examination of legislation; and. as I have said, they will not be the end. There are 18 pages of these amendments. This increases the size of the schedule which when first we saw it consisted (I think) of 25 pages. By the time this is finished, it will consist of 46 plus 18, which is 64.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would add that so far as the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is concerned, the two passages to which he drew attention are perfectly consistent because they are related to the context in which the word appears. One has to take account of context in making these amendments.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 103 to 117:
Page 158, line 16, at end insert—

("28 & 29 Vict. c. 56.

The Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865.

In section 3, the words "pri- vate", where it occurs for the second time, and ", or on or near any highway.".")

line 18, at end insert—

("45 & 46 Vict. c. 38

The Settled Land Act 1882

In section 25 (xvii), the word "Streets".

45 & 46 Vict. c. 56.

the Electric Lighting Act 1882.

In section 36, the definition of "local authority".")

line 26, at end insert—

("55 & 56 Viet. c. 43.

The Military Lands Act 1892.

Section 25(7).")

line 35, at end insert—

("9 Edw. 7 c. 34.

The Electric Lighting Act 1909.

In section 25, the definition of "road".")

line 38, at end insert—

("9&10 Geo. 5 c. 50.

The Ministry of Transport Act 1919.

Schedule 2. ").

line 49, after ("words") insert ("for the purpose of the payment of the consideration").

Page 159, line 50, at end insert—

("7 & 8 Eliz. 2 c. 7.

The Manoeuvres Act 1958.

Section 3(5)(a),").

Page 160, line 6, at end insert—

("1965 c. 36

The Gas Act 1965.

In Schedule 1, paragraphs 7(3) (c)and 12(l)(c).")

column 3, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert ("and "local high way authority".")

line 40, at end insert—

("1972 c. 20.

The Road Traffic Act 1972.

Section 13(b). Section 19(2)(b). In section 160(4), the words "the Lord Chief Justice of England or. as the case may be,".).

Page 161, line 33, at end insert—

("1972 c. 60.

The Gas Act 1972.

In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1(4), the words from "In the application" to "1970".")

line 42, at end insert—

("1973 c. 65.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973

In Schedule 14, paragraphs 1 to 30, 31(b), 32 to 41, 43 to 50, 51(a) and (b), 52 to 54, 57, 58, 74, 76 to 79, 87 and 88.")

line 45, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 62(1), the words from "In this subsection" to "public". Section 106(4).")

line 45, at end insert—

("1975 c. 21.

The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

In Schedule 7D, paragraphs 1 and 47.").

Page 162, line 15, at end insert—

("1982 c. 16.

The Civil Aviation Act 1982.

In paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, the words "section 39 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970;".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 103 to 117 make0020minor repeals arising from this Bill. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past ten o'clock.

  PRISON ADJUDICATIONS
  PRISON ADJUDICATIONS
  FRANKLAND PRISON: STRUCTURAL WORK
  FRANKLAND PRISON: STRUCTURAL WORK
  GRENDON PRISON: MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT/GOVERNOR
  GRENDON PRISON: MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT/GOVERNOR
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  CHIANG MAI: FORMER BRITISH CONSULATE
  CHIANG MAI: FORMER BRITISH CONSULATE
  AFGHANISTAN: SOVIET REFUGEES
  AFGHANISTAN: SOVIET REFUGEES
  JOINT BOARDS: POLITICAL BALANCE
  JOINT BOARDS: POLITICAL BALANCE
  DISPENSING OF SPECTACLES
  DISPENSING OF SPECTACLES
  DEATH GRANT
  DEATH GRANT
  ENERGY MATERIALS IN TRANSIT: INSURANCE
  ENERGY MATERIALS IN TRANSIT: INSURANCE
  PARKING AND TRAFFIC REGULATION: WESTMINSTER
  PARKING AND TRAFFIC REGULATION: WESTMINSTER
  ENTERPRISE ULSTER
  ENTERPRISE ULSTER
  POWER PLANT: MAYDOWN
  POWER PLANT: MAYDOWN
  NORTHERN IRELAND HOUSING EXECUTIVE: LOAN CHARGES
  NORTHERN IRELAND HOUSING EXECUTIVE: LOAN CHARGES