Sitting of 28 November 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
3.30 pm
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LOCHMADDY AND EAST LOCH TARBERT (IMPROVEMENT OF PIERS. ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Lochmaddy and East Loch Tarbert (Improvement of Piers, etc.); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 4 December and to be printed. [Bill 13.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the P.A. Management Consultants' report on the non-financial aspects of the proposed abolition of the metropolitan county councils, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The report is long on assertion and short on fact. I remain convinced that the proposals in the Local Government Bill will help to make local government more effective and more economical, without the need to impair the standards or the quality of services.
    Mr. Fatchett: It comes well from the Government to talk about the report being long on assertion and short on fact. Is it not the case that the PA report concludes that if the Government go ahead with their proposals we shall have another change in local government structure within the next decade? Is it not the case also that the Coopers and Lybrand report, which was published this morning, shows that the Government's financial conclusions are incorrect? Against that background, would it not have been sensible for a prudent and non-dogmatic Government to establish a public inquiry? We now have dogma running ahead of common sense.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for shorter questions.
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman represents part of one of our great cities. Before 1974 the Leeds city corporation had all the powers of a former county borough. It was large, powerful, professional and effective. The hon.
    910
    Gentleman should be ashamed to imply that the corporation will not be able to provide the services which will be devolved to it in a better way than they are provided by West Yorkshire county council.
    Mr. Tracey: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the posters which have appeared on hoardings in the latest stage of the multi-million pound propaganda campaign of the metropolitan counties and others have been pasted upside down? Does he agree that that is a fair reflection of the economic and other attitudes of the leaders of those councils?
    Mr. Baker: The advertising campaign in London on behalf of the GLC and ILEA is at the ratepayers' expense and is a scandalous waste of ratepayers' money. The GLC will be spending about £7 million this year, which Mr. Livingstone thinks is peanuts. We do not have that sort of money to spend and we would not be allowed—[Interruption.] Our political budget on this issue is much more modest and we shall be spending a little of it tonight on a party political broadcast, when I shall be setting forth the reasons why Mr. Livingstone does want the GLC abolished.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House, including the Minister, that this question relates to the metropolitan counties. Question No. 3 relates to the Greater London council.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is it not the case that as a result of this legislation the provincial police will be controlled for at least three years directly from Whitehall? Is that not a constitutional aspect of the legislation which should be considered most carefully? It is certain that control will not be passed to Leeds, where it rested before 1974.
    Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman brings considerable experience to the debate on this issue — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am about to do so. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether that matter should be considered carefully. I give him the assurance that it will be debated at length in Committee. As he rightly said, there are provisions to have precept and manpower controls for a transitional period of three years for the joint authorities.
    Mr. Rippon: Before we get into detail, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have already begun the drafting of the amendments to the published Bill?
    Mr. Baker: I have little doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend will be of assistance to us in that respect.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that the management consultants' report on the metropolitan counties says that the result of the Government's proposals will be to provide institutionalised conflict and a failure to co-ordinate— [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, T am reading. I want to be accurate. What does the Minister say to his right hon. and hon. Friends who were reported in the Local Government Chronicle poll as being dissatisfied with the transfer of functions to joint boards?
    Mr. Baker: These matters will be debated at length in Committee on the abolition Bill. The report was compiled from a series of interviews and questionnaires. The PA sent a questionnaire to all the metropolitan county

    911
    councillors. Not surprisingly, their reply was that they thought that their jobs were useful and their roles effective. In the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies, "They would, wouldn't they?"
    Dr. Cunningham: As the Minister appears keen, for once, to refer to the facts, is it not true that the overwhelming burden of evidence submitted to the Government was against the proposals? Is it not a fact that the Government cannot substantiate their claims of financial savings? Is it not also a fact that, contrary to what he claimed, many of the services will not return to the boroughs or districts, but will go to quangos and joint boards? Are those not the facts?
    Mr. Baker: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I have made it clear that 75 per cent. of the services which are now the responsibility of the metropolitan counties and the GLC will become the responsibility of the successor lower-tier authorities.

    House Building
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of houses to be started in 1985 in the public and private sectors.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): Total housing starts for England in 1983 were 187,000, of which 146,000 were in the private sector, the highest figure for 10 years. Housing starts in the first nine months of this year are slightly below those for the same period last year, but completions are up. It is not the practice to make forecasts for future years.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister not agree that the figures are a wholly inadequate response to the housing crisis facing the country? Can he explain why, with 250,000 construction workers unemployed and with housing authorities such as mine in Stoke-on-Trent desperately anxious to build more houses, especially for the growing elderly population, the Government will not put in more finance and will not even allow local authorities to borrow money in the market place through their housing investment programmes?
    Mr. Gow: Total capital housing provision in the public sector for next year is in excess of £3 billion. That is a substantial figure. The hon. Gentleman and the House must understand that a growing proportion of our people —now 63 per cent. in England—are owner-occupiers. The policy which the Government have followed has responded to the needs and aspirations of the people, while continuing to make substantial provision for public sector housing.
    Mr. Hunter: Is there not a significant and laudable reason for the slightly fewer housing starts; namely, that under this Government local authorities have been able to provide more resources for special needs housing and for improvements?
    Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is right. Within the housing investment programme allocations it is for each authority to decide its own priorities. I agree with my hon. friend that priority should be given to the categories that he mentioned.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister remind us of the number of people on the housing waiting list, how many are homeless and how many are living in houses unfit for human habitation?
    Mr. Gow: Some of the figures for local authority housing waiting lists are the reverse of accurate. Those figures should be revised in very many cases. I do not accept the premise of the hon. Lady's question.
    Mr. Brando-Bravo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that private sector starts would be substantially higher if it were not for the fact that many Labour authorities hoard and sit on land for building because they believe that private sector building is bad and that only public sector building is good?
    Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made his first directions for the sale of unused or under-used land, as recorded on the registers which the Government introduced. Of the land on those four sites, 45 acres are suitable for housing. I certainly intend to follow up the Government's initiative of directing, where appropriate, the sale of unused or under-used land.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister think it desirable that the total of housing starts, whatever their mix, should return to the number for the lowest year under the Labour Government?
    Mr. Gow: That depends on need.

    Sporting, Recreational and Leisure Facilities
    Mr. Pendryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the sporting, recreational and leisure provision currently made by the Greater London council and metropolitan counties will continue following abolition of those authorities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): As I said in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 21 November, my right hon. Friend announced on 11 April our plans for sport and recreation following the dissolution of the GLC. Responsibility for these matters will pass to the boroughs. The Sports Council will have additional funds to assist with projects of wider than local interest.
    Mr. Pendry: Does the Minister recognise that that is a complacent reply which will disappoint hundreds of thousands of people who live within the Greater London council and metropolitan council areas and who look to him to fight his corner on their behalf to ensure that sport and recreation provision is maintained after abolition? Does he further recognise that the GLC has spent more than £40 million on that provision and that the metropolitan counties have spent an equivalent sum? Why does the hon. Gentleman not take note of the action of his colleague the Minister for the Arts, who is fighting his corner for those whom he represents? If the Minister did that, perhaps even he would end up in the Cabinet.
    Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little over-excited about some matters. If he looks at the record for recent years he will find that since 1979 the Government have increased grant-in-aid by 100 per cent. to the Sports Council, and have provided infinitely more

    913
    money than previous Governments did for the urban aid programme—between £16 million and £23 million in the past few years.
    Only in the last 12 to 18 months has the GLC started to show some interest in sport in the metropolis. The London boroughs and the metropolitan districts are infinitely better prepared to know what is required at local level. The GLC has only come along later to shell out our constituents' money for wrong projects.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend assure me that, whoever controls sport and recreation in London, better facilities and coaching will be provided in order to improve the standard of English cricket?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I take note of what my hon. Friend said. He has experience of these matters. I have no doubt that he is well satisfied with the standard of Scottish rugby. Let us hope that that will be enacted next week.
    Mr. Cartwright: In view of the spectre of rate-capping that hangs over the London boroughs and metropolitan districts, will the Minister assure the House that grant-related expenditure assessments for the London boroughs and metropolitan districts will be altered to guarantee them the resources needed to provide the leisure, recreation and sports facilities now provided by the GLC and metropolitan counties?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman raises an important subject. That is why the Government have ensured that the funding for sport and recreation has not been lost in recent years. Normal adjustments to the rate support grant will be made after abolition. However, I have to tell the House that no specific increase will be introduced solely in respect of sport and recreation. These matters will be adjusted.
    Mr. Moynihan: I recognise the importance of providing sport and leisure facilities in London, but does my hon. Friend agree that a substantial amount of work has already been done, and is planned to continue to be done, by the boroughs, the governing bodies and, above all, the Sports Council?
    Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend is right. The strategy which has been produced by the Sports Council and the regional councils on sports and recreation, which will be able to take on a great deal of work after abolition in March 1986, has been responsible for identifying the paucity of facilities in certain areas.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister realise that much of the assistance given by the metropolitan counties comes from sponsored companies, such as Merseyside Improvements Ltd., which not only provide jobs, but work to a reasonable standard for many of the sporting organisations? Can the Minister guarantee that those organisations will continue to be provided with such assistance after the abolition of the metropolitan county councils?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am always anxious to encourage sponsorship of any sort for anything to do with sport, leisure and recreation, and it is precisely because of the Government's policies that we have been able to rejuvenate that on Merseyside.
    Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware that in West Yorkshire county council area, and no doubt in many others, some metropolitan districts have no representatives
    914
    on committees responsible for many important functions, and that that could not be the case following abolition? As surveys have shown that the overwhelming majority of people have no idea which functions are the responsibility of the metropolitan county councils, is not existing democratic responsibility a myth, and is it not far more likely to exist after abolition?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I do not believe that it is far more likely to exist. My right hon. and hon. Friends will consider that important point to ensure that there is no gap after abolition.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is appalingly informed about the GLC's contribution to sport. It has been half funding the National Sports Centre since its inception. Is the Minister aware that the GLC gives £8 million a year in grants to sporting bodies? What will he do to ensure that that funding continues, and will he guarantee the future of the London marathon, which, contrary to his information, is supported organisationally by the GLC?
    Mr. Macfarlane: If the hon. Gentleman would listen instead of gassing away to his colleagues on the Back Bench, he might learn something. The only contribution that GLC representatives have made to sport in London is to threaten and try to ensure that funds will not reach the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace, and to walk out of some committees of the Greater London council. The marathon is a privately run organisation—
    Mr. Tony Banks: No, Sir, it is not.
    Mr. Macfarlane: —and my Department and my right hon. Friends have given every help to the marathon's organising committee. The marathon is safe with the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The marathon may be safe, but the Minister will never run 26 miles and 385 yds if lie continues to answer questions in that way. How can he say that the GLC has made no contribution when it and its predecessor authority were responsible for the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace—it is the only one we have — and it meets the capital, revenue and debt charges of the centre? Who will meet those after abolition? Similar questions could be asked about the Lea Valley sports centre.
    Will the Minister confirm that in this year's estimates, not only for the GLC but for the metropolitan counties, £58 million is being spent on sport and recreation? Where will that money come from after abolition? Why can we not have a consultation exercise for sport similar to that for the arts? Will the Minister issue a consultation document so that we can have a sensible, reasonable and intelligent discussion on the future of sports provision?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's return to these affairs after his brief skirmish as a shadow Home Office spokesman. The only evidence in recent months of the GLC's contribution to sport was its spending of much money on poor projects. Its representatives walked out of several committees, and it threatened the National Sports Centre with a complete removal of financial support. Its spending in recent years has been profligate and has been removed from the taxpayers and ratepayers of Greater London. Future funding has yet to be considered, but at present the Sports

    915
    Council and the regional councils on sport and recreation are well placed, with the London boroughs, to run sport in the metropolis.

    New Towns (House Sales)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the number of new town homes sold under the right-to-buy provisions by the Basildon development corporation and other new town development corporations; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Between May 1979 and September 1984 Basildon development corporation has sold 3,903 dwellings to sitting tenants, and other English new town development corporations have sold 11,315.
    Mr. Proctor: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a source of great pride to those who live in the Basildon area? Will he encourage and facilitate shared ownership provisions for tenants who are prevented from buying their homes, especially newer houses, because the cost floor rules mean that the sale price is near to the market price and, therefore, they cannot obtain the full discount?
    Sir George Young: Basildon is rightly proud of its record. It has sold more houses to sitting tenants than any other of the new town corporations.
    Under the Housing Act 1984 tenants have a right to shared ownership in the circumstances which my hon. Friend described.
    Mr. Cowans: Will the Minister tell the whole truth? Will he publish the cost to the taxpayer of those houses and the cost at which they were sold? Is it not true that there is a big discrepancy between the two figures?
    Sir George Young: No, there is not. It is not possible to sell a house under the right-to-buy provisions at less than its cost. This is the cost floor, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) rightly referred. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is totally misinformed.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Will my hon. Friend accept the appreciation of thousands of my constituents in Peterborough who are now able to own their homes, thanks to that legislation? Will he also accept that the exemplary selling commitment of the Peterborough development corporation helped to shame the Labour-controlled district council into selling houses as well?
    Sir George Young: Although Basildon has sold more houses to sitting tenants, I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, looked at in percentage terms, Peterborough has done even better. I am sure that it will have acted as an inspiration to the local authority, which I hope will respond with greater efforts to dispose of more of its homes.

    Green Field Land
    Sir John Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that green field land is used for housing purposes only as a last resort and not before adjacent city centre sites have been utilised.
    Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. Friend published advice on land for housing in July under DOE circular
    916
    15/84. That circular restates the Government's commitment to existing conservation policies and the protection of good quality agricultural land. It emphasises the need to make full and effective use for housing of land within existing urban areas.
    Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. On the subject of green field land, which is a precious and declining asset, can he assure the House that the Government are aware that in some cases neighbouring local city councils decline to sell land to housing developers, for reasons best known to themselves? In view of the pressure that this is putting on adjacent green field sites, will my hon. Friend consider whether the city councils concerned should be encouraged in some way to sell their land?
    Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend brought a delegation to see me not long ago to discuss these matters. He knows the steps that we are taking to try to promote the development of urban land for housing. That is why we are pursuing a wide range of measures—for example, both urban development grant and derelict land grant—to help development in urban areas. I think that that is the best way forward. I am well aware of what my hon. Friend said was happening.
    Mr. Park: How can the Minister reconcile that reply with the fact that at the same time in his Department applications are being turned down for derelict land clearance status, as happened in the case of Coventry?
    Mr. Macfarlane: If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in mind, affecting an area of land about which he knows, he should let me know about it.

    Leeds (Housing Stock)
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the survey of its housing stock prepared by the Leeds city council, a copy of which has been sent to him.
    Sir George Young: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to a later version of the document enclosed with the council's letter to my Department of 2 July. It is desirable that local authorities should make objective assessments of the condition of their housing stock for management purposes, and the results are of value to my Department in deciding housing investment programme allocations.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: I am grateful for that reply. Will the Minister accept that, with the level of capital finance currently available to Leeds city council, it is impossible for it adequately to maintain its own stock or to provide grants to private owners for improvement, with the inevitable and sad result that the council will be forced to return to policies of compulsory purchase and slum clearance on a wide scale, which have destroyed communities in recent years?
    Sir George Young: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's rather gloomy assessment. I see no advantage in reverting to compulsory purchase orders and the rest of it. We have tried to direct a higher proportion of the regional allocation to Leeds in genuine recognition of the problems which the hon. Gentleman described. The document which he sent to my Department will help us in the next few days in deciding an appropriate allocation to Leeds for 1985–86.

    Wildlife and Countryside Act
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he expects to see effected in the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act during the present Session.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave). The Commons Environment Select Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Act. Any question of considering major changes to the Act would need to await consideration of its report.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that the consensus supporting conservation, to which he referred approvingly in yesterday's debate, seems to be demanding rather wider amendment of the Act than the Government seem likely to accept? Why are the Government so wretchedly lacking in imagination and so devoid of sympathy for decent demands? Will this not cause considerable rage in the circles supporting conservation unless a more reasonable attitude is taken?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the formation of a consensus on the need for some limited changes, and I hope to see those passed on the route down which the hon. Gentleman has gone. Wider and more major changes will need to await consideration of the Select Committee's report.
    Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend consider incorporating into the review of the Act the possibility of doing something to include common land, which is in many cases a reserve of habitat for wildlife? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern in my constituency about the wildlife on the Copthorne upper and lower commons, whose protection would be enhanced by the stiffening of this Act?
    Mr. Waldegrave: This shows that the matter to which my hon. Friend refers, and on which the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is an expert, is serious. This also shows that once we begin to widen the Act a number of extra measures could be made, which we would need to consider carefully.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Why have the Government not given a commitment to introduce, in Government time, their own Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act, as we had all expected them to do when they gave commitments on this matter last year?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There appears to be agreement on both sides of the House that the so-called three-month loophole should be blocked. A private Members' Bill was introduced, which unfortunately was defective. We have offered help to improve it. We can therefore deal with this through that procedure.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that, outside the national parks and the sites of special scientific interest, protection for the landscape is often insufficient? Would it not be helpful if the same system of notification of farm grant applications as applies in the national parks were implemented in respect of local authorities and the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service? Would this not be in the interests of the heritage?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That would be a wide reform, with implications for how the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food conducts its advisory service. We need to await the advice of the Select Committee.

    Land Register
    Sir Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land were recorded on the local authority land register at July 1984 as being vacant, dormant or derelict land in public ownership.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: At 1 July the land registers gave details of 110,863 acres of unused or underused land owned by local authorities and other public bodies in England.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is it not time that this absurd hoarding was stopped? How many disposal notices have been issued to public sector land owners under the 1980 Act, and what has been the effect of this notification?
    Mr. Baker: I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments. As far as we have been able to discover, about 18,000 acres have been sold, leaving about 110,000 acres on the register. We examined nine sites and then proceeded to issue directives about a fortnight ago for the disposal of them. We shall be looking at other sites as well.
    Mr. Eastham: With regard to the so-called hoarding of local government land, is it not a fact that three factors affect local authorities? The first is inadequate derelict land grants, the second is inadequate housing investment allocations and the third is that private developers are interested only in leafy suburbia, and not in the inner cities.
    Mr. Baker: The amount allocated for derelict grant is going up this year, and stands at about £75 million. The capital investment in housing, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has said, will be over £3 billion this year. As to leafy suburbia, in the past month I have visited two or three sites in the north of England where derelict inner city council estates are being renovated and refurbished with Government assistance.
    Mr. Steen: It is reassuring that my right hon. Friend follows all previous Secretaries of State in saying that the amount of public land is too much and unacceptable, as this has been said for about 10 years. Could not my right hon. Friend instruct all public authorities to reduce their derelict and vacant land by perhaps 25 per cent. a year, otherwise the land will never be used?
    Mr. Baker: I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend. I do not have the powers that he asked me to use. We intend to keep up the pressure on the vast amount of land that is not used. The whole purpose of the legislation is to bring idle land into active use.
    Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) have made clear, the truth is that the Government's actions wholly belie their words. The Government have put local authorities which wish their derelict and dormant land to be brought into public. use—whether in the private or public sector—in a financial straitjacket by restricting the conditions governing the availability of derelict land grant and by prohibiting the full use of capital receipts by local authorities. If the

    919
    Minister wishes to encourage local authorties to do what they want to do—to bring this land into use—why does he not lift forthwith the restrictions on the use of capital receipts?
    Mr. Baker: The capital receipts from the sale of housing land can be as high as 100 per cent. I ask the hon. Gentleman to get his facts right about the derelict land grant. Each year we are increasing the amounts available for derelict land grant. This is a major priority for my Department.

    Water and Sewerage Industries
    Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors he took into account in setting the proposed levels of capital investment in the water and sewerage industries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gow: The public expenditure provision for water authorities announced in the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is expected to enable their investment to increase by about £80 million, or 12 per cent., in 1985–86. This takes account of the needs identified in the water authorities' 1984 corporate plans, including the development of water resources, faster progress with the renewal of sewers and water mains and further work to restore or maintain the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters.
    Mr. Hicks: I welcome the intention to increase the level of financial expenditure on the infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend think that it is sensible at this stage to impose a water tax on consumers, especially when we are all anxious to keep down inflation and when the general public are still worried about the basis on which water and sewerage charges are imposed?
    Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is not right in referring to this as a water tax. There is a danger in thinking that one can have higher investment in the water industry, and more money spent on the repair of sewers and the construction of reservoirs, without paying for all of this. The targets that have been set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor are in no way unreasonable. The present rate of return on assets is only 1 per cent. Under my right hon. Friend's proposals, the average rate of return next year is estimated to be 1·4 per cent.; in 1986–87, 1·7 per cent.; and in 1987–88, 1·9 per cent.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister consider the position that will develop in the coming year for the regional water authorities, especially the Yorkshire water authority, as a result of the hardship that will be imposed on industrial and domestic users because of the suggested 12 per cent. increase in water charges? Will the Minister have regard to the hardship that will be created in the Yorkshire water authority area in particular and throughout the country in general?
    Mr. Gow: The increase in water charges in the next financial year will vary from region to region and from authority to authority. The average water charge levied by water authorities in the current financial year is £78. If the average charge rises by 10 per cent. next year, the bill will rise from £78 to £85 or, to put it another way, from 21p a day to 23p a day. Water charges are taken fully into account when supplementary benefit is calculated. Some 3 million households receive help in the way that I have described.
    Mr. Conway: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to substitute water metering for water rates?
    Mr. Gow: Earlier this month I announced in the House that my Department had set up a study with the water industry to inquire into the possibility of extending water metering to the household customer. That inquiry will be completed as soon as possible and I shall then report further to the House.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Whilst most hon. Members recognise that water has to be paid for, why do water authorities have to be run for profit? Why do profits have to increase by one third this year, especially after the difficulties experienced in the west country?
    Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman has not understood that a consequence of higher water charges will be the much needed higher investment, for which the hon. Gentleman called earlier this year. He is aware that in the south-west work is starting about now on the third of the strategic reservoirs. In the public sector we are seeking to follow the necessary disciplines of obtaining a proper return on investment. A 1 per cent. return on investment is inadequate for the water industry.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: While I support the general argument that my hon. Friend puts forward, does he agree that it is completely unreasonable that my constituents in Southend, and others, should have to pay what is called an additional extra because the water authorities are obliged to spend £50 million of capital expenditure for the sole purpose of taking nitrates out of water? As that is caused solely by agricultural practice, should that not be put on the agriculture Vote, instead of making my constituents pay more money to receive polluted water?
    Mr. Gow: I shall discuss my hon. Friend's suggestion with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I do not expect that it will be well received.
    Dr. Cunningham: How does the Minister explain his sudden conversion to higher capital investment in the water industry when, in the past two financial years, he has presided over an underspend in excess of £100 million? Is it not adding insult to injury to those people who suffered severe water shortages this year to impose upon them some of the biggest increases in water rates? Is not the reality that the manipulation of external financing limits is simply a tax on water consumers? Why does the hon. Gentleman not face the truth?
    Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman had left what was then the rather esoteric atmosphere of No. 10 Downing street before the famous letter of 15 December 1976 was written to Dr. Witterveen by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
    Mr. Rogers: What about Disraeli? Tell us about Disraeli.
    Mr. Gow: This is what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East then wrote:
    "An essential element of the Government's strategy will be a continuing and substantial reduction over the next few years in the share of resources required for the public sector."
    The hon. Member was a member of that Government. We are increasing capital expenditure in the water industry. The hon. Gentleman has confused investment with the cash limits set for that year. Although the EFL was

    921
    undercalled by over £100 million in 1982–83, the investment underspend was £37 million and, thanks to low tender prices, that represented a volume of work close to what had been planned.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I again call for shorter answers.

    Private Rented Accommodation
    Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to promote the availability of private flats and houses for rent.
    Mr. Gow: The Housing Act 1980 contained several provisions designed to stimulate the provision of private rented accommodation. I am considering whether further steps can be taken to encourage private landlords to meet the demand for homes to rent.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend accept that he could substantially increase the availability of private houses and flats for rent by repealing existing legislation? Does he further accept that by doing so he would, at no cost to the taxpayer, increase mobility of labour and thus take an important step towards reducing unemployment among young people?
    Mr. Gow: I have already said to the House on several occasions that the Rent Acts, which were designed to assist those who wanted accommodation to rent, have injured the very people whom they were designed to help and have succeeded in many cases in drying up the supply of private rented accommodation. Nevertheless, the Government have already taken initiatives to help, notably by the introduction of shorthold and by the reduction of the interval from three to two years of the period after which a landlord can ask the rent officer to review the rent. As I have already made clear to the House, we are considering what further we can do.
    Mr. Winnick: Why does the Minister not accept that when his party brought in the sort of measure that his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) is suggesting—for example the Rent Act 1957—it did not result in any way in providing more accommodation for letting, but produced Rachmanism? Is the Minister aware that private tenants will fight very hard to retain the rights that they must have against private landlords?
    Mr. Gow: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, because it is not true.

    Local Authorities (Competitive Tendering)
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his consultation document on further steps on competitive tendering by local councils.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I shall issue a consultation document within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of services undertaken by local government in this country are being supplied by private enterprise in at least one industrial country, if not several, in the free world? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend undertake to survey, in his consultation paper, not what is now being attempted in this country by way of privatisation, but what has already succeeded elsewhere, most notably in the United States of America?
    Mr. Baker: I give my hon. Friend that undertaking. I shall look at his suggestion. We have opened up a considerable number of activities in local government to competitive tendering. It has been beneficial, as is shown by the enormous savings that have already accrued.
    Mr. Chope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proof of the pudding is in the eating? Wandsworth council has saved about £23 million as a result of competitive tendering and the London borough of Merton has saved about £6 million. Comparing the rate rises in Wandsworth and Lambeth over the last few years, it can be seen that in Lambeth the rates have gone up by 107 per cent. and in Wandsworth by only 6 per cent.
    Mr. Baker: I pay tribute to the pioneering work of my hon. Friend, when he was in charge of Wandsworth council, in pressing ahead with privatisation. I remind the House that the Audit Commission, which is riot a Government body, produced a report showing specifically that all authorities which had privatised various services achieved indisputable savings through contracting out.

    West Midlands County Council
    Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will break down by percentage of total expenditure the value of those services presently administered by the West Midlands county council that he intends should be in future controlled by (a) district authorities, (b) joint boards and (c) other forms of control.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The county concil's net current expenditure, as recorded in its budget return for 1984–85, would be devolved as follows: 40 per cent. would be controlled by the individual district councils, 60 per cent. would be the responsibility of the fire, police and passenger transport joint authorities, which would be composed of, and therefore controlled by, elected councillors from the districts.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that those figures will be treated with some scepticism? In my own county, the west midlands, analysis shows that the figure would be only 20 per cent. by value of services incurred by districts, and therefore under the democratic and accountable working control of working people, and that 80 per cent. would go to bodies which would be either centrally controlled or under undemocratic and unelected authorities. How does the Minister square that with his assertion that it is a great leap forward for democracy?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman represents a city which has been consistently against the county council. The city of Coventry has always wanted to run its own affairs. The figures that I gave are correct. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that when the duties are devolved to the joint passenger authorities, the police boards and the fire boards, elected councillors from the metropolitan districts will serve on those boards and control their expenditure.
    The metropolitan counties have very few friends. Now that the hon. Member is taking up their cause, I think that they will view that fact with grave concern.
    Mr. W. Benyon: Leaving aside the details of this question, is my right hon. Friend not concerned about the fact that during the protracted stages of the legislation that is about to come before the House, the arguments will

    923
    centre on whether the Government's financial estimates are right, or whether the estimates of Coopers and Lybrand are right? Is there not a case for having a major independent financial look at the matter before we go any further?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend that the costs and savings in our estimate will be subject to considerable scrutiny, but I remind the House that our reason for embarking on the legislation is to return responsibility for a wide range of local government activities to the lower tier because we believe that it is more responsible and effective and that the work can be done more economically at the lower level.
    Mr. Snape: Is it the Minister's intention to make the new joint boards as economic and democratic as, for example, the Severn-Trent water authority, which over the past decade has increased its precept by 244 per cent. compared with the precept increase of the metropolitan county of West Midlands of 159 per cent.? Bearing in mind that the Government have ensured that the meetings of the water authority are held behind closed doors so that the press are not allowed to attend and, further, that the Government have rigged the membership of the authority to suit their own political prejudices, is that the sort of democracy that the Minister wants to promote in the House to enhance his career?
    Mr. Baker: I am doing nothing at all to the Severn-Trent water authority. With regard to the conduct of the business of the joint authorities, they will be subject to the same provisions for making their meetings open to the public as other local authorities. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there will be elected councillors on the joint authorities, and they will be responsible for the conduct and affairs of those joint authorities.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold in England since May 1979.
    Sir George Young: From April 1979 to September 1984 about 620,000 dwellings were sold by local authorities and new towns in England.
    Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the total stock of council houses that figure represents?
    Sir George Young: Not without notice, is the short answer.
    Mr. Flannery: How many starts are there on the stocks to replace houses so that the demands of the waiting lists can be met? Can the Minister tell us just how many people are now on the waiting lists and how many houses are there to accommodate them?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the houses are not there once they have been sold. The houses remain part of the housing stock, and real people continue to live in them. The hon. Gentleman asked about the waiting lists. If his thesis is right, that the sale of council houses denies people on waiting lists the opportunity to move up, he would expect there to be fewer re-lets each year. I have the figures in front of me. In 1979, 194,000 people occupied local authority re-lets. In 1982, that figure had gone up to 223,000.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: While I welcome the good figures for the sale of council house dwellings to date, may I ask my hon. Friend to chase up Labour-controlled councils such as Leicester to enable more people to buy their own houses and flats?
    Sir George Young: There are still a number of authorities whose performance under the right to buy is unsatisfactory. My Department pursues progress with them so that all tenants can exercise their right to buy without delay or difficulty. Two thirds of the authorities that are monitored are Labour-controlled.
    Mr. John Fraser: Why have not the capital receipts from the sale of over 600,000 council homes been recycled into rebuilding? Is not the truth that the Treasury has virtually stolen £3 billion to £4 billion of capital receipts —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the Treasury has stolen£3 billion to £4 billion of capital receipts from the sale of council houses, which could be used to build over 100,000 new houses to let, for major capitalised repairs on council estates, and for major improvements and repairs to privately owned houses. Is not the truth that the money is being taken away by the Treasury and that the people have been deceived about what was to happen with the proceeds from the right to buy?
    Sir George Young: I am not sure how the Treasury could have stolen, if that is the right word, £3 billion or£4 billion, as total receipts from the sale of council houses have been only £2 billion. That £2 billion has been used by local authorities to supplement their housing investment programmes. It has been ploughed back into housing.

    Land Register
    Sir Reginald Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of keeping and updating the land registers of public vacant land; how many civil servants, part or full-time, are employed in maintaining the land registers; and what is the estimated cost on his Vote for so doing.
    Mr. Macfarlane: The departmental staff and accommodation costs of maintaining the land registers are not separately identified, but are estimated at about £325,000 per annum. The equivalent of 21 full-time staff are employed for the purpose.
    Sir Reginald Eyre: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department's announcement last week about compulsory sales of land is greatly to be welcomed and will help to justify that expense? Can he give further details of the procedure to be adopted, and will he vigorously follow up this new approach?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The announcement meets observations and requests made by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, not least my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has been very vigilant on this. We have to proceed slowly, as the land is not owned by the Department. Many nationalised industries and local authorities actually own the land. We have now made progress and issued first directions to local authorities in Darlington, Sunderland, Oldham and Nottingham. We shall be watching the situation closely and continuing the kind of progress that my hon. Friend seeks.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues about releasing some of the land held by the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Macfarlane: That is a topic for continuing discussion by Ministers and officials.

    (Environmental Effects) Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his initiative calling on the European Commission to review the progress made towards ensuring that environmental concerns are taken into account in common agricultural policies and to identify the scope for further action in this field.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I wrote to Commissioner Narjes on 9 October. The Commission is currently considering our initiative. I propose to table a memorandum setting out the United Kingdom position for discussion at the next meeting of the Environment Council on 6 December.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that this important initiative must be carried through to success? Does he also accept that there is no sense in using agriculture grants merely to add to farm surpluses, and every reason to switch grants to support farming that takes account of conservation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our initiative in the Environment Council is aimed at matching that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the Agriculture Council and to make a reality of the Community's integration of agricultural and environmental policies.
    Dr. David Clark: I welcome the initiative at the EEC. However, does the Minister appreciate that it will affect only a very small part of our agricultural production and will inevitably involve delays? Does he accept that an alternative or additional means to achieve the same ends would be to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act to empower MAFF to undertake expenditure on the promotion of nature conservancy in the same way as the Act requires water boards to do?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act would not alter Common Market law. This proposal aims to do just that. There must, of course, be limits on the expenditure, because, if for no other reason, this country above all does not wish to increase the total Common Market budget. Nevertheless, it is a valuable initiative, which has been widely welcomed.

    Hydrocarbons (Exploration)
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received
    926
    concerning the need to safeguard the environment of rural areas especially sensitive to development from disturbances caused as a result of exploration for hydrocarbons.
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am well aware of the concern caused by increased interest in exploration for hydrocarbons, particularly in southern England. That is why', in August, this year, the Department issued draft guidelines to local authorities on planning control over oil and gas operations. Since then I have received 45 representations in response to our request for comments on the draft and some 20 other letters on site-specific proposals.
    Mr. Ross: I congratulate the Minister on what he has done so far. I assure him that I am not referring to the Solent, but does he accept that some landscapes are so sensitive that the environmental interests outweigh even the need for oil? Does he accept that it is vital for the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy to agree on those areas before embarking on the kind of process now taking place in the Solent?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses That is why, in response to other questions in the House on 24 October, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made a commitment that environmentally sensitive areas should be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. Local planning authorities and county authorities also have a major part to play, as in some respects they are the experts in the immediate location of the exploration activities. The draft circular therefore emphasises that environmentally sensitive areas must be paramount at all times.
    Mr. Nelson: There will be widespread support for the report that my hon. Friend has circulated to local planning authorities, giving them guidance on the criteria that they should apply to such applications. However, is my hon. Friend aware that while those of us who represent areas of great sensitivity, including areas of outstanding natural beauty, wish to support the national interest, we have had representations from our local authorities to the effect that the report needs to be stiffened? It should explain exactly why onshore exploration is important in the national interest. It should give more figures and more reasons.
    Mr. Macfarlane: I can only advise the House on planning aspects. If my hon. Friend is anxious for details about onshore activities and the country's energy system, he will of course approach my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, the planning system allows the views of the public to be fully considered at all times. The local planning authorities represent the start of a rigorous process of appraisal.

Gibraltar
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the outcome of the series of meetings that I have had with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Sr. Moran, about Gibraltar.
At our most recent meeting in Brussels on 27 November, we reached agreement about the way to put into effect the terms of the Lisbon statement of 10 April 1980. I am arranging for a copy of yesterday's communique to be placed in the Library of the House. As a result of that agreement, the specific measures which I shall describe in a moment will be implemented by a date to be agreed, but not later than 15 February 1985.
From the date of implementation, direct communications between Gibraltar and Spain will be restored. This means that there will be free movement of people, vehicles and goods.
From the date of implementation, Spaniards in Gibraltar will enjoy those European Community rights which would otherwise become available only from the day of Spain's accession to the Community. From the same date, Gibraltarians in Spain will enjoy similar rights.
The legislative proposals necessary for this will be introduced in Gibraltar and in Spain. This arrangement does not affect the derogations and transitional periods which will have been agreed between Spain and the Community. These will of course be applicable to Gibraltar, in particular as regards the free movement of labour.
The range of matters to be covered will include freedom to enter and settle, rights of establishment and trade union rights, together with the right to provide a service and to purchase land and property. In addition, the Spanish Government have agreed that they will take the early actions necessary to allow safe and effective air communications within the air space in the region of Gibraltar.
On the day that communications are restored, the Spanish Foreign Minister and I will meet to begin the negotiating process envisaged by the Lisbon statement. That process will be aimed at overcoming all the differences between us over Gibraltar and at promoting cooperation on a mutually beneficial basis on economic, cultural, touristic, aviation, military and environmental matters. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, will, of course, accompany me to that meeting.
Sr. Moran has told me that the Spanish side will raise the issue of sovereignty in these negotiations, as they are entitled to do on the basis provided by the Lisbon statement itself. Yesterday's communique makes it equally plain that the British Government will fully maintain their commitment to honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution. That commitment stands unchanged. Sr. Moran, for his part, has made clear the importance that he, too, attaches to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
Sr. Moran and I agreed about the importance of establishing practical co-operation between the people of Gibraltar and the neighbouring region. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar has expressed the same view. This will be of
928
benefit to all sides. It will provide an important opportunity for Gibraltar's economy to develop and diversify.
This agreement marks the development of a new stage in relations between Britain and Spain, who are fellow NATO allies and prospective partners in the European Community.
Throughout this series of talks, I have kept in the closest touch with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan. I am most grateful to him for his consistently wise advice and support. In his statement yesterday, Sir Joshua Hassan said that he welcomed the agreement and believed that it will be beneficial to the people of Gibraltar. In his view, it will be a first step in the process of normalisation and fruitful co-operation between Gibraltar and the immediate vicinity for the benefit of all.
Sir Joshua Hassan described this agreement as an honourable outcome. I entirely endorse that judgment. I firmly believe that the agreement is in the interests of Gibraltar. The interests of Gibraltar and its people have always been, and will remain, of central importance to the British Government.
Mr. Denis Healey: I should like first to welcome the agreement on behalf of the Labour Opposition. It is a welcome step forward. However, I am bound to say that the concessions made by the Spanish Government are ones that they would have been obliged to make the moment they joined the European Community and undertook to make four-and-a-half years ago in an agreement with Lord Carrington. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the new feature of this agreement since Lord Carrington's discussions is the agreement by the Government to discuss the sovereignty of Gibraltar when negotiations begin after communications are restored? The Opposition welcome that commitment and believe that it might set an important precedent for other parts of the world, such as the Falklands, where it is necessary to link the reopening of communications with discussions on sovereignty.
Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we welcome the fact that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar regards the agreement as honourable. We welcome the Foreign Secretary's view, which was expressed at the end of his statement, that the interests of the people of Gibraltar must remain paramount.
Perhaps I could ask the Foreign Secretary a few detailed questions. First, can he tell us anything about how he sees the future of the dockyard in Gibraltar in the light of the new agreement? Secondly, what obligations will the Government accept for the pension rights of any Spanish employees who may take advantage of the new agreement at the appropriate stage to accept employment in Gibraltar? Finally, we regard this agreement as removing a serious obstacle to better relations between Britain and a democratic Spain. We hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government will now give powerful support to Spain's accession to the EC at the already agreed date.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome of my statement. I am glad to endorse the points on which he closed. We join the official Opposition in looking forward to Spain's early accession and will continue to give our full encouragement to the completion of the enlargement negotiations at the date already foreseen.

929
With regard to the general pattern of the agreement, it should be observed that what is now being afforded is an equality of arrangements on both sides. Both sides are agreeing to accelerate the rights that would become available on accession somewhat ahead of time. With regard to sovereignty, the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Lisbon statement specifically allowed any subject to be raised by either side and it was always foreseen that sovereignty was likely to be raised by the Spaniards in that context. Indeed, it had been raised before. It arises as a result of this implementation of the Lisbon agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman would be quite wrong to draw any parallel between this case and that of the Falkland Islands. They are historically, legally and constitutionally quite different. There is a complete contrast between the conduct of the two countries concerned — Spain and Argentina. Spain is an ally in NATO and a prospective partner in the European Community. Moreover, successive Spanish Governments have said publicly that they will pursue their claim by peaceful means. As I said in my statement, the Spanish Foreign Minister has spoken publicly of the need to respect the interests and the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. There could be no greater contrast between Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.
Arrangements in regard to the dockyard have already been announced to the House. On 1 January 1985, the Royal Naval dockyard will be replaced by Gibraltar Shiprepair Limited, which is a commercially managed enterprise with A. P. Appledore International Limited acting as managers. The land and assets for the commercial ship repair yard are being handed over free of charge. Earlier this year we announced that £28 million had been made available to the Gibraltar Government for disbursement to meet the initial costs of conversion. We also announced that during the first three years of operation of the commercial yard work to a value of at least £14 million would be provided by the Ministry of Defence on Royal fleet auxiliaries.
I understand that people on the Spanish side of the border who have previously been employed in Gibraltar are already drawing, or are entitled to draw, pensions. All these matters are receiving consideration, but at the moment I cannot be specific.
Sir Frederic Bennett: My right hon. and learned Friend will agree that in the past it would have been difficult for Gibraltar to keep going without Moroccan labour. Can he assure us that there will not be a dramatic cut-off in relation to Moroccans who already have jobs and without whose help it would have been impossible to keep the territory operating?
My right hon. and learned Friend's statement made it quite clear that the implementation of the Lisbon agreement was contingent on Spain's entry into the EEC on the hoped-for date in January 1986. If due to the influence of other powers—not Britain—that entry date is delayed, may we take it that it will not mean that the Spaniards will say, "Now we have not got in on January 1986 we are hack to the status quo ante and we start all over again."?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take my hon. Friend's point about a delay in the completion of the accession negotiations. The rights that would arise in those
930
circumstances could not, I think, be altered. Spain will join the European Community. The date has been fixed for the implementation of this agreement—not later than 15 February—and I see no reason to suppose that anything thereafter will alter that date or its effectiveness for all these purposes.
My hon. Friend also spoke of the need to respect the position of Moroccans who already work there. Spaniards and Moroccans in Gibraltar have thus far been treated in the same way as all other non-European Community nationals. So far as we are concerned, they have always been able to live and work in Gibraltar, and that will remain the position.
Dr. David Owen: The Foreign Secretary, Sr. Moran, and, indeed, Sir Joshua Hassan are to be congratulated on an extremely sensible and well-negotiated preliminary settlement. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is a vindication of the fact that the European Community is far more than just a trading arrangement, that it is a democratic institution and that it was inconceivable that Spain could have entered the Community while these restrictions existed?
In commenting on the differences between this case and the situation in the Falkland Islands, the Foreign Secretary has done less than justice to President Alfonsin of Argentina, who, after all, at some peril to his own life, was a critic of the aggression against the Falkland Islands—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a statement on Gibraltar.
Dr. Owen: But, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Secretary elaborated on that point in reply to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the spokesman for the Labour party. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not being fair to the democracy of Argentina and the statements of President Alfonsin about pursuing sovereignty through peaceful means. I hope that he will reconsider his statements, because they are damaging in the context of the situation in the southern Atlantic.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, but I must correct the emphasis which he sought to deploy in his latter remarks. An important difference now is that Argentina has an elected democratic government. We welcomed that fact when that Government took office. However, that is not the only factor that has to be taken into account. I drew attention to the much closer relationships which have existed and which will exist between ourselves, the people of Spain and the Spanish Government. That is apparent in the statements which they have made, which stand in sharp contrast to the simple and outstanding fact that Argentina—within a short time of 15 February two years ago—invaded and took possession of the Falkland Islands by force. That is an aspect of history which renders the whole matter vastly different. That is something that must be faced.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. An incidental reference to Argentina is allowable, but detailed references are not.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I must congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the diligence and diplomacy which he displayed in the many meetings with Sr Moran to arrive at the successful

931
conclusion which was announced in yesterday's communiqué. However what is the reason for the fixed date of 15 February 1985? Is it not possible to give expatriates and others the opportunity of visiting either Spain or Gibraltar during this year's festive season?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I would be disposed in principle to agree to anything which increased the prospects of festivity. The date which has been chosen takes into account the likely necessary time to carry through the introduction of the legislative measures that are necessary on both sides. It was clear that both sides wanted to move ahead as expeditiously as possible. The 15 February is a not-later-than date. If we can move ahead of it, so much the better. I fear that we shall not be able to do so in time for Christmas.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the agreement, on which I congratulate him, illustrates how it is possible to negotiate in perfect good faith with the present Spanish Government? Does he draw the further conclusion that one of our main purposes over the coming months must be to negotiate further, fully in accord with the people of Gibraltar and in consultation with them, to ensure that we strengthen democracy in Spain, which is one of the greatest achievements of recent times? Does he accept that this sort of agreement can assist?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the opportunity of agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. This sort of agreement negotiated in this way can assist in this process. The accession of Spain to the European Community, on which we are all working as hard as we can, will make a powerful additional fortification to that process.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Has not the trouble in recent years been the unreasonable treatment by Franco of Gibraltar? If Gibraltarians are able now to deal in a reasonable, just and friendly way with Spain, may they not eventually find it possible to live in a Spanish dimension without losing their own identity?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a question which in the end will have to be answered by the people of Gibraltar themselves. That is why we have underlined our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. My hon. Friend is right in saying that one of the consequences of the agreement should be an improvement in the prospects of co-operation between the people of Gibraltar and the people of the nearby part of Spain. That can do nothing but good in opening up the prospects for further co-operation between the two peoples.
Mr. John Hume: I, too, congratulate, the Foreign Secretary on the agreement. Does he agree that the issue of sovereignty becomes an obstacle to the resolution of larger and wider problems? He showed a welcome sensitivity to Spanish views on the subject by agreeing to have them on the table for discussion. Does he agree that the problem of Northern Ireland is far more serious than that of Gibraltar and that the issue of sovereignty—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hume: —is a major obstacle—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hume rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That was an abuse on the part of the hon. Gentleman and I am surprised at his action.
Mr. Hume: We have taken many abuses over the centuries, Mr. Speaker.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar until its people decide that with a free democratic vote?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position for the people of Gibraltar remains exactly the same as was stated in the 1969 constitution. It will be changed only if the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar point in that direction. We stand by that unchanged commitment.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Liberal party also wishes to congratulate him on the agreement, which is much in the terms set out by Sir Joshua Hassan, who I noticed attracted from the Foreign Secretary the quite unique tribute of being consistently wise? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the only aspect that will delay the agreement until 15 February is the necessary legislation in Spain and Portugal and that no other factors are relevant?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is the practical position. Obviously, having moved as we did in the past two days to reach the agreement, it was necessary to identify a date a reasonable period ahead, as soon as we could reasonably make it, and with a reasonable prospect of being able to complete all the necessary steps. It is a practical choice of a practical date and, as I have said, it is a not-later-than date.
Sir Bernard Braine: How does my right hon. and learned Friend envisage honouring the pledge that the wishes of the people of Gibraltar will be respected? Does he recall that 15 years ago the people of Gibraltar were given in a plebiscite the opportunity to declare whether they wished to remain under the Crown? Will he give a specific assurance here and now that at the appropriate time—and it may not be yet—the people of Gibraltar will be given the same right as they were given all those years ago?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have given the specific assurance reaffirming the proposition set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution that
"Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes."
There is no doubt about the wishes and feelings of the people of Gibraltar at the present time. That was established in a referendum some time ago. It may not be desirable to continue to test the temperature in that way. That will have to be considered by the Gibraltar Government. However, the principle that I have enunciated stands unqualified.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: While congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his achievements and welcoming his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), may I ask whether it follows from the communiqué that should the

933
Spanish Government raise the question of sovereignty, as they are entitled to do, any discussions of that matter will be academic?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that it would be right to reach that conclusion. The Spanish Government have stated on more than one occasion that they do not expect change in that respect, even on their own terms, happening at a fast pace. They have stated that they recognise the need to have regard to the wishes as well as the interests of the people of Gibraltar. In effect, they recognise that if the proposition contained in the constitution that I have just quoted is to be respected a process of persuasion on their part would have to be undertaken. All those are features which, realistically, they must take into account during the negotiating process.
Mr. Colin Moynihan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to welcome the friendly, realistic and, above all, constructive approach of the Spanish Government not only on this issue but on the talks about a new extradition treaty, on Spain's becoming a member of NATO and on its seeking early membership of the European Community?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to be able to say yes to that question. It is the prospect of making progress on, for example, the new extradition treaty that is encouraged by such an agreement. It is one of the practical illustrations of the benefits that can flow from such an arrangement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another statement to follow. I shall allow questions to continue on this statement for a further five minutes.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the unemployment and pension rights of Moroccans who prevented Gibraltar from collapsing when Franco's Government endeavoured to bring about its collapse by closing the frontier? Does he recognise that many people are extremely worried about what will happen to them? Without those Moroccan workers, there would have been a much heavier cash liability on the British Treasury to support Gibraltar. Does he agree that we have an ex-gratia obligation to ensure that some form of pension is provided for them when they are displaced as a result of these entirely excellent arrangements? I ask my right hon. and learned Friend not to neglect those matters because many hon. Members feel strongly about them.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. The pension rights of people who have been working in Gibraltar, whether Moroccan or Spanish under the previous disposition, depend to some extent on the schemes that have existed and that exist today. I shall certainly consider that point carefully.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is not the concession of sovereignty a surrender to blackmail? We have never before discussed sovereignty with the Spanish Government. What is to stop them from nibbling away at this issue, confident in the knowledge that the principle of a transfer of sovereignty has already been conceded? The Spaniards never observed the Lisbon agreement. Why does my right hon. and learned Friend think that they will observe this agreement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is wrong to say that the principle of sovereignty has now been conceded. The position remains the same as that arising from the Lisbon statement, except that the question of sovereignty can be raised. He is also wrong when he says that there is nothing to stop sovereignty from being conceded. My firm reaffirmation of the preamble of the 1969 constitution stops that. We shall continue to honour our obligations and respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
Mr. Peter Fry: Has my right hon. and learned Friend read this morning that a spokesman from the Spanish Foreign Office effectively said that the agreement meant that there would eventually be integration of Gibraltar into Spain? Does he accept that that is not inevitable? Will he note that a reason which may change Gibraltarians' opinion is a decline in their economy? Will he therefore accept that this country and the Government have a continuing responsibility that goes further than merely financing new ship repair yards?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have noticed many statements reported in today's press, including the proposition of the Spanish Foreign Minister, which underlines the fact that the Spanish Government have the greatest respect for the feelings of Gibraltarians. The possibility that we have wanted to avert by making this agreement is the risk of a decline in the economic prospects of Gibraltar. Nothing could do more than this agreement to promote improved prospects in that respect. The British Government will continue to follow closely economic developments in Gibraltar. We envisage that this agreement will assist the economy of Gibraltar to develop and diversify.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend, but I particularly congratulate the small Gibraltarian Government who may have considerable difficulties — hon. Members who know Gibraltar will recognise this—during the next two years with their economy in the new changed position. Will my right hon. and learned Friend promise to be behind that Government and, if necessary, to increase the subsidy to help them through this difficult period?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall continue to follow economic developments in Gibraltar closely, as we have done thus far. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about the nature of the problems that have been and are facing Gibraltar. The opportunity opening up on 1 January with the commencement of the dockyard under new management will make a positive contribution to the future. The prospect of economic co-operation opened up by the agreement will make an even more substantial contribution to the prospects for economic prosperity. We shall certainly keep the position closely under review.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the agreement is welcome evidence of the improving relationship between Britain and democratic Spain? Is he further aware that it is an important demonstration that the proper way for democratic states to resolve sovereignty disputes between them is on the twin bases of discussion and respect for the rights of those most intimately involved?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with both points.
Mr. Toby Jessel: As it is clearly established that it is the wish of the overwhelming majority

935
of Gibraltarians to stay British permanently, does not my right hon. and learned Friend believe that it would be rather unkind to allow Spain to delude itself into imagining that any change is likely at any time in the future?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even my hon. Friend must hesitate about asserting that any proposition is the permanent truth. What is true, without any qualification, is that the Spanish Government wish to raise the question of sovereignty, and that our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar remains firm, unqualified and as set out in the constitution.
Later—
Mr. Hume: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I was fortunate enough to catch your eye following the Foreign Secretary's statement on Gibraltar and I was grateful for that. I am somewhat puzzled, however, at what I regard as the inconsistency of your treatment of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and myself. When those right hon. Gentlemen raised what they regarded as analogous issues you allowed the Foreign Secretary to reply, but when I did the same you not only ruled me out of order but described my question as an abuse, which is, you will agree, rather strong language. I believe that I am entitled to raise an analogous issue, especially as I was making exactly the same point as the two right hon. Gentlemen — that the Government's policy on analogous issues is based not on principle but on expediency.
Mr. Speaker: Two abuses do pot make a right. After the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) raised the matter I pointed out that only an allusion could be made to the Falklands. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), however, persisted in making a rather long statement about Northern Ireland. The Foreign Secretary's statement had nothing to do with Northern Ireland. Gibraltar was the subject of the statement.
Mr. Hume: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No; we cannot have any further points of order on that.

Regional Industrial Policy
4.0 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Government's review of regional policy. I have today made four orders to bring into force the new regional development grant scheme and the new map of assisted areas. The orders, including that specifying the new assisted areas, are available in the Vote Office.
Our decisions have been taken after very full consultation, including consideration of almost 500 submissions. I have placed in the Library a list and a summary of the submissions received. The submissions received show considerable support for the Government's proposals as outlined in the White Paper. While the majority support the continuation of regional policy, many are critical of the waste inherent in the present system and consider it possible to make the policy more cost-effective.
To achieve greater cost-effectiveness we have concluded that the new map should have two tiers instead of three, and that the inner tier, which will qualify for automatic grants as well as regional selective assistance, will be restricted to 15 per cent. of the working population. This compares with 22 per cent. for the present development and special development areas. The outer tier of the map, which will qualify for regional selective assistance, will cover a further 20 per cent. of the working population. We have included in the new map several areas, most notably parts of the west midlands, that have previously been denied regional assistance. Both tiers will be eligible for support from the European regional development fund.
In redrawing the map we considered the present and future employment patterns of each area, along with other factors, including the risk of distortions where non-assisted areas are adjacent to assisted areas. Some such effects are inevitable in any regional policy. For the new RDG scheme we have set the rate of capital grant at 15 per cent. In our view, the new rate is high enough to ensure that grants are an effective incentive to investment.
For too long regional policy has unduly discriminated against service industries even when such industries offer the prospect of increased employment. We have, therefore, decided to make some service activities eligible for regional development grant. These are listed in the relevant order.
Since unemployment is such an important concern today, it is also right that any policy as expensive as regional policy should be tied more closely to jobs. We have already announced our intention to make two changes to give effect to that aim. First, capital grant will be subject to a cost-per-job limit. Too much money has been spent in support of capital-intensive projects that create few jobs and do little for the economies of the regions. The cost-per-job limit will be £10,000. However, we wish to minimise the burdens placed on small firms and this limit will not normally be applied to firms employing fewer than 200.
Secondly, we also announced that in future firms should be able to receive a job grant as an alternative to capital grant. The job grant will be set at a level of £3,000

937
for each new job created. Firms will not have to choose between job grant and capital grant: they will automatically receive whichever is the greater.
The Government also intend to continue to give selective assistance to projects that protect existing employment but which otherwise would not go ahead. With the increase in the outer tier of the map, this will mean an increase in selective assistance. Overall, the balance between automatic grants and selective assistance will shift considerably towards the latter.
After the working through of the transitional provisions, we expect the new regional policy to cost nearly £300 million per year less than if present policy were to be continued. This will be a considerable lightening of the public expenditure burden of the policy. Even so, we shall still be spending nearly £400 million on regional policy in 1987–88 to improve job prospects in the worst hit areas.
The most important feature of our policy is that money will now be spent in the areas with the worst problems and that, in terms of new jobs per pound of expenditure, the new policy will be far more effective than the old.
Mr. John Smith: Before I ask the Minister about the content of his statement, may I ask him what arrangements the Government propose to make to debate this important statement? Is he aware that, for hon. Members on both sides of the House, the detail in the orders will be the most important information that they can obtain, but they will not be able to comment on it today? Therefore, it is important to have an early debate on the principle and on the orders, and I hope that we can have more than one day.
Is the Minister aware that the truth behind his glib references to flexibility and cost-effectiveness is that the statement announces the end of effective regional assistance? Is it not disgraceful, at a time when unemployment in the regions has never been higher, that the Government have made a slashing reduction of £300 million a year, which represents £1·5 billion during five years, in the regional development budget? Is it not appalling that, although unemployment is much higher than it was when special development areas had to be created, the reduction in the regional development grant to 15 per cent. plus the other limits will mean that, effectively, special development areas will be abolished completely?
Does the Minister realise that this is the second major attack on the regional development system since the cuts of 1979 and 1982? There has already been a major reduction in assistance. Can he confirm that expenditure between 1974 and 1979 was £6·4 billion, which was reduced to £4·1 billion between 1979 and 1984, which is a reduction of 35 per cent. even before the changes that he has just announced? Why does the regional development programme have to shoulder further reductions that will go to the heart of its effectiveness?
Are not the limits of £10,000 a job on capital grants and the miserly £3,000 on job grants completely unrealistic, when it costs the Government £6,000 a year for every person who is unemployed? Do not the Government demonstrate that the so-called emphasis on job-oriented assistance is completely bogus? Are not the levels well below the permitted EC levels, and do they not put our
938
regions at a serious disadvantage within the Community, where we already have 10 of the 25 most disadvantaged regions?
Is it not the case that areas moving from special development area status and development area status to the outer tier will face a sharp and severe cut in the assistance that can be offered, which is bound to be a major blow to their hopes for industrial development and a major accelerator of local unemployment? Can the Minister state—the House will listen with care to his answer to this—the expected increase in unemployment as a result of the changes announced today?
Although the Opposition welcome the inclusion of parts of the west midlands within the ambit of the outer tier assistance, is it not sad that the collapse of manufacturing industry and the huge increase in unemployment in the west midlands, as a result of the Government's policies, are such that the west midlands must now be helped in this way? Although the core of Birmingham has 30 per cent. unemployment, why is not a single ward in the west midlands made a development area?
Is it not quite deplorable that the help to be given to areas now included in the outer zone of minimal assistance has to be at the expense of other areas which have had their help reduced? Is it not a case not only of cutting the jam but of insisting that the vastly reduced amount be spread as thinly as possible?
Much is made by the Government of the capital expenditure on the Sullom Voe oil terminal and some chemical projects. Could not a limit have been put on certain categories of expenditure by a simple exercise in reclassification without having to downgrade the whole system of regional development?
Why does the inclusion of services, which we welcome as an addition to the existing help for services, have to be at the expense of major cuts in support for main line manufacturing by the withdrawal of grants for replacement and much of the modernisation programme? Will tourists and hotels be covered in the service assistance? Whatever is the extension of services or of the map, surely it in no way makes up for the massive reductions elsewhere.
Is it not extremely foolish to compound the folly of the withdrawal by the Chancellor in his Budget of capital allowances through the withdrawal of grants for replacement and modernisation, which will have a major disincentive effect on industrial modernisation?
Do not the Government realise that the massive drop in investment in manufacturing industries since 1979 is at the heart of our troubles? Why are they encouraging it?
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it appropriate, in a matter as important as this, when there are many Back Benchers who have an interest, for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) to take all our time in this way?
Mr. Speaker: This is a matter that affects a great many right hon. and hon. Members. When I call Back Benchers, I must take into account the amount of time taken by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.
Mr. Smith: The House will realise that, however bland and short the Minister's statement might be, this is of tremendous importance to many areas that are suffering very high unemployment.

939
Is not the reality that the Government are signalling the end of regional development policies that have been pursued by Governments of all parties? How long are people in the regions to be condemned to high unemployment and low value added jobs because of the Government's obsessive determination to slash public expenditure to levels which will ruin the country?
Mr. Lamont: There will be a full debate on what I have announced today, though obviously the precise details of it will have to be arranged through the usual channels.
This is not the end of effective regional policy. It is the beginning of job-related and effective regional policy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman conceded that there had been a lot of waste in regional policy. He conceded, in relation to Sullom Voe, the expenditure of £130,000 for each job created. That is the problem that we have to tackle. We have tackled it by the cost per job limit and the requirement to create jobs. The cost per job limit and the requirement to create jobs account for half the saving that I have announced. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman against that?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Lamont: In that case the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in favour of the economies that he professed to want. He is in favour of £130,000 for each job at Sullom Voe.
There is room for economies when regional policy created new jobs in the 1970s at a cost of £35,000 each. Many of those jobs would have come into existence anyway.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the cost per job limit of £10,000 and suggested that that was too niggardly. It is about twice the level of the average capital intensity of investment in British industry. It will not deny the capital-intensive sector access to regional development grants.
As for the job grant, which has been fixed at a limit of £3,000, it is true that that could be slightly higher under the EC limit, at £3,150. We felt it prudent to be somewhat below that. The fluctuations of exchange rates could place us in a difficult position. But it is not a significant amount below the maximum.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of an abrupt cut-off. He should know that there are transitional provisions and that in the inner tier where people qualify for regional development grants, provided those assets are made available in the next 12 months, they will still qualify for them. There are generous transitional provisions.
As for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about Birmingham—I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will be referring to it—our review of the map has been based on the same principles as the map of the Labour Government. That was based on travel-to-work areas, and that is what we have done as well.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman condemned the taking out of replacement investment. That again is common throughout the EC. We are required to do it, and it was announced in the House before today.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether hotels and tourism would be included in the service activities. Obviously we gave this matter considerable
940
thought. After consulting the industry, we decided that we would not include them. It was made clear to us that most of them preferred to benefit from the national scheme under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, where they have their own money available for the development of tourism.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to get his facts right when he says that the decline in investment makes the timing of my announcement inopportune. Precisely the opposite is true. Investment in manufacturing is rising so strongly that we are able to make these savings. It is rising this year by some 14 per cent. or 15 per cent., which is the best rate seen for many years.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In relation to what I said a few moments ago, I would normally allow about half an hour for a statement and questions to the Minister making it. In view of the importance of this one I propose to allow questions to go on until five o'clock. I hope in that time to be able to call every right hon. and hon. Member seeking to catch my eye, but I ask for brief questions, please.
Mr. David Mudd: As a west country Member of Parliament, I listened with delight to my hon. Friend's statement. However, it seems that in tidying up the problems of west Cornwall he has created a far greater anomaly in the Truro travel-to-work area. One area, United Downs, which has encouraged massive input from the Department of the Environment and the Manpower Services Commission, is to be discouraged as a focal point for industrial development because it has fallen foul of a line on the map. I hope that I shall have my hon. Friend's assurance that these lines on the map are not mandatory and will be negotiable in the light of local circumstances.
Mr. Lamont: Much as I would like to oblige my hon. Friend, I fear that I am unable to give him that assurance. He will know that our building block for the assisted area map is, as it has always been, the travel-to-work area. That is based on common sense. People may argue about the formation of an individual travel-to-work area, but it makes sense, when the policy is aimed at reducing imbalances in unemployment throughout the country, to look at it in terms of areas where people, as statistically measured, travel to and from work. That is the basis of the travel-to-work areas, and that must be the only basis upon which a policy designed to iron out levels of unemployment can be established. Therefore, I am afraid that what my hon. Friend says about Department of the Environment money going into a smaller area does not undermine the basis of the policy. We have to stick to the basic building block of the system.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister not understand that, by his announcement today, he is excluding, not only from British but from European regional aid, some of the areas with the highest unemployment? Why did he stick to the travel-to-work area as a building block, when that has led to the inclusion within aid of some areas with low unemployment to the exclusion of areas such as Amble in my constituency, with the highest unemployment? Does he realise that this slap-dash map, drawn by somebody sitting behind a desk in

941
London, demonstrates that not only does he not care about the levels of unemployment, but that he does not even know where they are.
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he says about the European regional development fund. As a result of our changes, far larger parts of the country will qualify for access to the ERDF. The total map has been enlarged from some 27·5 per cent. to 35 per cent. The outer tier is now 20 per cent., compared with 5 per cent. before. Many areas will now qualify for ERDF assistance. That was one of our main motives in enlarging the outer tier.
Sir Raymond Gower: In pursuing that matter, has full account been taken of the fact that the regional development status of an area governs the likelihood of it obtaining EEC aid? What will be the impact of these changes on areas such as Wales?
Mr. Lamont: The position as I have just explained to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), is that many more areas will qualify for ERDF assistance. Of course, it depends on those individual areas being able to generate the projects themselves. As regards the effects on Wales, we had to make difficult decisions based on impartial criteria, and Wales has been treated fairly. Half the total savings are coming from England, one third from Scotland, and one fifth from Wales.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is there not a case for more help for many more parts of Greater Manchester than is proposed? Taking its population as a percentage of the north-west as a whole, should not Greater Manchester have higher priority? Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the city in Manchester there are male unemployment rates of over 50 per cent., and in some localities over 66 per cent. of young people under 25 on the dole? Does that not just speak but shout of the need for more help for Greater Manchester?
Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman says that inner Manchester has high levels of unemployment, which it has. He then goes on to say — I do not follow the "therefore" in his argument—that Greater Manchester should have assisted area status. The right hon. Gentleman should be grateful that Manchester has been partially included. I know what Labour Members are interested in. This is the only travel-to-work area that has been split. It is on the borderline of the 35 per cent. maximum coverage that we could have. We had to negotiate that with the EEC and we could not go beyond 35 per cent. To be frank, we are lucky that we have part of Manchester in, and there is not a strong case for saying that the whole of the Manchester area should be included.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that many people, who have never been included in development or assisted areas but who live in pockets of considerable unemployment, will be pleased to see that they will now be treated in the same way as most of the rest of the country? Therefore, from their point of view, this is an excellent statement. Will he make it clear that the intermediate areas that are not shown on the map and therefore are not clear will benefit from the European grants?
Mr. Lamont: The intermediate areas are listed in the order, and will qualify for ERDF. I am grateful for my
942
hon. Friend's first remarks, and he is quite right. Today we have done something that will lead to fewer anomalies, less job shuffling and fewer distortions
Mr. Michael Foot: How much of the alleged £300 million saving is attributable to the abolition of the special development areas? How much is attributable to Wales? What is the calculation in employment? Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that if this means any cut at all, he is hitting the areas that have already been hit hardest by the Government?
Mr. Lamont: I explained that half of the saving will come from the taking out of replacement investment and the requirement to create jobs. The rest of it comes from changes in the map and in the rate of grant. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are many changes in what I have announced today, compared with the previous map and system, and therefore it is extremely difficult to say precisely which saving is attributable to which particular thing. It is like comparing apples and oranges. They are different.
I do not accept that this will lead to more unemployment. The reverse is true. We are getting better value for money in terms of creating jobs. When we are spending so much money on regional policy, it must make sense to tie it more closely to the creation of jobs. What is the purpose of regional policy otherwise?
Sir Hector Monro: How are we to get regional infrastructure forestry grants if most of the United Kingdom afforestation is outwith the assisted areas?
Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend knows, only those areas that are assisted areas will qualify. As regards the European dimension, I have said repeatedly that it will be much easier for people to qualify because the map of the assisted areas is larger.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Minister has obviously been able to treat the Secretary of State for Scotland with the contempt that he deserved, with a cut of £100 million in the Scottish budget. However, does he not understand that the Scots will bitterly resent this despoliation and rape of their country, and being treated as a Third world colony? Furthermore, will the Minister take on board the fact that unemployment in Scotland is still increasing? Scotland has so far donated about £30 billion in oil revenues to the United Kingdom. How can he justify to the Scottish people this transfer of jobs and money to the English west midlands?
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman has an 18th-century attitude to these things. He thinks that money should be doled out on the basis of political pork barrelling and nothing else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall wait with interest to hear hon. Members' opinions, but the map has been drawn on the basis of objective criteria, and unemployment, long-term unemployment, job opportunities, industrial structure and peripherality, have all been taken into account. It is nonsense to say that Scotland has been badly treated. It is increasing its share of the inner tier, and maintaining its share of the outer tier.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that the fact that at long last some recognition has been paid to the problems of the west midlands by the application of schedule 2 of the order published today will cause some small cheer? We have tried to hammer home to the Government over the past

943
year or so that we have the highest long-term unemployment in Britain. Therefore, we think that the core of Birmingham, where we have lost 190,000 jobs, should be looked upon as schedule 1. How will the increased selective assistance be judged and by whom, because it will be important that Birmingham does not find itself losing business to Stratford and the more lush areas because they are also covered by schedule 2? Will he guarantee that he will not pay firms to move within the area so that people will get grants at Birmingham's expense yet again?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. In the past, regional policy has done great harm to the west midlands and has directed industry away from the west midlands and Birmingham. Even when Labour Governments were in power, unemployment in Birmingham was for many years higher than the national average, but they did nothing about giving it assisted area status. Although Birmingham has higher than the national average unemployment, this is the first time that it has been given any assisted area status.
We have also taken measures to prevent mere job shuffling within the assisted areas. That will mean that people will not be able to get grants merely for moving an operation from one assisted area to another, from one part of the Birmingham travel-to-work area to another, or from the inner tier to the outer tier. Mere job shuffling will not be possible.
Selective assistance will be determined by the West Midlands Industrial Development Advisory Board. It will take into account the special needs of the inner area of Birmingham. That is also properly the objective of the urban programme. Birmingham has a partnership area. No city in the United Kingdom receives more urban aid than Birmingham, which is receiving £24·5 million.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: It is bigger.
Mr. Lamont: All right—it is bigger, it has needs and it gets the largest amount.
Mr. Jack Dormand: Will the Minister confirm that this policy will almost certainly mean a reduction in assistance for the northern region? As the north has the highest rate of unemployment outside Northern Ireland, what possible justification can there be for this action? Is this not the best example we have yet had of so-called consultation being an utter sham? Is not the real reason for this action the desire for a reduction in public expenditure at any price in human terms?
Mr. Lamont: That is emphatically not the case. In fact, the northern region has done relatively well in this review of regional policy. Of course, there are savings coming from the northern region, but they are savings from the heavy, capital-intensive industries. Even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) admitted that there was a case for making those savings. His answer seems to be to exclude the chemical industry completely from regional development grants—to exclude the industry from the standard industrial classification. I do not believe that the chemical industry will like being completely excluded from obtaining access to regional assistance. We have applied the policy fairly
944
and objectively to all areas. Obviously, the northern region will have to have selective assistance rather than automatic assistance for the most capital-intensive projects. The region has been treated fairly.
Sir Paul Bryan: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has given some good criteria as the basis for his decisions? It is apparent that the only reason why Goole is not assisted is that it has been put into a travel-to-work area—as has Selby recently—which means that average unemployment has been reduced. Unemployment in Goole was just as high as in Scunthorpe and other places. I brought a delegation to my hon. Friend the Minister to explain to his Ministry that this is exactly what has happened.
Mr. Lamont: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. Obviously, many hon. Members are worried about the composition of individual travel-to-work areas. The travel-to-work areas are compiled by the Department of Employment on the basis of observed facts — how people travel and work. I know that sometimes people find it difficult to accept reclassifications, but they are conducted on the basis of objective criteria. They are based on how people work and live. The minimum requirement is that 70 per cent. of the people who work in an area should live in it and 70 per cent. of those who live in an area should work in it. The reclassification has been done objectively.
Mr. Bruce Milian: Is the Minister aware that every representative of Scottish organisations who has commented on the White Paper has said that the total of regional aid should not be reduced. That fact has been ignored, and the Minister has come here today with a statement that will cost £100 million in Scotland. Is he aware that this action will be devastating to Scotland? Given our record levels of unemployment, his statement is deeply offensive and an insult to the unemployed.
Mr. Lamont: That is very dramatic language — [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] Smaller amounts of money can be equally effective in creating jobs. Much of the money that was deployed previously was doing nothing to create employment. Sometimes, by subsidising the most capital-intensive projects, that money was doing the opposite and creating problems within areas. Many of the representations that we received stated that there was ample room for savings in regional policy.
Mr. John Corrie: I thank my hon. Friend for including my entire constituency in the special development area. Is he aware that, when he drew up this report last week, unemployment in my constituency was 31 per cent. and that a further 200 men at the steel works had been made redundant, pushing that level beyond 31 per cent.? Does he agree that the maximum amount of finance should be spent in such areas to reduce unemployment?
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Obviously, if a project in my hon. Friend's constituency qualifies for and is deserving of selective assistance, we shall consider it.
Mr. Roy Mason: Is the Minister aware that, during the past five years, there has been much investment in the coal industry in Barnsley and south Yorkshire, resulting in major technological changes underground and thousands of redundancies and lost job

945
opportunities? In these small, mono-economy coal-mining towns, it is obvious that the Minister has not taken that technological factor into account. He has not considered also the fact that, after the strike is over, the unemployment trends in those coal-mining towns will increase. There is an urgent need for a re-examination of his statement to give those towns the development status they will require to offset job losses in the pits and lost job opportunities
Mr. Lamont: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says. He must realise that we have to look at this matter overall. We must look in terms of not only of the unemployment throughout an area but where that unemployment has come from and the industries that have caused it. Decisions which have applied to the travel-to-work area in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency have been based on those statistics and the material available.
The right hon. Gentleman may know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy today announced a further increase in the money available for NCB industries to help alleviate the difficult problems caused by closures in these areas.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Although I welcome my hon. Friend's step forward, I had hoped for a much more radical approach. As unemployment is, unfortunately, a characteristic of the whole country, did my hon. Friend look at the benefits that could arise by decreasing industrial taxation as a method of creating jobs rather than leaving us with what is becoming an antiquated regional policy support system?
Mr. Lamont: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. We are attacked from one side of the House for having made far too savage cuts, but some hon. Members feel that we could have gone further and been a bit more radical. I noticed that a writer in The Times this morning —I hasten to say that I had nothing to do with the article—in a rather accurate guess about what would be announced today, thought that we could have had a much more radical policy and gone further. My hon. Friend is right to believe that many of the jobs that have come into existence through regional policy would have done so anyway. Much of the policy has involved just shuffling jobs around from one part of the country to another. By lessening or stopping that we are benefiting the whole country.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is this statement not the final confirmation, if it were needed, of the fact that the Conservative party has completely abandoned its commitment to the one-nation philosophy? Is not the bottom line of the Minister's statement the £300 million that will now not go to the regions? Does the Minister recall that during the debates on the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill I and other Opposition Members demanded that the Minister tell us the scale of cuts that would occur under that legislation? Despite denying it then, only weeks and months ago, the hon. Gentleman has delivered a statement cutting £300 million from the regions. That action will further polarise and divide the country. Is it not a scandal that this is a further hammer blow on the unemployed and poorer regions?
Mr. Lamont: At no time did I deny that there would be cuts in regional policy. The measure has been expected.
946
The hon. Gentleman is not paying attention to the proposals. We are making this policy much more job-related. In the past, the policy has not created jobs. About 500,000 jobs over 20 years at a price in excess of £30,000 per job is not many jobs to have created with this policy. During the past 12 years, £4 billion has been spent on RDGs. What do we have to show for it? Nothing. We cannot solve the unemployment problem by regional policy. We can solve it only through general economic policy—by getting interest rates and inflation down—and that is what this policy is designed to help.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this news comes as a great disappointment to my constituents and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). We find it difficult to know how my hon. Friend has interpreted the criteria he gave, particularly that of peripherality. In his statement my hon. Friend said that he would have to rely on areas to generate applications for European funds. By cutting from this scheme those who have great experience of the system and are able to do that, we could well be depriving the United Kingdom of substantial funds, particularly from the European Investment Bank, as we pointed out when we came to see him.
Mr. Lamont: I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety. She has fought hard for her constituency. However, with the criteria that we used—unemployment is only one of the criteria that come into play — it was difficulty to justify intermediate area status for the travel-to-work areas within her constituency. Her constituency will not be eligible for ERDF, but it is not right to say that the country generally will miss out on ERDF.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: And EIB.
Mr. Lamont: And EIB. The extension of the map and the changes we have made in the structure of the grant—the removal of replacement investment—will make it possible for us to obtain more money out of Europe not less. That was one of the considerations in our mind.
Mr. Laurence Cunliffe: How can the Minister justify the phoney and biased policy measures that he has announced today, which will result in cuts of £140 million over the next five years in the north-west region? Because of this Government's senseless economic policies, it is a region that has already lost 250,000 jobs since the Government came into power. Will he further confirm that the criteria mean that many skillcentres within the affected areas will have to close, thus confirming that the Government are not interested in producing potential technologists for the future growth industries of this country? Does he further agree that the criteria on which he bases the policy discriminate, because it is a financial imposition, against mostly working class and distressed areas?
Mr. Lamont: I do not accept that it will have the draconian and the drastic effect on the north-west that the hon. Gentleman suggests. One of the ways that the north-west could benefit from these changes is through the fact that we are extending the grants to services. That change should be welcomed in the House. It means that many activities where there is a prospect of a real growth in

947
employment and which have never had encouragement or benefited from regional policy in the past will now receive it.
Mr. Fred Silvester: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on walking carefully though this minefield? Although the north-west wants more public expenditure, it does not want ineffective public expenditure. I thank him for breaking away from the tyranny of travel-to-work areas in Manchester. However, is not the £10,000 capital limit rather low in terms of the number of jobs that can be provided by capital-intensive industries?
Mr. Lamont: I do not know whether I have tiptoed through the minefield. I think that I have hit one or two mines. But I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I agree that we do not want ineffective public expenditure. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about the treatment of Manchester. Manchester was the only TTWA to be treated in that way, for the special reason that I explained earlier. I said that the £10,000 will enable us to give automatic grants to projects that are double the rate of the average capital intensity in British industry. I do not believe that it is niggardly, but even if it were, it is still open to us to assist those projects with selective assistance in addition to automatic assistance. We are increasing selective assistance. There will be an increase of some 35 per cent. in selective assistance so, when the new scheme is fully operational, that will be available in addition to automatic grants. We shall have the discretion to aid projects when we believe that it is right to do so.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister accept that great resentment will be felt in my constituency about the fact that less money is being spent, although it is tempered by a little relief in Tameside and Denton that some of the assistance that they had under a Labour Government is being restored to them? The Stockport part of my constituency will be completely bewildered. It has the highest level of unemployment in my constituency. The Brinnington area has over 25 per cent. unemployment. Those areas have not been included. Will he study the boundaries, because it is crazy that the people who live in Denton will have the best chance to look for jobs in some of the development sites which are available in Stockport?
Mr. Lamont: As I have explained to many hon. Members already, the policy has inevitably been based on the travel-to-work area concept. As regards the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am sure that he will do his best to ensure that the maximum resentment is felt about the fact that less money is being spent on his constituency. I wonder whether he ever asks his constituents to consider whether money could be better spent rather than that more should be spent.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by my constituents in Bristol, because they are fed up with jobs being poached from Bristol, with Government assistance, and taken over the Bristol channel into Wales, and with the destruction of industry in Bristol by industry in Wales, again with Government assistance. Can we hope that in time we shall see an end to all the economic distortions that are caused by this type of assistance?
Mr. Lamont: I cannot go as far as my hon. Friend, but there will be less distortion. I know that there have been very strong feelings in Bristol about the effect of assisted area status and the poaching of industry and jobs. Bristol will plainly not be so badly affected in future.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Did the Minister even consider the case of the Isle of Wight? Does he appreciate the problems of an offshore island? Does he know that in some parts of the constituency male unemployment is over 30 per cent.? [Interruption] I lost a tooth this morning, that is the reason for that. Is the Minister aware that further redundancies are in the pipeline? What help can he offer, because we desperately need some assistance from the Government to restore our economy?
Mr. Lamont: Of course we studied the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I am afraid that the blunt truth is that on the objective criteria his constituency does not merit assisted area status.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Does the Minister accept that the figures he gave of saving £300 million and leaving a budget, as I understand it, of £400 million, represent a cut of virtually 50 per cent. in regional aid? That was never forecast. Why is the Minister so rigidly tied to travel-to-work areas for Birmingham, whose travel-to-work area now includes Stratford-on-Avon, which dilutes the unemployment figures? Has the Minister reneged on the commitment that he gave last week to visit Birmingham and see for himself the inner core area where 300,000 people live? On his Department's figures, that is now the largest centre of concentrated urban deprivation in this country — bar none. His statement completely ignores the position in Birmingham, and if I were a Tory Back Bencher, I should resign the Whip tonight because the Government have failed to help Birmingham.
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman might be trying to convey a message to someone. The figures that the hon. Gentleman gives about the cuts are correct. The figure will be cut from £670 million to £400 million in 1987–88. We believe that that cut is justified and sensible. As regards the problems of the inner city of Birmingham, I have already explained that the area has partnership status, and the urban aid programme is designed specifically to deal with those inner city problems. Birmingham is receiving over £24·5 million to deal with it. The Birmingham area as a whole does not qualify for inner tier status on the basis of unemployment; 21 per cent. of the country has worse unemployment than the Birmingham travel-to-work area. It is a fact that 21 per cent. of the country has unemployment worse than the whole Birmingham travel-to-work area, and we cannot, any more than the previous Labour Government did, depart from the travel-to-work area principle.
Mr. Roger Gale: Will my hon. Friend recognise that in Thanet, in the south-east, I represent the travel-to-work area with the highest unemployment rate not included in an assisted status area? We believe that in that area we can create employment through private enterprise and private investment, but we cannot do it with one hand tied behind our back.
Will my hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members believe that in thanking him for what he has done today we must take the opportunity to remind him that he

949
has gone nowhere near far enough? Instead of regional aid, we should like to see sectoral aid, which would help industry nationwide.
Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend said. He will appreciate that we have moved a long way from the principle of giving automatic assistance. We have moved towards meeting the suggestion made by many of my hon. Friends that we should have not sectoral aid but more discretionary aid, rather than automatic aid. We have moved a long way in that direction.
At present, 65 to 70 per cent. of regional aid is automatic and the rest is discretionary. When the new scheme is established, the proportions of automatic and discretionary aid will be about fifty-fifty.
My hon. Friend's constituency can also be helped by section 4 money for tourism. We shall do all we can to see whether there are projects in his constituency worthy of support.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Is the Minister aware that on Merseyside and no doubt elsewhere there will be deep disappointment in the construction industry? If the Minister is serious in wanting to apply aid to the creation of jobs, he can do no better than encourage the construction industry.
Will the Minister speak to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the utter failure of partnership policies in the inner city of Liverpool, which has been deprived of most of the regional aid so far given to Merseyside?
Will the Minister look again at the boundaries of the new Merseyside development area, which takes in large parts of rural north Wales and Cheshire?
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair. Merseyside emerges relatively well from the changes that have been announced. Liverpool retains its SDA status and the partnership—[Interruption.] I mean its DA status—its inner tier status. It will also qualify for selective assistance. Merseyside and the adjoining areas have done relatively well out of the package.
Mr. Tony Speller: Will my hon. Friend accept, as I have always done, that development status in its various forms has depended first on employment and secondly on location? If so, why has he permitted the Department of Employment to massage figures so that areas in the west country and in places such as Ilfracombe, with 35 per cent. unemployment, are merged with larger areas, and all of them losing their status?
Can my hon. Friend give any reasoned explanation why those areas on the periphery of Britain which do not have the rateable values to finance their own infrastructure are to be left wholly destitute of Government funds, in aid of I know not what—except perhaps the game of pass the parcel?
Mr. Lamont: I appreciate my hon. Friend's disappointment, but 35 per cent. of the country will still be covered by assisted area status. I do not think that it would make any sense to raise that percentage to 40 or 45 per cent. It would be nonsense to have almost half the country covered by assisted area status. Even taking account of its location and of peripherality, it is difficult to make out a case for the travel-to-work area which covers my hon. Friend's constituency.
950
I appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings about the composition of the travel-to-work area. [Interruption.] Of course it was not a fiddle. He will appreciate that some changes in travel-to-work areas are of benefit to people in qualifying for assisted area status, and some are not. Inevitably, there are both winners and losers.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How can the Minister say that jobs will not be lost as a result of the cuts when British industry is to lose £300 million out of its budget each year?
Mr. Lamont: It will not be lost, because the policy will be aimed much more specifically at the creation of jobs. British industry will benefit from the strengthening of our financial and economic policies which results from the package.
Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed in Greater Manchester, specifically in regard to ending the unfair and discriminatory system which previously operated?
I thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues for having listened to the representations made to them by industry, trade unions and the local authority concerning Trafford Park. His help is much appreciated.
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the inner area will also continue to qualify for support from the Department of the Environment.
Mr. Bernard Conlan: Will the Minister tell the House how he will ensure that the £10,000 capital grants will lead to what the Prime Minister used to describe as real or permanent jobs, as against transient jobs? Will he abandon the nauseating charade that the exercise has anything to do with jobs? It is related to cuts in public expenditure.
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right in speaking of a £10,000 capital grant. It is a capital grant on which there is a £10,000 cost per job limit.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we shall ensure that the jobs last. The normal provisions that applied previously to regional development grants in regard to the recovery of grants will apply.
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that it is a charade and nothing to do with creating jobs. We made it clear in our White Paper that we felt that it made no sense that the large sums of money employed on regional policy — and they are large sums — were not related specifically to the creation of employment. What else is the purpose of the policy?
Mr. Keith Raffan: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 90 per cent. of the Welsh people will be covered by some form of assisted area status? Will he also confirm that, contrary to the Opposition's assertions, the levels of grant will still be quite sufficient to attract internationally mobile investment?
Mr. Lamont: Taking account of the activities of the Board for the Development of Rural Wales, a large part of Wales will be covered and eligible for assistance of one kind or another.
We shall be able not only to give automatic regional development grants for inward investment. We shall be able to award selective assistance on top of those to attract the internationally mobile projects that we want here.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Minister aware that there is such an area as west Yorkshire? Apart from Bradford, he seems to think that it does not exist. Is he aware that in the past three years there have been eight colliery closures in west Yorkshire?
Is the Minister aware of the very serious situation that has developed in the Castleford travel-to-work area? I think that he must be, because I have frequently drawn it to his attention. There appears to have been a complete fiddle on the reassessment of the boundaries, because the rural areas have been included to cover up the black spots in the travel-to-work areas. That has happened in Castleford. We enjoyed intermediate area status prior to 1981. As the situation is now much worse than it was then, why have we not qualified?
Mr. Lamont: Both the travel-to-work area and our decision on it were based on objective criteria, taking into account occupational structure, long-term unemployment and industrial change.
The hon. Gentleman says that the travel-to-work area is too large, but it is related to where people live, where work is available, and where they travel to work. That was the building block used by the previous Labour Government for regional policy.
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I deeply regret that my hon. Friend has not paid more heed to the devastation caused in Birmingham by unemployment. In dealing with Manchester, why has he used a different basis of adjudication? Does he realise that the policy of including the travel-to-work areas in the west midlands' will mean including Stratford-upon-Avon, Sutton Coldfield, Solihull, Redditch and other areas where equal external investment can be drawn from abroad into Birmingham?
What does my hon. Friend propose to do to overcome the problem? Unemployment in the area has risen in the past 13 years by twice as much as in Wales and Scotland put together. What instructions will he give to the industrial advisory body that he mentioned to look particularly at the inner areas of Birmingham and other large cities?
Mr. Lamont: The case of Manchester raises a different question from that of Birmingham. The question about Manchester was simply whether part of it could qualify for outer tier status. As I explained, we were absolutely on the margin of the 35 per cent. that would have been approved by the European Commission and we had the prospect of getting only part of Manchester in. It was a question only of whether part of it could qualify for outer tier status, whereas what has been said in respect of Birmingham is that a large part of the central core should have qualified for inner tier status, which would be a different matter. With regard to what we shall do to try to secure inward investment, I shall ensure that the West Midlands Industrial Development Advisory Board takes account of the special problems of the inner core of Birmingham. I shall ensure that there is the closest possible co-operation between my Department and the Department of the Environment. Of course, the strong support from the Department of the Environment in dealing with the problems of inner Birmingham will continue.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: This is a black day for the regions of the United Kingdom—
Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?
Mr. Beith: I should like to ask you humbly, Mr. Speaker—with no vested interest—on behalf of many hon. Members, whether you agree, given that the business to follow the statement is open-ended and can go on to any hour, that there should be further time for questions on the statement.
Mr. Speaker: I fully realise the importance of this matter. The House has heard the Minister say that there will be a debate on it. Motions have already been tabled in respect of several of the orders and there will be further opportunities to discuss the matter. I shall bear in mind the right hon. and hon. Members whom I have not been able to call during questions on the statement. I have given slightly over an hour to it, which is more than double the normal time. I think that in fairness to the succeeding business we should move on.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am taking the point of order from the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr. Williams: Will you confirm my impression, Mr. Speaker, that towards the end of the statement over 40 Members were still trying to catch your eye? If you confirm that, may I, through you, draw that fact to the attention of the Leader of the House and ask whether it is regarded as confirming our request that more than one day should be given to a debate on this subject?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: All right. Let us have all the points of order together.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, you did not manage to call any Member from the black country. This is an area that suffers the most serious social deprivation imaginable and I must express my surprise that not a single black country Member was called.
Mr. Duffy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that not one Member from Sheffield was called? It is a great city, and it is covered by the statement. We know that the Government are exercising a policy of political vengeance against Sheffield. I know that you would not risk being thought a party to that policy, but the overlooking of Sheffield is a repeated occurrence on such occasions in the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that after questions and answers on the statement have finished we shall move on to the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill, and that the chances are that, if Second Reading is anything to go by, the House will be occupied by 20 Members at the most and that for the votes there will be about 120 against 14, and that the Bill itself is nothing more than a dog's dinner, would it not make sense—just a little sense — to give another half an hour to allow hon.

953
Members to make their points? I have not been rising in my place because I have been to another meeting, exercising some influence there—[interruption.]—rather successfully. I may add. Therefore, it does not really matter whether we lose half an hour from the Committee stage of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill. Let us get on with this very important matter.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your difficulty on such an occasion. It is exceedingly difficult. I never question whom you call, and I do not mind not being called, but today several Members from Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester were called, but hon. Members representing Stoke-on-Trent, the most neglected and deprived industrial city in Great Britain, have not been called. I submit to you with all respect, Mr. Speaker, that an opportunity should have been offered to Members representing Stoke-on-Trent to express their point of view.
Mr. James Wallace: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your difficulty but there is a particular point that Members from the north of Scotland wish to put to the Minister about the Highlands and Islands Development Board area. I appreciate that perhaps you were not to know that there might be a peculiarity in that, but if the time for questions were extended, that point might be elucidated by the Minister.
Mr. Robert C. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said that no one from the black country had been invited by you to take part in questioning the Minister. Is it not a fact that every hon. Member who has been called represents part of a very black country today?
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would also be helpful if you called members from the city of Leeds. No one from Leeds has been called, and there are points that we should like to raise. It seems that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome the opportunity of a few more minutes on the statement, so that they could question the Minister.
Mr. Speaker: I fully appreciate the feelings of hon. Members who have not been called. There are about 650 hon. Members in the House. If we take away 100 members of the Government, that leaves 550, and it is literally impossible to call every hon. Member. With regard to the succeeding business, I must say in fairness to Northern Ireland Members that they are as much Members of the House as anyone else.
Mr. Skinner: They do not want the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is rare for Northern Ireland Members to have the opportunity of debating early in the day. I think that the House should take that into account.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: This is a black day for the regions of the United Kingdom. Is the Minister aware that nothing that was said today changes the simple fact that the Government have dealt a mortal blow to regional policy? Not satisfied with the reduction in regional assistance of 35 per cent. compared to assistance under
954
Labour Administration, the Government have today chopped a further £300 million per annum from regional assistance. Will the Minister confirm that that is a 42 per cent. cut in the present reduced level of regional assistance and an enormous reduction of 77 per cent. since the Government came to office?
Is the Minister aware that behind the beguiling and specious propositions of cost-effectiveness and a greater link to jobs lies the stark truth, the harsh reality. that all that the Government are interested in is a reduction of public expenditure? The map of the outer tier areas has been widely drawn to enable eligibility for European funds. We welcome that. However, other areas have been downgraded and the Minister will be under no illusion about how deeply that will be resented in the House and the country.
Does the Minister not realise that European funds are no E1 Dorado for the United Kingdom regions? The ERDF will account for only 5·6 per cent. of the EC budget this year while the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC budget this year is equivalent to the total ERDF regional assistance.
Some areas are to be designated which were not designated before. The west midlands is a welcome, if limited example. Nevertheless the inner core of Birmingham, with 230,000 people—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is about to ask a question. This not a debate.
Mr. Robinson: I am asking the Minister why the inner area of Birmingham with 230,000 people and 30 per cent. unemployment is not included in the inner core.
Is the Minister aware that his statement marks the end of regional policy as developed by successive Governments but that a Labour Government will renew regional policy and rebuild the regions of this nation?
Mr. Lamont: In Committee on the Bill which put in place the structure for the detailed announcements made today, the Opposition admitted that many worthwhile savings could be made, especially on heavily capital-intensive projects. Those form a large part of the savings that we now intend to achieve.
The ERDF is significant for regional policy and we hope to get about £300 million per year out of it.
This is not the end of regional policy. It is the start of a more cost-effective, more job-oriented regional policy. We believe that, pound for pound, we can get more jobs and better value for money.

Regional Industrial Policy

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for FRIDAY 14 DECEMBER
  Members successful in the ballot were:
  Mr. Roland Boyes
  Mr. Andrew Hunter
  Mr. Francis Maude

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of Regional Policy as it affects Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration. — [Mr. Durant.]

Orders of the Day

  Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 20 November]
  [MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

  Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill
    Clause 1

      VOTERS TO PRODUCE PRESCRIBED DOCUMENTS
      5.15 pm
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 2 and insert
      'in any case where the provisions of Rule 35, as amended by this section apply, unless the presiding officer decides, after taking into consideration any document produced to him, that there is no reasonable doubt that the voter is the elector or proxy he represents himself to be.'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
      No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
      '(1B) With a view to reaching his decision under the foregoing paragraph, the officer or clerk may invite the voter to produce to him a prescribed document or more than one prescribed documents and shall, if the voter complies, take that document or documents into consideration in reaching his decision, without prejudice to consideration of any other evidence which the voter may produce'.
      No. 24, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
      '(2A) The following shall be inserted after rule 36 (challenge of voter)—
      "(36A) At the time a person applies for a ballot paper, a candidate or his election or polling agent may require the presiding officer or clerk to produce to him any document which that person has produced to the presiding officer or clerk under the foregoing provisions of this section.".'.
      No. 26, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
      '(2A) The following shall be inserted after Rule 35(3)—
      "(4(A)) The presiding officer may, and if required by a candidate or his election or polling agent shall, require any person applying for a ballot paper at the time of his application, but not afterwards, to produce to him a prescribed document.
      (4(B)) Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph the presiding officer shall be entitled to take into consideration any document produced to him by the person, which is not a prescribed document but appears to the presiding officer to be relevant to the question whether the person is the elector or proxy he represents himself to be.".'.
      Mr. Powell: As the House, or what is left of it, proceeds to address itself with joyous anticipation to spending the whole of the remainder of today's sitting until the early hours of tomorrow morning on legislation for Northern Ireland, it is perhaps permissible to remind or inform hon. Members that this arises from no wish of hon. Members representing the Province but from the practice of successive Administrations, which still belatedly persists, of seeking to treat Northern Ireland separately and in isolation from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is as a result of that fact that a day of parliamentary time which other hon. Members might think could have been better used is not available for their purposes.
      Your perspicacity, Mr. Walker, has noted that amendment No. 26 and amendment No. 25 form a single proposition. In your wisdom, you have also grouped
      956
      amendments Nos. 3 and 24 with those amendments. You will be aware, however, that they raise substantially, if not entirely, different issues. I hope, therefore, that you will agree to my dealing with them separately in my speech and that you will accept a formal application at this stage for amendments Nos. 3 and 24 to be called separately for Division when the time comes in view of the fact that they raise substantially different issues.
      The Chairman: Is the right hon. Gentleman asking for two Divisions or just one Division on amendments Nos. 3 and 24?
      Mr. Powell: I was being greedy, Mr. Walker. Both amendments involve separate issues germane to themselves. I hoped, therefore, that you would be willing to allow them to be called for Division in due course.
      The Chairman: It might be sensible for me to see how the debate goes and to reach a decision in the light of that.
      Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Walker.
      Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 represent a serious attempt by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself within the general scope of the Bill to meet the two major difficulties that the legislation presents. One is a constitutional difficulty and the other a practical one.
      The constitutional difficulty is that the Bill as it stands creates a new qualification, in Northern Ireland only, for the exercise of the franchise. If the vote can be exercised only on production of a specified document whether or not there be any real doubt as to the identity of the voter asking for it, the legislation in effect creates a new and additional condition for the franchise being exercised at all in that part of the United Kingdom. The fact that it is specific to just one part of the United Kingdom will no doubt arise later in our deliberations when we reach the debate on clause 7 stand part.
      Our other objective in framing the amendment is of a practical nature. We fear that this requirement imposed automatically on every voter, irrespective of the circumstances and irrespective of the fact that the vast majority of voters are not merely who they represent themselves to be but are well known to be such persons, will not only cause resentment and loss of votes at many polling stations in Northern Ireland but will result in congestion of proceedings at the polling stations, which itself will cast discredit on the validity of the results of any election. We have therefore sought—within the general concept of the Bill, and accepting for the purposes of these amendments the concept of prescribed documents—to make amendments which will meet both the constitutional and the practical difficulty. In short, what we propose is that it should be competent for the polling agent to insist, and open to the presiding officer in his discretion to decide, that the presiding officer should demand one of the prescribed documents from a voter as regards whom the question has been raised whether he is the person shown on the electoral register. Upon that challenge being made, or that doubt being entertained by the presiding officer, the document would have to be produced. Otherwise, the suspected voter would not be issued with a ballot paper. A ballot paper would be issued only if the presiding officer, decided that there was no reasonable doubt that he was the voter indicated in the electoral register.
      This is a procedure to which we on this Bench do not come fresh. On Second Reading the Minister referred to

      957
      certain consultations which had taken place earlier, and in particular to propositions put forward in the spring of 1982 outlining the thoughts which at that time were unformed in the Government's mind but which eventually led to the drawing up of the Bill. He suggested—by, I think, an unintentional error—that the proposition of prescribing mandatory documents had been accepted on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party.
      It might therefore be right for me to put on record what we actually said in a letter written to the former Secretary of State by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on 6 July 1982. I do so not in order to trespass upon the patience of the Committee, but because my right hon. Friend's words expressed very precisely the arrangements which in the amendments we are trying to introduce into the Bill. My right hon. Friend wrote:
      "It is already, in our belief, the duty of the presiding officer not to issue a ballot paper except to a person who he is satisfied is an elector specified on the register who has not received a ballot paper already…We consider that presiding officers should be fortified with advice from the Secretary of State as to the manner in which they should be so satisfied. We do not consider this advice need be given in the form of law."
      We are therefore pressing an amendment which is entirely in line with the advice that we tendered to the Government when consulted on this question some two and a half years ago.
      As regards our proposal that the polling agents should be given the new right and function of challenging the production of documentary evidence if they are in doubt as to a voter's identity, it is interesting that the previous Secretary of State wrote to my right hon. Friend on 10 March 1983 as follows:
      "The presiding officers will be reminded of the importance of confronting suspected personators and the RUC stand ready to make arrests and prevent intimidation"—
      that is a matter that we shall consider in relation to later amendments—
      "but they cannot act"
      the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the law as it then existed and now exists—
      "until polling agents challenge."
      That is what we propose in the amendment, in connection with the documentary procedure. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
      "I appreciate that this is sometimes difficult because of the risk of intimidation in certain areas, but it appears to me that the presence of polling agents in areas where personation is likely to be most prevalent, together with vigorous challenging of suspected personators, should make a substantial difference."
      It cannot, therefore, be argued that our amendment throws upon the personation agents, as they are called, or polling agents, in certain areas of the Province or in general, an unreasonable onus. On the contrary, it is useful because it does not deprive the presiding officer entirely of discretion. It nevertheless shields him from the direct imputation of any partisanship — of picking on a particular elector to require that he should produce a prescibed document.
      We ask the Government at this stage most sincerely and carefully to consider whether they need to incur the risks of fouling up the electoral process at forthcoming elections, and whether they need to perpetuate the addition of a new qualification for elections in one province only of the United Kingdom, when the alternative is as acceptable and as practicable a procedure as is set out in the amendments.
      958
      I will not seek to gild the lily but will invite the Minister —who has, I believe, had a day or two to study the amendments—to address his mind without prejudice to the possibility of following this course of action.
      I appreciate that the amendment removes the automatic necessity of a prescribed document in the case of every voter. I make no apology for that, because it is that universal mandatory requirement of a prescribed document which in our view creates the two serious points of criticism, constitutional and practical.
      To my right hon. and hon. Friends, that is the major point in these amendments. I now move on to consider amendment No. 3, which deals with the situation when the presiding officer is presented with a prescribed document which does not perfectly match the circumstances of the elector whom the voter represents himself to be. I am afraid that this has become the Upper Bann case in the course of our debates, because of the lamentably out-of-date condition of the medical card which it might fall to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) in such circumstances to produce as a condition of exercising his franchise and being able to vote for himself.
      In response, we have been told that the presiding officer would use his common sense. That is the phrase which has more than once fallen from the Minister's lips. We asked what common sense embraces. The result was far from satisfactory. The Minister said at one stage that of course the presiding officer would know my hon. Friend by sight, and would therefore give him his ballot paper despite the fact that the prescribed document showed the wrong address. That is not satisfactory, because there might be someone in exactly the same situation as my hon. Friend, but who had recently moved from another part of the Province or the United Kingdom and was therefore not so well known to the presiding officer.
      Another situation might arise which falls within the scope of common sense but which we believe should be specifically recognised and legislated for in the interests of fairness and of the proper guidance and control of the actions of the presiding officers. Let us suppose that the elector comes along with a prescribed document which, on the face of it, could raise some doubt. The address, for example, might be out of date. The elector has provided himself with the means of rebutting any doubt which such a defect might raise—he has in his pocket, among other things, a rent demand and some letters that have been addressed to him at his new address. He might even have a polling card which shows his name against the new address. As we read the clause, it would not be in the power of the presiding officer to use his common sense and to take note of the extra documents provided by the voter, however genuine the voter might be or however relevant those extra documents might be to the point at issue. As we read the clause, the presiding officer will be obliged to say, "No. I am looking at the document and it is not good enough and you will not get your vote."
      5.30 pm
      We do not believe that that is satisfactory legislation. We believe that it should be relaxed in the mariner suggested in amendment No. 3, which would permit the presiding officer to take into account another document or other documents, and to consider other evidence which the voter might produce. Surely, if this matter is to be governed by common sense, and if we do not want persons

      959
      openly acknowledged to be the elector purported to be deprived of their ballot, we have to give some such specific discretion to the presiding officer. Let not the Minister say, "Oh, that would expose the presiding officer to all kinds of intimidation and complaints of partiality," because we are already inviting him to come to a reasonable conclusion. Yet, on the face of the wording of the clause, we are depriving him of the means by which any reasonable man would seek to arrive at a reasonable conclusion on the basis of the prescribed documents which were presented to him.
      Perhaps this result could be achieved more economically and deftly by other drafting than that which appears on the Order Paper. I hope that the Minister will be able to recognise that there is a difficulty here and that the nature of the common sense which he invoked on behalf of the presiding officer should be more precisely defined in the wording of the clause. I understand that we have another stage of the Bill to come and that there will be an opportunity for this matter to be considered further. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give further attention to the wording of clause 1(2)(1B) to avoid apparently exclusive attention to the document which is enjoined by it.
      That leaves me with amendment No. 24, the subject of which is essentially different. It in no way involves the amendment, about the acceptance or otherwise—either of the wording or of the principle—of which I have just been addressing the Committee. It is a separate point which stands in its own right. It is that the polling agent —I say the polling agent, but technically the candidate and his election agent are all always included in these functions—may have a sight of a prescribed document which is produced under the terms of the Bill. I ask you, Mr. Walker, to envisage the circumstances in which the polling agent is convinced, from his own personal knowledge, that the person asking for the ballot paper and producing the prescribed document is not the elector whose name appears on the electoral roll. The prescribed document is produced and the presiding officer, without apparently batting an eyelid, proceeds to hand out a ballot paper to that elector. It seems perverse that we should leave matters in that condition and that the polling agent ought not to be able to say to the presiding officer, "Sir, I demand the right to see the prescribed document which has been produced to you." It might well be—in the majority of cases it would no doubt be—the case that there was no ground for reasonable doubt on the face of the document.
      Alternatively, there is the case in which the presiding officer rejected a document presented by a person whom the polling agent well knew to be Mrs. So-and-so, whose name appeared on the register. Surely it would be right for him to say to the presiding officer, "I should like to have a look at that before you make your decision to refuse a vote to Mrs. So-and-so." It is an invidious position in which the Bill as it stands places the presiding officer. He is faced with a document that no one else can see and of which nobody else has any notion. They do not know which of the prescribed documents it is. With that and nothing else in front of him he says, "Go away. I shall not give you a ballot paper." Alternatively, he hands over the ballot paper with no possibility of challenge. That cannot be regarded as reasonable and I therefore hope that the
      960
      Minister will consider that the case for giving polling agents access to the evidence of on which a voter is identified or not is logical and that to concede it would make the duty of the presiding officer under this legislation less difficult than we apprehend that it might otherwise be.
      Mr. William Ross: I find it strange and rather sad that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), whose party is alleged to have suffered most in recent elections from vote-stealing by Sinn Fein, should be absent from the debate rather than here to ensure that, through a much improved Bill, he will not suffer in that way again.
      It is alleged that most of the vote-stealing takes place in relatively small areas, that in those areas it is highly organised and that it is extremely difficult to stop. We have already been through most of the arguments about that, but there is no harm in preaching a good sermon a second, third or fourth time in the hope that the Minister will have borne in upon him the fact that those of us who have experienced these things and have had to be on our guard against them know rather more about it than most of those who read only the newspapers in offices and try to formulate ideas and practices that will defeat the people who do these things.
      Some of us are so anxious about what the Government have proposed precisely because of our personal knowledge. We are therefore keen to improve the Bill. So far, the Government have been decidedly reluctant to listen to the real experts. They have preferred to listen to what I describe, with the greatest respect, as interested amateurs. We who have suffered and been engaged in preventing these things believe that what the Government have proposed will not do the job. We are therefore most anxious that amendments such as those which have been proposed be accepted and that the problems of vote-stealers be much increased.
      This group of amendments attempts to identify an applicant for a ballot paper as accurately and as quickly as possible. There is no point in having a system which, because of snags, snarls up the process, leads to long delays and, if not in the first election then in later ones, would double or treble the number of boxes required for a corresponding increase in the number of officials. Sometimes it is difficult to obtain a sufficient number of officials to man the polling stations and to ensure that everyone entitled to vote gets a ballot paper and is able to do so.
      The difficulty of identifying the individual according to the name on the electoral register will arise again and again in our debates. Even if we do not convince everyone in the Department, I believe that by the time we end those debates we shall have convinced the Minister, who I think is fairly well convinced already, that we are not that wide of the mark.
      As well as trying to identify the applicant as quickly and as easily as possible—and trying to make the voting procedure as quick and as simple as possible—we are trying to give some discretion to the various officials involved. That discretion is completely wiped out by the Bill, and it is necessary that they be given some freedom to act. They simply do not have that freedom at present. We are asking for an increase in the power of polling agents simply because we who have had long experience of these matters see them as one of the principal factors

      961
      in the front line. They are the infantry down in the trenches, fighting the battle and doing their best to stop the evil practices that are now occurring.
      Our amendments propose a system that will avoid the considerable danger in the Bill of denying ballot papers to thousands who are entitled to them, but are barred from receiving them only because of the severe restriction on the number of prescribed documents. The Government are as anxious as we are to stop this malpractice, but are surprisingly reluctant to take the vital steps that are necessary to achieve that. In the absence of an identity card, nothing will beat local knowledge. People who live in the area, be it town or country, who know their neighbours and a large proportion of the electorate, are best able to stop such malpractice.
      Only those willing to accept this job will act as polling agents. One cannot ask voluntary organisations or call for volunteers to do something which they do not want. People will go into the polling stations to act for party and candidate only if they are committed and prepared to take the risks associated with their mere presence in those polling stations. If people refuse point blank to do this job, we must look for someone else.
      I have occasionally had bitter experience of trying to man difficult polling stations, and I know the difficulty of getting people to sit there all day and perform their duties. No one has said that it is easy to get people to take a stand, essentially against the gunmen and their front men. It is not easy to ask someone to make a target of himself in a dangerous area. It says a lot about the courage of those involved that they are prepared to take the risks associated with this occupation to do what is necessary to defend democracy. They should be given the fullest opportunity to carry out that defensive task.
      Those who object to polling agents being given this right do not understand what is involved. Such a person must have a detailed knowledge of the area and population, and must be able to identify those who are most likely to indulge in these practices.
      5.45 pm
      My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) explained that if polling agents were given this right it would shield the presiding officer, clerk or any other official in the polling station. This is especially important in areas such as west Belfast, the west bank of the Foyle in Londonderry and certain villages where these practices occur most frequently. In such areas the theft of votes by Sinn Fein is rampant, and it is in those areas that we need public-spirited people who believe in the democratic principle enough to sit all day to defend that principle.
      When they do so, they cannot be accused of doing something wrong. Everyone knows why they are there, and by and large there is no real objection to their presence. However, if the presiding officer, who may be the headmaster or a teacher from the school being used as a polling station, lives in an area where Sinn Fein vote-stealing occurs on a massive scale, the only people to whom he will object will be those who indulge in vote-stealing on behalf of Sinn Fein. Inevitably such a presiding officer will be seen as taking a stand against that party and its supporters. He will be accused of doing so and will be placed in a difficult position in the community. That charge cannot be levelled against the representatives of the parties, who will be at the polling stations because they are
      962
      partisan. Their job is to represent their parties and candidates. They are expected by all concerned to take the risks and to issue such challenges. There is no good reason why they should not be given the right of challenge, which is basically a mere extension of the right they already possess.
      I appreciate that some people will object to polling agents seeing these documents on the grounds that they contain private information which the holder does not wish to be made public, but genuine electors, who have nothing to fear, will not be unwilling to allow their medical card to be seen. What is on a medical card or driving licence which is so private that it cannot be made public? I cannot think of any such information, and I cannot think of any real objection to allowing polling agents to see such documents.
      A lady may say that she is 21 when, in fact. she is slightly older, but that should be fairly obvious before the card is produced. That is the only objection which could be construed as valid, but that should not be allowed to stand in the way of those who are determined to stop this Sinn Fein activity.
      As we said earlier, only Sinn Fein will practise such vote-stealing in future. The benign personation which has taken place previously will thoroughly become a thing of the past. We are dealing with the hard core who are militant, violent and vicious and the amendments set out the approach that the Government must take in their efforts to stop Sinn Fein continuing its illegal practices. That is what we are asking for and we see no reason why the Government should not accept amendments in an effort to put the blinkers on Sinn Fein for ever.
      Mr. Harold McCusker: My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) is concerned that the Bill might not do the job for which it is designed and I am concerned that it may contribute to improvements but in so doing cause more problems than it solves. Like my hon. Friend, I shall rehearse some of the arguments that I advanced when we considered the Bill previously.
      In any election in Northern Ireland, between 500,000 and 750,000 vote. We are concerned about 10,000 or, at most, 20,000 votes being abused by being stolen or personated. I shall echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said. By introducing the Bill, the Government appear to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We are being asked to lay an onus on 600,000 or 700,000 to prevent 10,000 or 20,000 votes being stolen. A voter acquires a vote by dint of producing a document as distinct from proving that he is a person who is entitled to vote. We are all in favour of assisting the Government to end abuse and we believe that it should be ended by the person who wants to vote being called upon to produce identification and evidence that he is that person, as distinct from merely producing a document.
      The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has made it clear that he is as concerned about vote-stealing as Unionist Members. He implied that he acknowledges the distinction between personation, as we have known it in the past, and vote-stealing. He intervened in the Minister's speech to make that point. I am sure that he would be happly to see personating eliminated, but he was expressing his concern especially about vote-stealing.

      963
      What does vote-stealing amount to? Remember it is vote-stealing to which the Bill is addressing itself. If there had been the same concern about the other form of personating, we would have legislated before now. Vote-stealing has challenged the democratic process in Northern Ireland, or it is threatening to do so.
      A vote-stealer has disregard for the democratic process and for the officials who administer elections. He is prepared—this happens usually early on in the day and at specific polling stations—to enter a polling station to demand someone else's vote. He is given that vote without having to produce any evidence.
      The Government are saying, "If we force the potential vote-stealer to produce some evidence, that will deter him." I dispute that. If, in essence, there is vote-stealing at the point of a gun, even if the vote-stealer does not have a gun in his hand, the presiding officer will be conscious of the indirect presence of the gun. I address myself specifically to amendment No. 26. If someone is dedicated and determined to steal votes and to continue to do so, he will have with him in the polling station a small buff card. He will present it to the presiding officer, who is probably the local headmaster or headmistress or teacher of the school where the voting is taking place. The presiding officer will probably be a teacher in that school. Alternatively the officer will be a local person in the village. The officer will have a small buff form presented to him and at the same time two eyes will be drilling into him. Those eyes will imply that unless he accepts the document that is offered as a prescribed document and gives the potential voter a vote, there will be something else drilling into him. The presiding officer will deliver the vote.
      I suggest that the real deterrent lies with the police officer behind the presiding officer. The piece of buff paper may or may not be a medical card or it may resemble one. It may or may not belong to someone else. It may be a piece of paper that is the size of the medical card with certain information on it. In the present circumstances, the presiding officer has to keep such a document secret. How will he tell the police that it is a false document without putting himself at grave risk? I do not know how he will do that. If the onus is on him to make a judgment on the basis of a piece of paper that is four and a half inches by three inches, with or without printing, he will probably look at it, look at the individual confronting him and hand over the ballot paper. To expect him to do otherwise would be to expect a great deal.
      We should be under no illusions about the people with whom we are dealing. A year ago they killed an elected representative. The year before that they killed a Member of this place. In the meantime they have killed other democratically elected representatives. They have shown over the past 15 years that they are prepared to kill anyone who stands in their way. A presiding officer may be confronted with what purports to be a prescribed document. It may be put before him by someone whom he knows to be a paramilitarist or an associate of one. The implied threat on presentation is, "Give me a ballot paper or you will get your desserts". Most presiding officers will hand over a ballot paper in those circumstances, and we cannot blame them for that. We cannot blame polling agents, whether SDLP or Unionist, if they are prepared to let that go by as well.
      964
      The practice that I have described is happening. I saw voters entering a local rural primary school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). The teacher who was acting as presiding officer knew full well one of the persons who applied for a vote in a particular name. She knew that she was delivering to him someone else's ballot paper. That young woman was not prepared to risk saying anything. She handed over the ballot paper and that was all that she had to do as the law stands. I saw a Unionist polling agent refusing to issue a challenge in similar circumstances. He told me afterwards that he was scared stiff and that there was nothing that he could do.
      Even by incorporating in the Bill the powers to allow polling agents to see cards, the system will not be 100 per cent. foolproof. However, if it does not eliminate the abuse it will certainly deter some from practising it. Not every Unionist or SDLP polling agent will be prepared to challenge, depending on who is offering the confrontation, but in many areas there will be those who are prepared to do so. If they are not prepared to go that far, they might at least be prepared to ask a question. A pointed question might just be enough to do what the Minister knows is the important thing, which is to trigger the attention of the police officer. The teeth that are offered in the Bill are police officers in polling stations. We are concerned about the mechanism that is required to excite their interest.
      It is unreasonable to ask the presiding officer to present a challenge. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to ask the polling agents to do that. However, by showing concern about something that has been presented, an alert policeman would know that the presiding officer or polling agent had reservations. The policeman might intervene then, or wait until that person was leaving the polling station. He could demand proof of identity, and if that was not provided action could be taken. Even such a limited intervention could not occur if the buff bogus document was presented solely to the presiding officer who would have to exercise his discretion. Confronted by a gunman with murderers for accomplices, the presiding officer would act sensibly.
      6 pm
      Mr. William Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the legislation is passed in its present form, because the medical card is so easy to forge and because many people will be applying for new medical cards, the presiding officer will be presented with fairly large numbers of documents that are new and look very much like proper documents, and will not be able to distinguish between the real and the bogus?
      Mr. McCusker: We know, and I think that the Minister knows, that the medical card is the weakest prescribed document. It has little real validity in the whole exercise. It is the document most likely to be held by most people in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the terrorists will print innumerable medical cards with the intention of stealing votes. I do not believe that they will obtain, as has been suggested, a machine to produce identity cards, or that they will try to obtain numerous identity cards and alter them. Those activities would put them at risk and might leave them vulnerable to police action under clause 3. They do not need to do those things because they rely on their ability to enter a polling station and intimidate the staff, especially the presiding officer.

      965
      We are mainly talking about west Belfast, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mid-Ulster and Foyle. In those communities the people know the IRA, its accomplices and those acting on their behalf. If a presiding officer is confronted with a piece of paper that resembles a medical card he will accept it. The terrorists may print one or two medical cards, but they do not really need to do that. Indeed, my medical card is in such a decrepit state that it would not require a great deal of effort to duplicate it.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the threat or implied threat to the presiding officer will be the weakest link. The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the role, if any, of the members of the security forces who might be standing near. Such a person would represent the only fear that the personator would experience at that stage. What does the hon. Gentleman see as the role under the Bill for the RUC men? Can they act independently? Are they asked to intervene only by the presiding officer, or can the agents attract their attention?
      Mr. McCusker: My understanding—I am willing to be corrected—is that the RUC officer can act at any time if he is suspicious of what is happening. However, there will be some instances when he will need to be given some sign. If there were over-diligent policemen stopping many people who were not personating, there could be allegations of victimisation, harassment and so on. While the police will know some of those who are personating and can act independently, they will also need some assistance. It is asking too much of a presiding officer in Washine Bay and parts of west Belfast to say, "This is not a medical card; get out." To do that would be to push the person into the arms of the police, and it is obvious what will happen to the presiding officer if he does that. If Sinn Fein is prepared to terrorise and smash windows in the houses of the supporters of the SDLP—people such as Austin Currie — who are trying to take part in the democratic system, what will it do to a presiding officer who has caused the arrest of one of its people?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in such areas there are threats prior to election day? Strong-arm men visit homes and say, "You do not need to vote, give us your poll card." Could they not also say, "Give us your medical card"? It would be freely given to them.
      Mr. McCusker: We are underestimating the character of our people, whether Unionist or nationalist. There is a degree to which our people will allow themselves to be pushed around by the paramilitary or politicians of all colours. However, there are limits when it comes to voting. They might, in many instances, be prepared to hand over a poll card. In sympathetic houses, there may be a willingness to produce a medical card. However, I do not think that 20,000 medical cards will be handed over. Indeed, I do not believe that everyone will be able to produce a medical card. The terrorist may demand one, but the person will tell him what he would tell the presiding officer, "I am sorry, I cannot find it." They will not be handed over on the scale envisaged by the promoters of the Bill.
      I do not think that the terrorists will manufacture 20,000 identity cards. They would have to go through the register, weeks in advance, and identify the votes that they want to
      966
      steal. They would have to produce either medical cards or identity cards with the names of those whose votes were being stolen, alongside their photographs. The terrorists are not in that sort of business—they intend to steal votes through paramilitary threats.
      The amendment seeks to widen the possibility of showing that matters might not be what they appear, so that the police constable is alerted. It might be simply by the raising of an eyebrow or by a Unionist making a gesture as he says, "Let me see that card. What is that card?" Such a gesture might alert a policeman without inciting the gunman that night to blow out the brains of the person who put the finger on him. The amendment would allow the polling agent to see the document, and that is essential if we are to gain anything from the exercise.
      As I have said, 600,000 people will bear the burden of producing a prescribed document, even though that is wholly unnecessary. We must keep the matter in perspective. Those people are entitled to vote. They will go to a polling station where they will be well known by either the presiding officer, his clerk or any one of a range of three or four polling agents. I do not doubt for one minute that if the Unionist agent did not know the person, the SDLP agent would. If there was any dispute about identity, the polling agent could say, "He is who he claims to be."
      The simple production of a poll card would end a great deal of the abuse. There is a danger that the Bill will devalue the poll card. I think that we should be considering ways to enhance it. I accept what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, but the suggestion is that poll cards can be accumulated under threat. The bulk of poll cards are not accumulated under threat, but are volunteered. They belong to the dead, those on holiday, the sick or those who are not interested in voting — a person may have moved home and his poll card may have arrived at his old home. Such a card may be thrown into the party organisation.
      However, poll cards of people who are personated may never be in the hands of the party benefiting from the personation. Such cards are not always handed over, for example, by the relatives of the dead. Some people may refuse to hand over the poll card, yet despite that the vote is cast because it is not necessary to produce a poll card. Some thought should be given to the suggestion that the production of a poll card would be a useful means of establishing the right to vote. It is not conclusive. In County Antrim, in parts of County Down, County Armagh and Belfast the production of a poll card and another form of identification should be sufficient to convince a reasonable presiding officer of a person's right to vote.
      Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is easy to obtain poll cards? His point is defeated because people from certain parties will follow a postman or go into an easily entered block of fiats and pick up a mass of poll cards and use them as proof of identification. Does he agree that such people are then more likely to be believed than if they had to produce a document with a photograph on it?
      Mr. McCusker: I am emphasising the 500,000 people who are legitimately entitled to vote. We should seek to reduce obstacles to their exercising the franchise. As was said, they may be known personally. I seek to move towards the Minister's position of requiring specific

      967
      documents and of expecting some identification from a potential voter if there is a query. In many cases such a document may not be required because the voter is known, and his right to vote is not questioned.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the production of a poll card with a proper address would create the balance if the medical card did not show the present address, and that therefore the presiding officer's reasonable doubts would be swept away?
      Mr. McCusker: That is what we are aiming for. I take my poll card with me anyway because it makes life easier for the presiding officer. The production of a poll card, which shows my name and proper address and, if the presiding officer insists, which I hope he would not, the production of a prescribed document, such as a medical card, would be a combination that would satisfy him. We seek to build in a means of verification for the hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters and something which will also help to eliminate the benign personation which takes place on the fringes. The production of the Bill itself virtually eliminates benign personation.
      I assure the Minister that at every meeting of my constituency association I say that I do not need personated votes. I have a majority of 20,000, and I do not need any more votes, nor do I wish to incur any penalty. I tell them that, no matter how enthusiastic they are or how much they enjoy it, they must not do it — I will issue written instructions so that I do not fall foul of the any of the worst aspects of the Act when it comes into operation.
      That brings us back to a person who has the potential to steal. He will be deterred by the prospect of arrest. Our approach and amendments may not be perfect, but I hope that the Minister will consider that the bulk of people wish to vote with least bother to themselves and the staff at the polling station. I hope that it is possible to have a deterrent against benign personation and to smooth the path of democracy for the majority in Northern Ireland. We must involve as many people as possible at the point of delivering the vote, so that more than one person will bear responsibility if the police must arrest a person. We must consider our amendment in that light.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Peter Archer: Like every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken during ahy of the debates on the Bill, I wholly support its principle and purpose. The stealing of votes is a pollutant that fouls the entire electoral process. If that principle and purpose were in dispute, I would not consider any moment spent in debate as other than well worth while. But all hon. Members agree on the principle. It is the method by which the purpose of the Bill is to be implemented which is in dispute.
      The essential question, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) pointed out, is whether the presiding officer should have a wide discretion or a narrow one. That does not seem to constitute a vital issue of principle. It is a mistake to debate every issue as though it were part of the eternal cosmic struggle of good against evil. Then there is no margin for marking out the genuinely vital issues of principle.
      There can be legitimate disagreement on the matter. It merits a debate and right hon. and hon. Members are
      968
      entitled to deploy their arguments. But I hope that the House will forgive me for suggesting that three full debates on the issue is one egg more than the pudding requires. Northern Ireland is denied its proper share of parliamentary time. We spend too few days on the problems which beset its people. We were reminded earlier today that some of our colleagues who, because they have pressing constituency problems, resent even the little time we spend on Northern Ireland. Also, as Mr. Speaker reminded us, Northern Ireland business is too rarely taken early in the day.
      I cannot help reflecting on the Northern Ireland matters which we could have debated during these hours—for example, the tragedy of unemployment, the priorities for the budget that the Treasury allocates to the Northern Ireland Office, the balance between maintaining security and intruding into civil rights, the report of Sir George Baker, and the expectations which were dismissed so unceremoniously by the Prime Minister after the summit meeting. We may disagree about the subjects which we should like to discuss, but we can all find topics which merit greater attention than they receive. I hope that the House will understand the spirit in which I say that a full and long day's business after two previous debates on this issue may seem to the public to be a little disproportionate to the issue involved.
      The issue is whether a presiding officer is to have general discretion to refuse a ballot paper when he smells a rat, whether he should make up his mind from the accumulation of evidence available to him through his eyes and ears, his memory, his sixth sense and what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) called his common sense—or whether his function should be confined to applying certain well-defined tests, and, according to their results, to act precisely as prescribed by the rules. I do not believe that the rules give rise to all the absurdities which have been postulated by hon. Members and to which the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) alluded. If a presiding officer knows that a person is the elector whom that person purports to be, there is no reasonable doubt in the presiding officer's mind. At the risk of becoming tiresome, I repeat that, if there is no doubt in his mind, the document produced by the elector cannot have given rise to a doubt, and the condition spelt out in subsection 2(1)(b) is not satisfied.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell rose—
      Mr. Archer: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that my next remarks will assist him. I suspect that the reverse position that was predicated by the right hon. Gentleman is not so satisfactory. If no doubt arises on the face of the document, it seems that the presiding officer cannot refuse a ballot paper whatever doubts he may entertain from other sources and for other reasons. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that
      Mr. Powell: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support of the wording of amendment No. 25, which is that
      "the presiding officer decides, after taking into consideration any document produced to him, that there is no reasonable doubt that the voter is the elector or proxy he represents himself to be."
      If I have followed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument correctly, he would appear completely to agree with that formula.
      Mr. Archer: I was trying to say that perhaps the amendment is not required because it is already spelt out in the subsection. Perhaps I made a mistake in interrupting my argument to interpose a parenthesis, because I was saying that some of the problems which have been postulated during our debates do not arise in any event.
      Mr. McCusker: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that I need not bring a prescribed document when I vote?
      Mr. Archer: The hon. Gentleman must bring a prescribed document, but whatever the content of that document, if he is known to the presiding officer—as he clearly is—the presiding officer does not entertain a doubt and, therefore, the document does not give rise to doubt.
      I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) that the real sanction is the policeman at the door. If he is suspicious, he may arrest a claimant, which may be an effective way of ensuring that he does not vote. As the hon. Gentleman said, a policeman can act at any stage and on his own initiative; and I do not dissent from the argument that polling agents should have the right to intervene and to draw the attention of the police officer to suspicions which they might entertain. Perhaps I will embarrass the hon. Member for Upper Bann by agreeing so much with him, but I also agree that if the police became too enthusiastic and arrested many claimants who later transpired to be the electors whom they were claiming to be, the fat might be in the fire. Some might argue that the enthusiasm of the police had affected the result of the election.
      Whatever solutions are offered in the Bill, there will be problems on one side or the other. The argument that I was seeking to propound is that the essential question is the extent of the discretion of the presiding officer. I believe that there are persuasive reasons for limiting it as the Bill seeks. If a presiding officer is given wide dicretion, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East pointed out, having been required to exercise his discretion, he may be accused of exercising it so as to favour a particular candidate or candidates. However objective or fair he tries to be, it is almost inevitable that such an allegation would be made. It follows that the more his discretion can be limited, the better. It could be said that the presiding officer was too ready to refuse ballot papers, at least to those with certain surnames, or that he was too gullible and handed ballot papers to all and sundry as though they grew on trees.
      However, there is a more formidable objection, which was propounded by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, although he drew a slightly different conclusion from it. If the presiding officer has a wide discretion, some may try to persuade him to exercise it in a certain way. If he resists their suggestions, he may be in serious physical danger. The House should not lightly expose presiding officers to such duress. Is it not better to prescribe a clear criterion with inevitable consequences so that the threats to which the presiding officer may be subjected can hardly affect what happens? Of course, if the threats reach the stage of requiring the presiding officer to ignore any rules and to hand out ballot papers irrespective of the documents produced, the Bill can provide no safeguard. But, short of that, the narrower his discretion, the less subjected he will be to such threats.
      Mr. McCusker: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that at the previous election presiding officers must have handed thousands of ballot papers to people in the certain knowledge that they were not the right people? If that happened at the previous election, what will be different at the next election if a person comes in with what purports to be a prescribed document? If the same presiding officer is there, why should he say, -I will not give you a ballot paper because that is a false document"? I do not believe that that will happen.
      Mr. Archer: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is advancing a counsel of despair. If he says that we have reached the stage where no rules can affect the presiding officer, there is no point in legislating As I said, the best sanction will be the policeman on the door, I hope that we will not reach the stage of saying,, "Let us give up any attempt to legislate beyond that," because it is something to which the House must direct its mind.
      Mr. J. D. Concannon: Why have elections?
      Mr. Archer: As my right hon. Friend says, if we reach that stage, why have elections at all?
      I have listened to the debate with an open mind, and I believe that the discretion of the presiding officer should be limited in the way described in the Bill. I accept that the price that we must pay is that the rules will sometimes seem artificial. We shall deliberately limit the powers of presiding officers to act on evidence outside the documents even when common sense suggests otherwise. We shall restrict the range of questions which a presiding officer is permitted to ask. But I think that he should have power to ask for an explanation of apparent discrepancies in the documents. If someone is required to produce a document to the presiding officer, it would be odd if he were not permitted to ask why the address on the document did not tally with that on the register. I hope that the Government will consider that suggestion as the Bill progresses.
      The Opposition support the Government's general approach to this matter. Unless I hear before the end of the debate more convincing arguments from those who moved the amendments, I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote with the Government, on the balance of the argument, with no great passion, and certainly without pretending that the debate is in any sense an Armageddon.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): It might help the Committee if I were to say now that the Chairman has decided that amendments Nos. 3 and 24 will be called for Division if required.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: It has already been said in this and previous debates that there is no difference of opinion among those representing Northern Ireland on the Government's goal. We all want elections to be run properly; we want the scourge of personation to be removed; and we want those who engineer and control personation to be subjected to the law. But if we are to have realistic legislation to achieve that goat, the Government should know that there are two ways in which it can be done. The first is to proscribe and outlaw organisations that practise personation, and the second is to have sufficient safeguards so that the arrangements for the identification of voters at polling stations are made as

      971
      watertight as possible. It does not seem to me that the action that the Government propose to take in the Bill will achieve its aims.
      6.30 pm
      At the beginning of the debate I understand that some strictures were cast upon me by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) because I was not present.
      Mr. William Ross: No.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: That was my understanding, but I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if it is not so. I made it clear to the Leader of the Unionist party that a colleague and I had to meet the Secretary of State at 5 o'clock. I had expected this debate to start sooner than it did. I was in the House for a long time before it began and in fact I contributed to the discussion that preceded it.
      Mr. William Ross: The only strictures that I directed were at the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) who, as the hon. Gentleman can see, is not present even though he said in the House recently that he and his party had suffered severely from the abuse that the Bill is aimed to correct.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. I am glad that I have not been mixed up with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), because his political views and mine are not exactly in agreement.
      I must also tell the Minister that I am not convinced that 20,000 votes were personated at the last election. If they were, I wonder where they came from, because they must have come from people who were never registered at all. I invite the Minister to consider the balance in the areas where votes are likely to be personated—Belfast, West, the Foyle, Mid-Ulster and perhaps Fermanagh and South Tyrone, It could not possibly be done.
      I have had some experience both as an election agent for the Official Unionist party and as a candidate for my own party. The idea that it is possible to turn out in the morning, run thousands of people through the polls and personate them is ridiculous. It cannot be done. There are limits to it—[Interruption.] I make that statement about the numbers which can be put through the polling stations, but in the council elections in May, where there can be close-run decisions, it is very important that no votes are stolen. We had an election for the city council in west Belfast, and only a handful of votes decided it. For that reason it is very important that we deal with this abuse, and I support the Bill's objective.
      In my view, the presiding officer needs to have a great deal of discretion. He is the man who will sit there and take the decisions. He is a trusted official, a man of some substance and standing in the community and he is not there not to exercise his common sense, knowledge and discretion. He is entitled to use his common sense and discretion. If he knows a person and can swear that he is whom he purports to be, why must he have a prescribed document produced to him and, if the document bears an inaccurate statement, why must he act on that information alone?
      It is only right that, as amendment No. 25 says, the presiding officer should have the opportunity to use his intelligence and say that the would-be voter is the person whom he purports to be and that even though his medical
      972
      card bears the wrong address, it does not matter because people change their addresses, and that he should be entitled to his vote.
      I am still extremely worried about the honourable and decent people on both sides of the religious and political divide who want to vote and who come out to vote. It is often said that everyone in Northern Ireland thinks that voting is great and will all come out to vote, but I can tell right hon. and hon. Members that it is difficult to get people out to vote in Northern Ireland, especially as the ballot box in large measure has been debased by the House because no longer do majorities count in the internal politics of Northern Ireland. Many people ask what is the use of voting.
      Those who believe in the democratic process and its continuance must be encouraged to vote. When they come to polling stations every safeguard must be provided for them so that they can get in their legitimate votes at the same time as every safeguard is provided to keep illegitimate voters out. We need balance in the Bill in that respect, and I hope that the Minister will apply his mind to that.
      The two parts of Antrim do not vote in large percentages. It is difficult to get people out to vote. If a decent law-abiding citizen comes to vote and either he has not the necessary document or there is some query on the one that he produces, he will be challenged. Although the presiding officer knows him and perhaps even taught him at school, he must say, "I am sorry. You cannot vote." If that happens that person will not go back. He will never vote again in Northern Ireland. He will say to himself, "What is the use? I am sick, sore and tired. I have been denied my vote."
      There will be some fun in polling stations between presiding officers and those who will be really sore about this provision. The Minister needs to apply his mind to what is likely to happen on polling day when a presiding officer says to a would-be voter, "I know you and was brought up with you, but you haven't the required document," or, "The document that you have produced gives me cause for doubt because your proper address does not appear on it."
      These amendments are simply saying loudly to the Minister that the presiding officer should be allowed to use his intelligence and make sure that he is satisfied. If he is satisfied about anyone's identity, that person should be allowed to vote.
      Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman also considered the possibility that the application of this law, by lowering the percentage of decent people who have always voted but not really reducing the Sinn Fein vote all that much, means that the Sinn Fein vote will appear as a larger percentage of the total votes cast than it has in the past?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the Bill could be self-defeating. Insted of accomplishing what we are setting out to do, the result could be entirely different. We could end up with a bigger percentage of Sinn Fein voters. People who wish to vote Sinn Fein are entitled to, but we are not talking about them. We are talking about people who are stealing votes and personating people who are enemies of the Sinn Fein movement. I want the Minister to tell the House what

      973
      safeguards he can provide in his Bill which will defend the legitimate voter as well as dealing with the illegitimate one.
      There is also a problem about where the police come into this. I wonder what use a representative of the candidate is under the Bill. What does he do? He can no longer sit at the table. If he does, he will see the documents that are produced. Where is he to be put? What is he to see? What is the use of swearing him in and having him there? I understand that the purpose of having him there is that he can see that the person who goes to vote is a legitimate voter, that his name is on the roll, and that he is the person whom he purports to be. He is there to safeguard against personation. Under the present law he is one of the people who are present to safeguard what we are trying to safeguard even more. Is it intended to take away his role? His role should be that which has been suggested. He, too, should be able to see any document that is produced and be satisfied, and he should be able to see how the presiding officer comes to his decision. The Minister needs to apply himself to that.
      What role does the Minister see the representative of the candidate playing? Does he see him playing any role? In the past, the representatives of the candidates have been able to check personation, and they have been able to challenge people. If they do not do that, it is because of fear. A Unionist can challenge a Republican, or a Republican can challenge a Unionist, and that still goes on. However, an SDLP representative will be afraid to challenge a Sinn Fein supporter because he knows that there will be a reaction, retaliation and punishment. The Minister needs to tell us why the agent should not have the opportunity of getting the law in the polling station, as represented by the RUC, to support him, as the police need to be involved at that stage. The responsibility of the presiding officer and of the people around the table depends on the police officer.
      I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that the RUC is not enthusiastic to stop people on polling day. It does as little as possible on polling day to interfere. I have found arguments carried on about who got their caravans first before a polling station, and the RUC has left it to be fought out among the arguers. I cannot see the RUC arresting hundreds of people in the polling station. I have not heard a loud outcry against it, even in Republican areas, on election day. The RUC has acted responsibly, so it should have the opportunity to exercise its authority. That is why my hon. Friend and I shall be voting for these amendments.
      Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I support much of what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said. The object behind the Bill is commendable, and one that everyone would support. Personation should be curtailed and done away with, not because of the things that have happened in certain areas or because of a certain party but because of the democratic principle that a person's vote should be his vote and it should not be used by someone else. It is unfortunate that many things have been said outside the House on the lines that it is fear of the Sinn Fein party and its fellow travellers that has led to the Bill. It is a terrible thing if a Bill has to be brought in because of murderers and those who travel down the same road, and the so-called political party.
      In our anxiety to ensure that right is done — the democratic right of every voter to have his or her vote
      974
      —we must not forget the right also of those who have never personated and who wish to vote in a democratic way, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. In those areas of Northern Ireland where we do not have the same trouble — as has been said, in some constituencies no extra signed votes have been required — we may be disadvantaging some people. Older people and others will resent the fact that they have to provide identification to get what they regard as their God-given right to vote. There will be those who, if there are any difficulties, will refuse to vote in future, and will storm out of the polling stations after creating rows and trouble. Who can blame them for that, especially as the rest of the United Kingdom is treated in a different manner? In certain constituencies it is already difficult enough to get the voters out to vote without putting any further obstacles in their way.
      6.45 pm
      I draw the attention of the Minister and the Committee to what will happen if and when the Bill is introduced, and if it is not introduced properly with the required safeguards. What will happen when the next election is over and there is no difference in the voting pattern? It has been said in this debate, and by the Minister on other occasions, that a party is the cause of bringing in the Bill. If that party still maintains its position in the voting pattern because of discrepancies in the Bill which allow personation to continue because it has not been brought in properly, that party will be able to say, quite legitimately, "You see, you were all wrong. We did not have personated votes. This is the actual support that we have in Northern Ireland." The end will be worse than the beginning. That is the terrible danger of the Bill if the Minister and the Government do not bring in proper safeguards so that we do not have such difficulties.
      When the Minister last spoke, he did not answer my point about the case of the chap who is working but has none of the prescribed documents. He does not drive so he does not have a driving licence. He does not have a passport and he does not need a current book for allowances or pensions. He does not have his medical card or he has lost it, or perhaps it shows the wrong address. How will that person obtain his vote?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: He should get his marriage lines.
      Mr. Forsythe: In those circumstances, there is something to be said for the polling card, because at least most people receive it. Therefore, there may be some support for such a proposal. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how that person will obtain his vote.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I support amendment No. 25 and the others grouped with it. Two substantial matters are contained in that group and have to be faced by the Government. It is not enough for the Government to turn their back on responsible and reasoned arguments and chase through the Lobby their ranks of supporters to ensure that the Bill proceeds without amendment. The Minister may not want to accept the drafting of these amendments, although I have no objection. They are better than some of the amendments tabled in my name. In any case the Minister will have to introduce the two substantial principles contained in these amendments at a later stage.
      I ask the Minister to address himself particularly to two matters. The first is the principle contained in amendment No. 25, which deals with the sensible argument of

      975
      allowing some back-up material. The Bill, as worded, requires the presiding officer to do no more than accept, on the basis of the document in front of him, that the person presenting the document is the person on the electoral register. The presiding officer may have some doubts because the person's features on the photograph differ or because the address has changed over the years. It would seem to be a simple, common-sense measure to provide that the person about to vote should produce any evidence he can, whether in the form of a House of Commons pass, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) was prepared to do, a Civil Service pass or any other documentation. The Committee would be happy if the Under-Secretary of State were prepared to concede that the principles in the Bill are not prejudiced by allowing the presiding officer to have that degree of flexibility in accepting certain back-up material from the voter.
      I am greatly concerned about the position to which personation agents have been relegated. Until now at elections in Northern Ireland, the personation agents were, to all intents and purposes, the only guard against personation. The Under-Secretary of State may argue that the Committee would not be debating this Bill today if the personation agents had done their job. I would argue that hon. Members would have debated this legislation a long time ago if those agents had not been doing their job. Their presence, apart from any action they take, deters many who seek to personate. I suspect that the people whom the parties choose to be personation agents have local knowledge and expertise that outweighs that of the presiding officer, his clerks or officials.
      The Under-Secretary of State has not yet overtly stated the Government's intention towards personation agents. He has said that they will not be allowed to look over the shoulders of the presiding officer to see how much Mrs. Jones is getting in supplementary benefit, to find out about Mr. Murphy in a prescribed Republic of Ireland or United Kingdom passport or to see whether a person's Great Britain driving licence has endorsements. I can understand the Government's sensitivity in not wanting those documents to be seen easily. If there is some doubt in the mind of the personation agent about the identity of the person on the electoral register, it is reasonable that he should have the right to question that person. That may not be necessary in every case. That is a reasonable request, and I hope that the Government will accept the tenor of that argument.
      I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will address his attention to the RUC's role. The personation agent will have only half the evidence, because he will see the person going into the polling station and will not be able to check his documents. Can the personation agent ask the RUC to intervene to check a voter's credentials? Will only the presiding officer be allowed that right? The Under-Secretary of State should inform the Committee about those matters so that we can have a more informed debate. I trust that he will accept the general tenor and validity of those arguments.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Mr. Nicholas Scott): We have rightly had a long debate, because this group of amendments, is central to the Government's approach to the Bill. No doubt, when discussing other amendments, we shall hear
      976
      more about a number of the points raised during the discussion, particularly the RUC's role. That is the time at which I should wish to deal with those points.
      I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for the general support he has given to our approach on this front. Like him, I am anxious to make as rapid progress as possible, but I do not think that we should be disappointed that we have engaged in discussion in some depth on this first group of amendments.
      The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) explained clearly and fairly the effects of his amendments. There is no difference between us about the effects if the amendments are carried. We recognise the sincerity and care that has been taken. We are at one in trying to deal with the evil which the Bill is designed to tackle.
      Despite that, the Government have thought hard about the approach taken by the right hon. Member for South Down in these amendments and, in general, have come to a different judgment about their desirability. The amendments would alter the basis on which the Government have founded the Bill to deal with personation—the principle of universality of application of the requirement to produce documents to obtain a ballot paper. These amendments would remove the mandatory requirement upon all those voting at polling stations to produce one of those listed documents to obtain a ballot paper.
      In a sense, nothing in these provisions would be very different from the electoral procedures that apply now, except that new circumstances would be created by amendment No. 26. According to that amendment the presiding officer at his discretion might, or, if required by a candidate, his election agent or polling agent, must, require a voter to produce a prescribed document. The presiding officer could then take that document into account together with any other document in deciding whether the voter was the person on the electoral register he was presenting himself to be.
      It is clear that the effect of amendment No. 24 would be to confer upon party political representatives or appointees the same powers of access to personal documents enjoyed by presiding officers. I do not believe that such a provision is necessary, since I see no reason to usurp the powers of electoral staff in this matter. Nor do I think—I have given this careful thought—that it would be desirable to intrude on individual privacy without good reason. I imagine that many voters would resent in principle having a personal document scrutinised by representatives of various political parties. In the special context and circumstances of Northern Ireland, some electors might feel apprehensive about disclosing certain personal details, such as benefits or allowances, to members of a political party which they view unsympathetically or which they believe would regard them unsympathetically.
      Mr. McCusker: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if a polling agent has good cause to think that the document produced was false or bogus or was not a document that belonged to the individual involved, he cannot interject in any way to obtain an assurance that it is a prescribed document?
      Mr. Scott: A personation agent can still challenge. He cannot ask to see the document. By issuing his challenge,

      977
      he alerts the constable of the RUC who is present. That right to challenge has not changed because of the Bill. I hope that the personation officers' role has been reinforced by the Bill's provisions. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not believe that it would be right to give personation officers the right to inspect documents. They can alert people and then the presiding officer has to make the judgment.
      The effect of these amendments would be to create a new climate of uncertainty among the Northern Ireland electorate. Far from stopping the fouling of the process —that was the phrase used by the right hon. Member for South Down—they would create a new uncertainty. The electorate would not be sure whether they would be required to produce prescribed documents at a polling station before they were issued with a ballot paper or sure about what other evidence they might be expected to produce to support that evidence.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister be good enough to deal with the matter that he raised tangentially just now when referring to the access of polling agents to a document? What is the interpretation that is placed upon the word "produce"? Do I "produce" a document if I hold it out so that the face of it can be seen by the person to whom I am producing, or is it not produced unless I hand it over so that he can go through it and turn it upside down? That is material to the point the Minister was making about the benefit of a document and this might be a useful moment to clarify it.
      7 pm
      Mr. Scott: It has to be produced to the presiding officer in such a way that enables him to inspect the document. The presiding officer will form his own judgment as to whether looking at the face of the document is sufficient evidence. In the case of a passport, he will presumably want to open the document to inspect the page that contains the photograph. It will depend upon the judgment of the presiding officer whether he is in a position satisfactorily to inspect the document produced to him.
      If the amendments were accepted, electors could not be certain whether they would be issued with a ballot paper, whatever document they produced, as the decision would depend on the presiding officer's discretion. I believe that this is a formula for confusion among the electorate and could be applied inconsistently by presiding officers in different parts of the Province. Some hon. Members may feel that the provisions might invite and encourage vexatious challenges by polling agents or those who might have a vested interest in disrupting the electoral proceedings. They significantly increase the risk of allegations of acts of partiality by presiding officers and of consequent litigation. They provide a great temptation for those determined to undermine the democratic process to secure partiality in their favour.
      I have no doubt that if the amendments were accepted they would create a greater deterrent for the legitimate voter than the Government's proposals, and would thus increase the possibility, which has been mentioned in earlier debates, of producing a lower turnout.
      In contrast, I maintain that the Government's proposals in clause 1 reduce to the minimum the discretion which is to be exercised by electoral staff so that the electoral procedure will be conducted consistently in every polling station across the Province. All voters in all polling
      978
      stations will be required to produce one of the prescribed documents to obtain a ballot paper. All presiding officers and all clerks will, in those circumstances, be required to deliver a ballot paper unless they decide that the document raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the voter is the person on the register whom he claims to be.
      I reinforce the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I made the same point on Second Reading. If the presiding officer or the clerk knows a person to be the person whom he represents himself to be, no document can then raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the presiding officer or clerk as to identity of that person.
      If we take into account the provisions of clause 3 with those of clause 1 — there is a mandatory requirement upon a voter to produce a prescribed document to obtain a ballot paper — all personators and would-be personators know that they risk arrest for the offence of going equipped to personate. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) mentioned that point. If a personator or would-be personator now goes into a polling station, he runs the risk that the presiding officer may decline to give him a vote; the presiding officer may ask the statutory questions; the personation agent may challenge him; and the police, if alerted by the presiding officer or by the personation agent, or on their own initiative, can move in to effect an arrest under the provisions of clause 3. That will be a substantial deterrent to those who would engage in personation.
      I am advised that presiding officers are moved around wherever possible into polling stations where they are not well known to local electors so as to provide a form of protection against intimidation from the local paramilitaries.
      Mr. McCusker: I do not know about the last point; it is something that the Minister can investigate. The Minister spoke about the necessity for consistency of treatment. I am sure that the Minister will accept that hundreds of thousands of voters in Northern Ireland who go to the polls are just like voters in his constituency. How does he feel his electorate would react—I am talking about the ordinary run-of-the-mill elector—if to vote for the hon. Gentleman they were asked to produce one of the documents?
      Mr. Scott: I was corning to that point. I well understand the burden that this places upon the vast majority of legitimate voters. We considered this matter seriously. The Government Listened to the representations made to them by all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. We made our own assessment of the growing threat of personation, in particular vote-stealing as it has been described, which subverts the whole democratic process, and came to the view and hold it firmly that that is a price that we must ask the vast majority to pay to eliminate this poison from the electoral system in Northern Ireland.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I was interested in the aside that the Minister made when he said that presiding officers are moved around. Will the Minister study that point and find out how many have been moved around? I know that no one has been moved in my area. They have presided there for a long time. I have experience of what might be called the "dicey" areas. During the EEC elections, my agent

      979
      said the same thing. He introduced me to the presiding officer and said, "This man has been doing this for 20 years in this area."
      Mr. Scott: They have been moved around in the past, and, with the new arrangements provided for my the Bill, I am sure that those who arrange the appointment of presiding officers will bear in mind the position of those who come forward to offer their services in that role.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Surely the presiding officer is of great benefit to the community when he recognises those who come forward to vote. If he is placed in an entirely different community, the voters are all strangers to him and he may recognise no one. Any documentation could then apply to anyone presenting it.
      Mr. Scott: Presiding officers' discretion, under the terms of the Bill, will be limited. The personation agents will still be there and will still have the right to challenge. The RUC will be there. I think that that will be a balance. I am sure that in making his dispositions the chief electoral officer will take those matters into account.
      I am conscious of the care that has gone into devising these amendments, and I am aware of the anxieties felt by the right hon. Members for South Down (Mr. Powell) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) which gave rise to the amendments. I must reiterate that they contain a high potential for confusion and disruption of polling stations and do not provide the formidable deterrent against the personation which clauses 1 and 3 taken together provide as they stand. Those provisions are certain and fair, and they will apply universally across the Province. I therefore must urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) seemed to bemoan the fact that we were devoting prime time in the House of Commons to discussing this constitutional measure. I do not deny that there are other matters that we might profitably discuss, but because this is a constitutional measure it is right and proper that it should be taken on the Floor of the House of Commons. I am sure that, on behalf of the official Opposition, he would not seek to deny that.
      Mr. Archer: I wish to make the position clear. I am not complaining that this is being taken on the Floor of the House of Commons. I was only venturing to question whether an issue which has been debated twice already should occupy so much of the time which is so happily available to us today.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I suppose that if it had been left to the initiative of my right hon. and hon. Friends, we could have chosen to devote time to certain other matters, but we know that the pressure for this measure came not from our party or even from the Democratic Unionist party but from the party represented by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who is not here in the flesh. The initiative for the pressure came from what in Northern Ireland is called constitutional nationalism, because it was thought that the hon. Member's party was incapable of holding its own against Sinn Fein. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)—who at the moment is engaged in his studies beside me—I too regret that the hon. Member for Foyle is not with us, not just because
      980
      his views would have been of great benefit to the Committee but because, after all, his party is likely to be the main beneficiary of the Bill.
      The nationalist spokesmen in recent days, both lay and ordained, have been telling the world that they are alienated because they are excluded from the decision-making processes in the parliamentary system. The opportunity exists here today. We shall do our best in the absence of the two hon. Members elected to represent the minority in this House—the one who will not come and the other who will not stay.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) opened by recording that we had diligently sought to improve this portion of the Bill. In fairness to the Minister, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and their Department, I place on record the fact that they too have sought some way of meeting our wishes with a view to making this a more effective piece of legislation. So far the Government have not felt able to move sufficiently far in our direction, but we are travelling hopefully. I hope that before we come to the end of the deliberations, the gulf will be less wide and less deep.
      It will come as no surprise to the Committee to know that we on this Bench, who have consistently adhered to the line that we took in 1982, before the Bill was drafted, maintain that position. My right hon. Friend has quoted from my letter to the Secretary of State dated 6 July 1982, in which we advocated less rigid requirements on the matter that we are discussing in the amendments. With long experience of the conduct of elections, we instinctively felt that there was a need to tighten the procedures and to make certain restrictions more effective, but we did not feel that there was any need for a fundamental change in the rules and procedures governing elections in any part of the United Kingdom.
      For the whole of the period since the former Secretary of State first wrote to me in April 1982 we too have engaged in consultations, and we have found that there was a remarkable consensus on the desirability of candidates' polling agents taking a more robust part in the proceedings. The Representation of the People Acts, which govern all elections that really matter in the United Kingdom, provide for that participation. I believe that polling agents will be much less effective under the proposed arrangements. To be effective, they have to be given whatever information is available, and I cannot understand the justification for refusing to give polling agents such information.
      Has it been entirely overlooked that all polling agents make a solemn declaration of secrecy, in the presence of a justice of the peace, before they can be admitted to the polling station to take up their duties? I have to ask how many examples there are of occasions when that declaration of secrecy has been dishonoured or breached in any way.
      The Minister, in the light of what he has just said about the undesirability of disclosing personal documents to polling agents, will know that it has been the custom and practice of presiding officers in polling stations to make known what information is at their disposal by way of calling out to the party representatives the name and the number of the elector approaching the table to ask for his ballot paper.
      It has to be understood that in polling stations there is far more co-operation and team work than parliamentary

      981
      draftsmen would imagine. By making the regulations too rigid. I fear that we shall destroy the teamwork which has up to now made the machine work.
      7.15 pm
      I have seen cases where there has been confusion over duplication of names — the same name has been duplicated on two different pages. The presiding officer, not being certain who is standing before him, will on many occasions seek the advice of the appropriate party agents, and all of them together, to the complete satisfaction of the elector, will come to the conclusion that he or she is the person whose name appears on the register as so-and-so.
      There has been objection to the bringing in of polling agents on the ground that they would be intimidated, but by narrowing the field surely we achieve the reverse effect, concentrating the fire entirely on the unfortunate presiding officer, because he is the only one who will make decisions. Good soldiers are always taught that fire is ineffective if it is scattered over a range of targets. There is much to be said for widening the field and thereby sharing the risk over a range of people who would voluntarily take that risk.
      I think that the former Secretary of State would agree with what I have just said, because he made it clear in his letter to me that he accepted the view that the co-ordinated effort should make "a substantial difference". That was coordination among all those present in the polling station.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: As I understand the position, the Government's view is that polling agents should not be able to see the documents. My right hon. Friend has been talking about co-operation. Is he aware that there is a tendency for some presiding officers not even to call out the name and the number, so that it is more difficult for polling agents to do their job? Is that the pattern that my right hon. Friend believes the Government are now inculcating through the returning officers in the various constituencies?
      Mr. Molyneaux: I hope that the Government are not engaging and are not likely to engage in any such exercise. My hon. Friend will remember that on Second Reading I said that there was a certain patchiness in the practices observed, and that some of it stemmed from the fact that elections in Northern Ireland are split between the Representation of the People Acts under which we get ourselves elected to this place for our sins, and the Stormont electoral law.
      I suspect that the chief electoral officer and his various subordinates seek refuge in the passages of whichever Act seems to be of most benefit to them at any given time. I would deplore any tendency on the part of the chief electoral officer or presiding officer or deputy returning officer to limit in any way the participation of the polling agents who, as I have illustrated, have been of real help in making the machinery work in times past. That is borne out by the fact that there is very seldom any friction within the polling stations.
      On occasions I have visited polling stations after having been warned by security officers not to go there. On arrival, I have proceeded to shake hands with everyone at the table, as I imagine you do in your constituency, Mr. Dean. The Sinn Fein representatives invariably stood and courteously shook hands. It was the members of the moderate Alliance party who put their hands under the table and refused to shake hands.
      Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has the right hon. Gentleman carefully considered the role of the electoral registration officer in regard to the electoral roll? One of the most important steps is to check the accuracy of the electoral roll with and in conjunction with the polling officers. Surely that helps to overcome some of the problems that the right hon. Gentleman is highlighting.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Before the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is tempted down that road, he will recognise that that question seems to be a little far from the amendment.
      Mr. Molyneaux: In fairness, I do not think that I did the leading on this occasion, but I shall refrain from answering the question by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) in the expectation that the hon. Gentleman will be able to find a way of raising it when we debate another amendment.
      I was going to say that over the past few years the participation of polling agents had admittedly lessened to some extent in certain areas, but only in certain areas. Although I appreciate the validity of the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for. Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), that was not entirely due to overt intimidation in the sense of violence, but was far more attributable to a collapse of morale on the part of what might be termed establishment parties or perhaps one party on the nationalist side. There is a good deal of validity in what my hon. Friend said, but that latter consideration was probably the more significant.
      However, that does not in any way relieve members of political parties of their responsibility to fight their own battles and stand on their own feet. If our amendments were accepted, that would go a long way towards achieving and encouraging that. However, those people will stand on their own feet only if morale is high, and that can be achieved only if parties have the drive, initiative and confidence in their own existence without outside assistance or any form of life support system.
      Earlier I paid tribute to the Minister and his officials for doing their best to improve this part of the Bill, but for us the difficulty is—I think that the Minister appreciates it —that they have not succeeded. Consequently, not only has there been no reduction in our fears about the inadequacy of the Bill as it stands, but we have greater fears that the measure may result in confusion and chaos at polling stations.
      Regrettably, in view of the gap that continues to exist between the Government and ourselves, I have no option but to press the amendment and invite the Committee to support it in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 180.

      Division No. 25]

      [7.22 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Parry, Robert

      Clay, Robert

      Patchett, Terry

      Duffy, A. E. P.

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

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Loyden, Edward

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      McCusker, Harold

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maginnis, Ken

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Michie, William

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Mr. A. Cecil Walker and

      Nellist, David

      Mr. William Ross.

      Nicholson, J.

      983

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Ancram, Michael

      Henderson, Barry

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hickmet, Richard

      Ashby, David

      Hicks, Robert

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Holt, Richard

      Beith, A. J.

      Home Robertson, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hooson, Tom

      Bevan, David Gilroy

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

      Blackburn, John

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Howells, Geraint

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Hume, John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bright, Graham

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brinton, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

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

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Budgen, Nick

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Butterfill, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knowles, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Lang, Ian

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Latham, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Lester, Jim

      Conway, Derek

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Coombs, Simon

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Cope, John

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Couchman, James

      McQuarrie, Albert

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Mates, Michael

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Mather, Carol

      Dewar, Donald

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Murphy, Christopher

      Durant, Tony

      Neale, Gerrard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Neubert, Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Newton, Tony

      Evennett, David

      Normanton, Tom

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Parris, Matthew

      Favell, Anthony

      Pawsey, James

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Penhaligon, David

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Forth, Eric

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Fox, Marcus

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Franks, Cecil

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Freeman, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew

      Gale, Roger

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Galley, Roy

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gow, Ian

      Scott, Nicholas

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Gregory, Conal

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Silvester, Fred

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Spence, John

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Spencer, Derek

      Harris, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Harvey, Robert

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Steen, Anthony

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Stern, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Hayes, J.

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Haynes, Frank

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Hayward, Robert

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      984

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Watts, John

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Whitfield, John

      Thurnham, Peter

      Whitney, Raymond

      Tracey, Richard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Wood, Timothy

      Waddington, David

      Woodcock, Michael

      Walden, George

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. John Major and

      Waller, Gary

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 14, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.

      No. 15, in page 2, line 7, leave out `a' and insert 'the'.

      No. 16, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'a' and insert 'the'.

      No. 22, in page 2, line 16, at end insert

      'No document shall be required to be produced for voting purposes other than a document issued by or with the authority of the United Kingdom Government.'.
      No. 17, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
      '(I.F.) References in this rule to producing the prescribed document are to producing the document issued by the Chief Electoral Officer which shall bear the name, address, date of birth, signature and photograph of the registered elector.'.
      Mr. Robinson: These amendments have properly been linked. Only amendment No. 22 stands on its own feet, as it were, and I shall deal with that separately.
      Our purpose is clear. Substituting the definite article for the indefinite article has the effect of requiring just one document to be produced of the type prescribed in amendment No. 17 for issue by the chief electoral officer.
      In debates on the Bill so far I have not been impressed by any evidence of willingness on the part of the Government to accept reasonable amendments. The Government bulldozer was put into top gear to reject an earlier, thoroughly rational amendment. That suggests that, however convincing the argument, the Government have no intention of accepting any amendments, that they wish the Bill to go forward exactly as it was presented to us some weeks ago and that the rest of us can like it or lump it. I became slightly optimistic on the basis that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) must know something that I did not, because he said that he was travelling hopefully. I think that hope is about all that we can have, however, as there is little evidence to suggest that our hopes are likely to be realised in the form of changes in the Bill.
      The purpose of the amendments is to have a uniform identification card produced by the chief electoral officer. That would remove much of the confusion which, as earlier debates have shown, will arise on election day if the forms of identification suggested by the Government in the notes on clauses are used.
      The drafting of the amendments may not be of the neatest. A cursory glance suggests that amendments Nos. 14 and 16 should have referred to leaving out the second "a" and inserting "the". Nevertheless, the intention is clear and if the Government shock or rock me by accepting the principle I am sure that the draftsmen can make appropriate changes to tidy up the drafting.

      985
      The weaknesses of the prescribed documents suggested by the Government are clear. I could speak at length on each of the documents suggested but there is little point in rehearsing arguments that have been made several times already.
      A passport bears no address, is not available to everyone and does not allow the presiding officer to check whether the person on the electoral register is indeed the person standing before him. It merely allows him to check that the person before him is the person who rightly owns the passport. As no address is given, the person holding the passport might live at any one of 100 or 150 addresses in Northern Ireland. The person on the register is thus not sufficiently clearly identified.
      A driving licence is also not available to everyone and a Great Britain driving licence carries no photograph. Of all the documents suggested by the Government, a Northern Ireland driving licence is perhaps the best, except that it is not readily available to many voters.
      The least said about medical cards, the better. As has been pointed out, it is the document least capable of fulfilling the task assigned to it by the Government. There is no photograph on the card, and the address on it is hardly likely to be the address where the elector currently lives. In many cases only the initials may be given, or the name may differ from that in the electoral register. The medical card therefore presents a number of problems, apart from the fact that many of us may not be able to find our card.
      I shall leave aside the arguments about the abuse of benefits and the availability of benefit payment books to people who are not entitled to them, and say only that the document does not cany a photograph and that not everyone has such a book.
      All those documents have weaknesses, and I suggest to the Government that the arguments for consistency and uniformity are so great that there is no sound reason why the Government should not introduce a document to serve the purpose of an election. The document that we suggest would contain a photograph and would therefore immediately identify the holder with the person standing in front of the presiding officer. It would state the name and address, so the presiding officer could check it against the electoral register.
      We suggest two additional features which would extend the information available to presiding officers: a signature, and the date of birth. Those two features can appear on the form submitted by every family to the chief electoral officer when he compiles the register of electors. I understand that in the United States it is possible to have the date of birth and a signature on some forms. It would be very easy for the presiding officer to check a signature. Signatures are much more difficult to forge than any other piece of identification.
      Thus far, the Government have given only two hints about why they would not be prepared to introduce a purpose-made identification card. First, the Minister suggested in a by-the-way fashion that it would be costly. He also suggested that some people might not be prepared to present themselves to have an identification card made. Who might those people be? I suspect that they would be the very people who try to have one vote more than they are entitled to, and whom the Minister is attempting to frustrate.
      Other people might not wish to apply for an identification card because the police were hunting for them, and because if they presented themselves so that a
      986
      card could be issued they might find members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary preventing them from leaving the premises. It is well known that people on the run in Northern Ireland still manage to vote. I suspect that such people would not be keen to present themselves lest they should run into the arms of the law.
      Given all the evidence available, there is no sound reason why, if the Government intend to make personation more difficult, they should not take the ultimate step of having a purpose-made identification card. On Second Reading and so far in Committee—admittedly we have not dwelt specifically on the subject—the Government have not given any good reason why there should not be such a card. Given the situation in Northern Ireland, I urge the Committee to consider the amendment. If the Government are right in saying that there is a rate of personation of 20 per cent., they will want to make it more difficult, and it has already been made clear to the Government that there are grave weaknesses in the documents that they suggest should be used.
      At the back of the Government's mind may be the thought that the identification card might be used for some other purposes. I am not sensitive about that. I would not argue against the card being used for other purposes. If the Government are concerned about the expense, the fact that the card was of value for security purposes might help to offset the expense very quickly. I urge hon. Members to vote for the amendment.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My right hon. and hon. Friends are in sympathy with the arguments which led the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to propose the amendment. If we vote on the amendment, we shall support him. However, the amendments highlight the difficulties that the Government have created for themselves by the principle of universality. On amendment No. 9, we shall consider the range and identity of the prescribed documents. They all have two things in common. None of them proves what it is required to prove, and of none of them can it be said that every citizen needs to possess it. It is therefore both unreasonable and oppressive to require of every citizen that, as a condition of casting his vote, he should present one or more of those documents.
      The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have gone: to the logical point of saying that we should have a document which is as probative as it can possibly be made—they have not suggested a thumb print, but I cannot think of anything else that they have omitted — and that the document should be dished out to everyone on the electoral roll, under the auspices of the chief electoral officer. They say that, if a document is to be required from everyone, this is the form that the document should take.
      The hon. Gentleman's reasoning is impeccable, but we should not blind ourselves to the fact that in practice the arrangement might prove difficult and disadvantageous. The chief electoral officer is under an obligation to issue a polling card to every person whose name appears on the electoral register, but I do not know what proportion of the polling cards arrive at their proper destination—and I am not thinking of malpractice.
      I have it in mind that one of the purposes of political organisation and electoral organisation is to ensure that one's supporters get a reminder to vote and information about where to vote—even if they have not received a

      987
      polling card. The polling card is liable to miscarry and, if the person concerned has moved, it is extremely unlikely to be sent after him. I am therefore afraid that this document — ideal though it may be for purposes of identification—could not be assumed to be in the hands of every elector on polling day.
      Those comments do not refute the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I am simply entering a caveat that ought to be entered in case we might be supposed to have discovered the philosopher's stone in search of which the Government have set us off by their demand for universality.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: We have considered that point carefully. However, we were thinking of the document being issued when the person was photographed, in the same way as a pass is issued in this House. After one is photographed, one is given the pass.
      Mr. Powell: I appreciate that if all the electors were summoned for the purpose of being thus identified, that would deal with the danger that the document would not be conveyed to the person who should receive it. However, I am afraid that the procedure would place large obstacles in the way of electors who wished to vote, especially if the election occurred within a relatively short time of the electoral list coming into force.
      Mr. McCusker: Would not that mean that the person would have to present himself for a photograph during the qualifying period or immediately after it?
      Mr. Powell: The difficulties which are thrown up by the amendment prove the impracticability of fairly attempting a universal demand for a prescribed document. By treading the labyrinth of trying to get the documents produced and into the hands of every legitimate elector, we are exploring once again the ground that we covered when we discussed previous amendments and in earlier stages of the Bill—the consequences of making the right to a ballot paper depend on the production of a document and making that production a universal requirement for all electors. I simply do not think that it will be possible to do that. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have just registered in the Lobby our belief to that effect and we shall have no objection to re-registering it when this matter goes to a vote.
      I do not know whether it was inadvertently that the hon. Member for Belfast, East did not refer to amendment No. 22 or whether you, Mr. Dean, have decided that it should be debated separately.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. I announced that amendment No. 22 was debatable with the other amendments in this group.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: On a pint of order, Mr. Dean. Amendment No. 22 was left to me to deal with at a later stage in our proceedings.
      Mr. Powell: As I have been assisted by those interventions, and as my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were not proposing to make a meal of this group of amendments, perhaps I might allude briefly in advance to amendment No. 22.
      As one who has strenuously and for some 35 years protested whenever he had an opportunity, against the franchise being enjoyed in Britain by those who are not of British nationality — including those who hold Irish
      988
      passports and no other — I should not be acting in accordance with that point of view. Although I can see the logic of arguing that, since that is the electoral law, an Irish passport ought to be a prescribed document, I shall give expression to my prejudices on this subject, so long maintained and expressed, by supporting amendment No. 22 should it also go to a vote.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: As I said in our discussion on the previous group of amendments, we can do one of two things in this Bill. Either we can try to find as strong a way as possible to help the legitimate voter and hinder the illegitimate voter or, if we proceed, as is proposed in the Bill, with many diverse documents, we shall hinder the legitimate voter and make it possible for the illegitimate voter to succeed in voting.
      I agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that there are great difficulties associated with getting a system and a machinery that fits the bill perfectly. There should be the strictest possible supervision of the presiding officer during voting and, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) said, voters should bring their polling cards with them. Such suggestions are helpful. The same is true of the suggestion made by the absent hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who suggested that, at registration, everyone should sign and give their date of birth. Such information could be given in duplicate so that when an elector went to a polling station, the presiding officer could ask him to sign his name and provide his date of birth and compare that information with his copy. The Government might have taken that suggestion on board.
      Identification cards could be produced during the qualifying period during which time the elector could be photographed. If people are keen on voting they would have to make that sacrifice. After all, everyone in America has to register personally. I realise that there are difficulties, but if the Government are to achieve what they want to achieve, they must pursue a suitable method.
      As to amendment No. 22, I am not having passports from the Irish Republic being produced in Northern Ireland, as that gives credence to the people who want all the benefits of British citizenship and then repudiate it. That is part of the problem of Northern Ireland. Such people will accept every privilege that they can get as a British citizen and then repudiate that status.
      I remember going on a deputation from the first ill-fated Northern Ireland Assembly—the hon. Member for Foyle who has just entered the Chamber knows that this is correct —with two of his colleagues who were Ministers of the Crown. When we arrived at passport control they had to go to the foreign passports desk to present their Eire passports while we presented our British ones at the other desk. They were supposed to be Ministers of the Crown in Northern Ireland. I am totally opposed to the production of an Eire passport as a document of credence in an election. If such people cannot produce a British passport and do not like British passports, there are other documents available to them. If they are keen to vote, they could have an ID card.
      We feel strongly that if the job is to be done it should be done properly. The proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Foyle that people should register their signature and date of birth is sound. We should not leave gaping loopholes—which are present in the Bill—for Sinn Fein to exploit vigorously as has been the case in the

      989
      past. What will the Secretary of State do with presiding officers who are members of Sinn Fein? He had better consider that and examine presiding officers and election workers, who are recruited by the chief electoral officer, who are known to be members of or workers in Sinn Fein. How will he deal with them?
      Mr. Peter Archer: I apologise to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) for my absence at the beginning of his speech, especially as I propose to disagree with his thesis. If it helps to mitigate my offence, might I say that I thoroughly agree with the suggestion that he properly ascribed to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that the date of birth and signature of each elector should be given on the returns from each household and be available to the presiding officer.
      I see nothing shocking in the principle of requiring people to carry identity cards. I do not believe that it would be the beginning of some Orwellian nightmare, even though the year is 1984. So far as I know, it did not occasion any civil liberty problems when applied to Britain during the second world war, and it does not shock our fellow member states of the EEC.
      As I ventured to say earlier, we do not have to debate every issue as though it was a vital matter of principle. Sometimes a question may turn on balancing effectiveness against inconvenience. To me it does not seem to matter that an elector should be asked to produce a document which he or she is not required by law to carry, pace the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), provided that that document is available to produce. A medical card still appears to me to be reasonably good evidence of identity, even though a person is entitled in law to tear it up and bum the pieces.
      What alternative should be available as evidence for someone who cannot produce a medical card, and what questions a presiding officer should be allowed to ask about discrepancies, are matters to be decided pragmatically.
      8 pm
      Nor does it trouble me that among the documents which electors may produce to identify themselves there may be documents issued by foreign Governments, provided that they are a reasonably accurate means of identification. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) sometimes debates these matters as though they related directly to a cataclysm, but there is nothing wicked about possessing a document issued by a foreign Government. I do not agree that this is a question of fundamental principle. It seems to me that it is a question of what is sensible evidence.
      The question confronting the Committee is whether, in order to meet the problem of personations at elections, it is sensible to introduce a requirement that everyone shall carry an identity card, thereby embarking on the whole business of printing them, inviting applications, checking them and issuing them. That is not something on which we should embark lightly if there is an acceptable alternative. As the right hon. Member for South Down said, the difficulties about getting them into the hands of electors seem to be so formidable as to invite us to dismiss the proposal.
      If we fear that some electors, who do not spend every waking moment reflecting on the conduct of elections, may arrive at the polling station without their medical card or with a driving licence bearing a wrong address, that
      990
      does not allay my fears that some people may have lost their identity card, which it is hoped they will not be asked to produce every day of their lives. They may have lost it within the last seven or eight months without having noticed, or they may simply arrive at the polling station having left it in the pocket of their other coat. I therefore doubt whether, in the words of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, the amendments will help the legitimate voter.
      I have listened carefully to hon. Members who have argued for these amendments, because it grates upon my every instinct to find myself repeatedly supporting a Government with a record like the present one. But, the argument ad hominem is dangerous. We must decide each of these matters on their merits, and again I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against the amendments.
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) have from the beginning of our discussion been consistent in arguing that the right method of dealing with the problem of personation — which all hon. Members acknowledge—is the issuing of identity cards to electors. Their scheme for dealing with the problem differs in some respects from that of the right hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and for South Down (Mr. Powell), although they have acknowledged the merits of each other's scheme. It also differs from that of the Government.
      I note from amendment No. 70 that the proposal now before the Committee is not that a general purpose identity should be issued but that the chief electoral officer should issue an electoral identity card bearing the photograph, name and address, date of birth and signature of the registered elector.
      As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has just said, this option should not be ruled out a priori. It is not so objectionable in principle that it should not be considered by a sensible Government or a sensible Committee of this House. That option was very carefully considered by my predecessor and his colleagues and also by me, and I should like to explain the reasons for coming to the conclusion that this should not be a path that we should tread and that the scheme which would be erected on that basis would be less likely to produce the result we are aiming at than the scheme in the Bill.
      That would be regarded as a radical departure from the tradition of the liberty of the individual and the right to privacy. I readily admit that the scheme in the Bill imposes upon the elector a restriction and requirement which does not now exist and which some will find inconvenient, even difficult. However, the scheme embodied in the amendment would multiply those difficulties.
      There is also a genuine practical problem about enforcement and about making such a scheme work without disfranchising a considerable number of electors. Under the amendment, a person wanting to exercise the franchise would be obliged to apply to the chief electoral officer with a passport-type photograph in order to obtain an electoral identity card. If he failed to produce a photograph, details of date of birth and a signature, that would entail disfranchisement.
      The right hon. Member for South Down, while supporting the amendment and preferring it to the Government's scheme, courteously drew attention to some

      991
      of the difficulties that would result from such a scheme. In practice, such a measure would require the willing cooperation of the elector. Those hon. Members representing Northern Ireland seats will clearly perceive that it is not difficult to see how this measure could, for propaganda purposes, be turned against Government and democracy by having sinister motives ascribed to it. It could easily be alleged that the purpose of introducing such a measure was not to do with the right to vote or the need to deal with personation but had more to do with security. The hon. Member for Belfast, East dealt with that point fairly, because he said that he would not object if the electoral identity card was used for other purposes. With that remark, he illustrated the narrow line that we are treading.
      I know perfectly well that many hon. Members believe that the libertarian argument against identity cards has been overstated, or that it is out of date, and that most of our electors might be willing to accept identity cards, not just for the purpose stated in the amendment but much more widely. I understand the argument to that effect, but I do not believe that this Bill is the place in which it should be enshrined, because I believe that it would have to be argued more generally in a United Kingdom context.
      There would be a worry about a possible mass boycott of the system which the amendment would erect. It would be alleged that the measure was a deliberate Government attempt to disfranchise those who for civil liberty reasons refused to apply for identity cards. If the effort to arouse a boycott were successful, many voters might effectively disfranchise themselves. That would clearly distort the result of subsequent elections, thereby frustrating the purpose of the Bill and, indeed, the purpose of every democratic party in this House. One cannot prove that this would happen but I think that it is a real danger.
      There was another argument that weighed with the Government in reaching our decision. We hope—we have never disguised the fact—that we shall be able to take action against personation in the next electoral contest in the Province. The House of Commons will be aware that the district council elections will take place in May 1985. The system that the amendment proposes would be expensive but I do not dwell upon that. It would be cumbersome and it could not be in place in time for the elections in May 1985. A partially implemented system would be arbitrary and unfair and would seriously distort the results. However, we are anxious in the next electoral contest to prevent the distortions which personation brings and the invasion of democratic rights which personation, without the Bill, would possibly and probably bring about.
      Having examined carefully the possibility that lies behind the amendment, we concluded that the right course would be to require voters to produce one of a number of specified documents.
      We should all be ready to learn from experience. The phrase about launching into uncharted waters has been taken up by some Unionist Members. We should not be reluctant to admit the need for change when that need is proved. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley may be right — I hope that he is — in supposing that as our debates proceed it will be shown that we have been impressed by some of the arguments which have been brought before the Committee while the Bill has been considered.
      992
      We believe, after much careful thought, that the scheme in the Bill is the soundest one that can be put before the Committee at this stage. If, in the light of later experience, it proves to need change, it should be changed. All hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will be alert to that need and to that experience. However, we believe now, having listened to all the arguments with care, that the scheme in the Bill is preferable to the one in the amendment.
      Amendment No. 22 forms part of the group of amendments that we are considering but, as the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Belfast, East have said, it raises a somewhat different issue. It would be unnecessary if the other amendments in the group were accepted. If there were only one prescribed document, the point of amendment No. 22 would have been met. I understand the argument that the hon. Member for Antrim, North produced and which the right hon. Member for South Down is prepared to sustain. That is an argument about the franchise, but the Bill is not concerned with that. I have no doubt that there will be other opportunities to discuss whether those who might under the Bill use an Irish passport as one of the prescribed documents should have the vote, but that issue is not before the Committee. I realise that that is an argument that we shall hear from time to time.
      In the course of considering the Bill, I do not think that it would be sensible to make it exceptionally difficult for those in that position to exercise that right. I understand the strength of the argument and the feeling behind it. The right hon. Member for South Down used the word "prejudice" but I would not have used it myself. I am aware of the strength of feeling that underlies the drafting of amendment No. 22 and the support for it, but I do not think that that has a part in our consideration of the Bill. For these reasons I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I am tempted to repeat the comments that I made when introducing the amendment. The Committee will recall that I talked about the Government's bulldozer being in top gear and suggested that the Bill would be pushed through come what may. One might have expected a crumb of comfort from the Secretary of State. He might have said, for example, "We are not prepared to have purpose-made identity cards as the only prescribed document, but we recognise that there are limitations with the documents that we have suggested and we shall be prepared to include purpose-made identity cards as one of the prescribed documents for those who cannot readily put their hands on any of the others." Not even that crumb of comfort was offered to us.
      I am not sure whether it is amazing or amusing that the Secretary of State argues for a Bill that seeks to set out for the people of Northern Ireland rules and standards that are different from those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom and then complains that the amendment is a "radical departure". If there are radical departures, the Bill is the most radical of all. It seeks to treat one part of the United Kingdom differently from another. If it is enacted, electors in one part of the United Kingdom will be treated differently from those in others. I do not accept that the expense will be such as to cause Government to turn away

      993
      from the idea. Similarly, I do not accept that the delay that might be experienced before May is a good enough reason far turning down a better way of dealing with personation.
      If we intend effectively to tackle the problem of personation, there is no point in proceeding in a halfhearted way. If we are not positive, people will have to suffer for no net result. I urge" the Government to consider, even when the Bill has been discussed in Committee and when they are presenting it to the House of Commons for further consideration, allowing purpose-made identity cards to be used in some small measure. If they are used as just one of the prescribed documents, the benefits of having them will soon become apparent, and other of the prescribed documents might be removed at a later stage. In due course identity cards might become the only prescribed documents. With the Secretary of State displaying his "Not an inch" approach, I am forced reluctantly to press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 144.

      Division No.26]

      [8.18 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      McCusker, Harold

      Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nicholson, J.

      Mr. Peter Robinson and

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

      Rev. Ian Paisley.

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Ancram, Michael

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Franks, Cecil

      Ashby, David

      Freeman, Roger

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Gale, Roger

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Galley, Roy

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Beith, A. J.

      Gow, Ian

      Benyon, William

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Gregory, Conal

      Blackburn, John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Harris, David

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Harvey, Robert

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Bright, Graham

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Brinton, Tim

      Hawksley, Warren

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Hayward, Robert

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Henderson, Barry

      Budgen, Nick

      Hickmet, Richard

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hicks, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Holt, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hooson, Tom

      Chope, Christopher

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

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Conway, Derek

      Howells, Geraint

      Coombs, Simon

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Cope, John

      Hume, John

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hunter, Andrew

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Dover, Den

      Johnston, Russell

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kennedy, Charles

      Eggar, Tim

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Evennett, David

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Fallon, Michael

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Favell, Anthony

      Knowles, Michael

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Lang, Ian

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Latham, Michael

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lawrence, Ivan

      994

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Spence, John

      Major, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mates, Michael

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stern, Michael

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Nellist, David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Neubert, Michael

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Norris, Steven

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Tracey, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Waddington, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Walden, George

      Penhaligon, David

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Wallace, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Waller, Gary

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Watson, John

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Whitfield, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Whitney, Raymond

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Wood, Timothy

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Woodcock, Michael

      Silvester, Fred

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      . Mr. Peter Lloyd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 9 and inser—
      '(1B) With a view to reaching his decision under the foregoing paragraph, the officer or clerk may invite the voter to produce to him a prescribed document or more than one prescribed documents and shall, if the voter complies, take that document or documents into consideration in reaching his decision, without prejudice to consideration of any other evidence which the voter may produce'.—[Mr. Molyneaux.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 136.

      Division No. 27]

      [8.27 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

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

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      McCusker, Harold

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maginnis, Ken

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Nellist, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nicholson, J.

      Mr. A. Cecil Walker and

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Mr. William Ross.

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Ancram, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Conway, Derek

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Coombs, Simon

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Cope, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Couchman, Jamas

      Benyon, William

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Blackburn, John

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Peter

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Dykes, Hugh

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Evennett, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Bright, Graham

      Fallon, Michael

      Brinton, Tim

      Favell, Anthony

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Budgen, Nick

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      995

      Franks, Cecil

      Norris, Steven

      Freeman, Roger

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Gale, Roger

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Galley, Roy

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Pawsey, James

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Gregory, Conal

      Penhaligon, David

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Harris, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Harvey, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Hawksley, Warren

      Scott, Nicholas

      Hayward, Robert

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Henderson, Barry

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Silvester, Fred

      Hicks, Robert

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Holt, Richard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hooson, Tom

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

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

      Spence, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Howells, Geraint

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Hume, John

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Johnston, Russell

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tracey, Richard

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Waddington, David

      Knowles, Michael

      Walden, George

      Latham, Michael

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Waller, Gary

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Lilley, Peter

      Watson, John

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Whitfield, John

      Major, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Mates, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Woodcock, Michael

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Mr. Ian Lang and

      Neubert, Michael

      Mr. Tony Durant.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 22, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
      'No document shall be required to be produced for voting purposes other than a document issued by or with the authority of the United Kingdom Government.'—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 135.

      Division No. 28]

      [8.37 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      McCusker, Harold

      Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nicholson, J.

      Rev. Ian Paisley and

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

      Mr. Peter Robinson.

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Benyon, William

      Ancram, Michael

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Blackburn, John

      Ashby, David

      Bottomley, Peter

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Beith, A. J.

      Bright, Graham

      Brinton, Tim

      Knowles, Michael

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Lang, Ian

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Latham, Michael

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Budgen, Nick

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Chapman, Sydney

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Conway, Derek

      Nellist, David

      Coombs, Simon

      Neubert, Michael

      Cope, John

      Norris, Steven

      Couchman, James

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Pawsey, James

      Dover, Den

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Penhaligon, David

      Durant, Tony

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Dykes, Hugh

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Rowe, Andrew

      Evennett, David

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Fallon, Michael

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Favell, Anthony

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Franks, Cecil

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Freeman, Roger

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Spence, John

      Galley, Roy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Stern, Michael

      Gregory, Conal

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Harris, David

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Harvey, Robert

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Hawksley, Warren

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Hayward, Robert

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Hickmet, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Holt, Richard

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Hooson, Tom

      Waddington, David

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

      Walden, George

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Waller, Gary

      Howells, Geraint

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Watson, John

      Hume, John

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Whitfield, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Wood, Timothy

      Johnston, Russell

      Woodcock, Michael

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Kennedy, Charles

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Mr. John Major and

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Mr. Peter Lloyd.

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 2, line 16, at end inser—
      '(2A) The following shall be inserted after rule 36 (challenge of voter—
      "(36A) At the time a person applies for a ballot paper, a candidate or his election or polling agent may require the presiding officer or clerk to produce to him any document which that person has produced to the presiding officer or clerk under the foregoing provisions of this section.".'— [Mr. Molyneaux.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 126.

      Division No. 29]

      [8.47 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

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

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      McCusker, Harold

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maginnis, Ken

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Nellist, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nicholson, J.

      Mr. William Ross and

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Mr. A. Cecil Walker.

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ancram, Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ashby, David

      Johnston, Russell

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Beith, A. J.

      Knowles, Michael

      Benyon, William

      Lang, Ian

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Latham, Michael

      Blackburn, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Bottomley, Peter

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Neubert, Michael

      Brinton, Tim

      Norris, Steven

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Budgen, Nick

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Pawsey, James

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Chapman, Sydney

      Penhaligon, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Conway, Derek

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Coombs, Simon

      Rowe, Andrew

      Cope, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Couchman, James

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Scott, Nicholas

      Dover, Den

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Durant, Tony

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Evennett, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Fallon, Michael

      Spence, John

      Favell, Anthony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Stern, Michael

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Franks, Cecil

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Freeman, Roger

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Gale, Roger

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Galley, Roy

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Gregory, Conal

      Thurnham, Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Tracey, Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Harris, David

      Waddington, David

      Harvey, Robert

      Walden, George

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Wallace, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Waller, Gary

      Hayward, Robert

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Watson, John

      Hickmet, Richard

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Holt, Richard

      Whitfield, John

      Hooson, Tom

      Wood, Timothy

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

      Woodcock, Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Mr. John Major and

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'satisfactorily answering' and insert
      "answering to the satisfaction of the presiding officer".
      This is a probing amendment. It deals with that very narrow ground of tendered ballot papers.
      The new rule 4O(1B) seems to provide for the case where a vote has already been stolen or alleged to have been stolen and then the real elector turns up to claim his or her vote and presumably produces one of the prescribed documents.
      We have to accept that the person who had stolen the vote would also have produced, say, Mr. McCusker's out-of-date medical card or some such document. If the person whose vote has been stolen already then persists in claiming the vote, presumably the presiding officer will put the statutory questions contained in the Representation of the People Act, the first one being:
      "Are you the person registered in the register of parliamentary electors for this election as follows,"?
      and then he will read the entire entry from the register. He then puts the second question, which is:
      "Have you already voted, here or elsewhere, at this by-election, otherwise than as proxy for some other person?"
      I am genuinely seeking clarification in this probing amendment. Presumably, at that point the presiding officer is acting on his own initiative and puts the statutory questions on his own initiative, without having any requests from any polling agents.
      We take the view that the statutory questions would not add greatly to the presiding; officer's store of knowledge. If the person applying for a vote is an imposter and not the genuine voter whose name appears on the register, human nature being what it is, the imposter will not say, "Goodness me, I am not the person whose name appears on the register and for whom I am attempting to vote. I am a very naughty boy." Having stolen one of the prescribed documents from the real voter, the imposter will not forsake his evil ways and confess his crime simply because he is required to give two answers, in which case he would give the answer yes to the first question and no to the second.
      9 pm
      While the statutory questions were no doubt considered adequate under the procedures and practices applying in times past, and even up till now under previous legislation, they are a little ridiculous in the context of this Bill. I have no wish to delay the Committee, but my right hon. and hon. Friends would appreciate some clarification from the Minister.
      Mr. Scott: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has correctly set out the procedures that will be followed in the polling station up to the point where the statutory questions are asked and a tendered ballot paper is produced for the elector who alleges that his vote has been stolen. He would then be asked to complete a tendered ballot paper and sign it. Those tendered ballot papers would be collected separately from the ordinary votes and would only then have their validity adjudged in the event of an election petition. It would then be for an election court to decide on the identity of the voter and whether he was the person whom he claimed to be. The fact that he has signed the ballot paper should be a substantial additional help to the election court in making

      999
      up its mind whether the person is who he says he is. The right hon. Gentleman is right, in that the presiding officer has to ask the statutory questions of the person seeking to pass a tendered vote.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify a further point? I was not sure which side of this question my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was taking. It appears to me that the person referred to in subsection (5) (1C) is a person who has been refused a ballot paper on the ground that the document raises a reasonable doubt whether he is that person. That appears to refer to the person in subsection (5) (IB), next preceding, and that person is the person to whom the presiding officer has refused to deliver a ballot paper.
      Mr. Scott: If the right hon. Gentleman looks back earlier in the clause, he will see that that is only on the grounds that someone else has already passed a vote.
      Mr. Molyneaux: During this complicated procedure, which is almost a double procedure, in which a document is produced by the real elector as opposed to the personator, and the statutory questions are put, do the polling agents have access to the information? Is that presiding officer entitled to say, "Here is a chap who says that he is John Simpson; what do you feel about that?" It would be difficult for such an operation to take place. The polling agents representing the candidates have some knowledge of the matter. To avoid difficulties at a later stage, it would be useful if we could have clarification on this point. Subsection (5) states:
      "The following shall be inserted after rule 40 (1) (person entitled to mark a tendered ballot paper after another has voted)".
      It seems to me that paragraphs (1A), (IB) and (1C) all descend from that parentage. Is that the position?
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am, perhaps, revealing my incomprehension another stage further. I have difficulty in fully accepting that interpretation. Line 41 on page 2 which states
      "Paragraph (1C) of rule 37"
      is surely a reference to (1C) in line 7 on the same page, because we have written it into rule 37. An elector who is refused a ballot paper under paragraph (1C) of rule 37 is a person to whom it has been refused because of the reasonable doubt raised by the document. If that is so— I seem to discern certain signs of assent from the Undersecretary of State— we are apparently engaging in a charade. The person says, "I would like to offer a tendered vote." The presiding officer, who has already told him to his face that he is not the elector in question, proceeds to put the statutory question to him: "Are you the elector on the electoral roll?" Knowing that he can lie as well as tell the truth in answer to a statutory question and that the answer is still deemed to be satisfactory on the interpretation of the statute, the elector says, "Yes." Thereupon, the same presiding officer who has refused him a ballot paper on the ground that he is not the elector in question and who has been lied to in the answer to the statutory question says, "Here is a tendered ballot paper. Fill it out, old chap, and sign it." That seems to be a piece of pantomime.
      Mr. Scott: That decision of, and judgment exercised by, the presiding officer can then be overturned in an
      1000
      election court on a petition. That is inherent in our approach. I apologise to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) for intervening too quickly with my previous answer. The presiding officer has the opportunity to provide that tendered ballot paper and insist that the elector is the person he says he is. Only then can an election court overturn the judgment of the presiding officer.
      Mr. Powell: Just imagine Sinn Fein doing all that.
      Mr. William Ross: May we carry this a stage further? What happens if there is a large number of ballot papers? My right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has asked: what if Sinn Fein did this on a large scale? That is not inconceivable. Surely that would cause severe problems in the election in question.
      Will the Government consider the whole area of tendered ballot papers more deeply than appears to be the case so far? If I recall correctly words spoken in this debate, a record is kept of the number of tendered ballot papers. A record is not kept of the number of people who were turned away when they applied for their vote and either found that it had been taken up, or were challenged in some way or another. If we are to arrive at a real understanding of personation, would it not be a good idea to keep a record of the number of tendered ballot papers and the number of people who apply for a ballot paper but, being refused, simply go away without filling in the tendered ballot paper?
      Mr. Scott: Presumably, an "election" petition might be considered only if the number of tendered ballot papers applied for exceeded the majority. That avenue would be open in other circumstances as well. I think that it would be likely that that action would be taken only in those circumstances where the result of the election was likely to be overturned because of the validation and then counting of the tendered ballot papers.
      It is open to any elector who arrives at a polling station and finds that his vote has been cast to ask for a tendered ballot paper. A large number decide that the game is not worth the candle and go away. If they have that opportunity, I can detect no useful purpose in having a separate record.
      The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) asked whether any point was served by asking statutory questions. Someone who could be shown to have falsely answered a statutory question to the presiding officer would then be open to prosecution.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 13, at end add—
      '(7) In this Act "a prescribed document" means one of the following documents, that is to say,

      (a) a current GB or Northern Ireland driving licence;

      (b) a current United Kingdom, United Kingdom Visitors, or Republic of Ireland passport;

      (c) a current book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions issued by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland;

      (d) a medical card issued by the Northern Ireland Services Agency; and

      (e) a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar-General for England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, in the case only of a woman married since the qualifying date for the register used in the election;

      1001
      (8) the Secretary of State may by regulation under section 201 of the 1983 Act remove from or add to the documents listed in the preceding subsection.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments to the proposed amendment:

      (a), leave out paragraph (a).

      (b), leave out paragraph (b).

      (c), leave out paragraph (c).

      (d), leave out paragraph (d).

      (e), leave out from 'woman' to end of line 11.

      Mr. Powell: I can be brief in moving this amendment if for no other reason than that the contents of subsection (7), which are the principal part of it, are not of my own composition and are shamelessly pirated from a document provided by the Governmen—for which, of course, I take no responsibility.
      The purpose of the amendment is to do what I submit should have been done from the beginning—to write on to the face of the Bill what the Government intend shall, at any rate initially, be the prescribed documents for the purpose of the Bill.
      The purpose of the Bill, as we know exhaustively, is to make it mandatory upon all electors as a condition of casting their vote to produce satisfactorily one of the prescribed documents. Consequently, the nature of the prescribed document—what they ar—is central to the efficacy of the Bill. It would not be satisfactory, in the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that they should only be stated by prescription which takes place under regulation. The making of such regulations would not permit of the proper examination of the documents to which they have been subjected hitherto, and your decision, Mr. Walker, that we can at the same time discuss amendments (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) will facilitate that for the Committee.
      I hope that the Government will make an honest woman of the Bill by accepting the amendment. If the amendment is accepted, there will be no additional constraint or limitation upon the Secretary of State's opportunity to modify by addition or subtraction the prescribed documents, because subsection (8) of the amendment gives him the power to do that by regulation under the principal Act.
      If experience so dictates, the Secretary of State can, therefore, remove some of the documents or add to them subsequently. I am sure that the Committee was interested to hear the Secretary of State, on an earlier amendment, explaining that following the first experience of the implementation of the Act he would be alert to consider whether amendment of its provisions was justified. Presumably that will include the amendment of this provision, if it becomes a provision of the Bill itself.
      It had occurred to some of us that Governments, when they have a Bill on the statute book, are more reluctant to find time for amending it than they were initially to find time for putting it on the statute book. The worry here is that there might be a Secretary of State—one hopes that it might be this Secretary of State — who, after the experience of next May, would say to himself, "Those hon. Members were right in Committee. I must go back to the House of Commons and amend the Bill, in such and such a respect."
      I do not believe that a Secretary of State who went to his Cabinet colleagues and the Legislation Committee and
      1002
      asked for an urgent slot in the Government's legislative programme would receive an encouraging welcome. They might be inclined to make snide remarks about his original legislation. They would certainly be inclined to say, "You have had your ration of legislative time for a Session or two. Now keep quiet and put up with whatever it is that you have got on to the statute book." How can that be remedied? It could be remedied— perhaps this is something which we could consider at a later stage—if this legislation, as with so many provisions which apply to Northern Ireland, had a limited time validity so that in any case it would be necessary to come back to Parliament after a lapse of one, two or three years either to renew it or to amend it. That surely would give the Secretary of State a stronger hand, if lie had himself come to the conclusion that amendment was necessary.
      9.15 pm
      However, in the case of a prescribed document, the Secretary of State will not need to legislate if the amendment is accepted, since he can add to or subtract from such documents by legislation. I hope that the value of the amendment will be brought out by the contributions of my hon. Friends.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: In speaking to the amendment I should like also to refer to sub-amendment (c), which stands in my name.
      I welcome the general tenor of the amendment because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has said, we believe that it is important to have the provision within the Bill rather than to leave the matter to regulation. My right hon. Friend talked about milking an "honest woman" of the Bill. Perhaps in these days of equality it would be just as; easy to make an honest man of the Bill.
      I believe that one of the main reasons for the Bill is to have the legislation in being before next year's local government elections. Therefore, it is possible that there has not been sufficient time in which to reach a conclusion as to what would be satisfactory documents. For that reason, it is most important that subsection (8) should be added to clause 1. It would give latitude to the Secretary of State in the coming days; to make, under section 201 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, a change to more accurate and purposeful documents.
      I should like to put on record my misgivings about: the reference in subsection (7)(e) to
      "a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar-General for England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland".
      I am not altogether convinced that it is needed. I am somewhat befuddled as to why a person whose name appears on the register should then have to give proof of being married. Especially in this age, there are many women who continue to exercise the right, after marriage, to use their maiden name. As long as it is clear that the person is the person on the register, I do not think that the name is so important. I am, however, concerned to know why the qualification should be
      "a marriage certificate issued by the Registrar-General for England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland".
      I understand the argument to some extent, because on Second Reading it was said that it had been decided that it should be a document issued by the registrar general. I cannot speak with authority for England, Scotland and Wales but I understand the tradition in Northern Ireland to be that the certificate issued by the priest, the clerk in holy

      1003
      orders or the minister is, strictly speaking, a document issued by the registrar general. I know that during my ministry there was a small change in that, in that copies of the marriage certificate printed under the title of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland were not accepted by some people. We had to use copies of certificates issued by the registrar general. I am not quibbling with that. I understood that it was said on Second Reading that the certificate had to be issued strictly by a clerk in a council or the registrar general's office. Apart from the problems of getting the records through to those people, which would cause at least three months' delay, I wonder why that restriction is imposed. Is it indirectly casting a slur—I do not believe that that was the Government's intention, but I must tease out the reason for the restriction —on priests, clergymen and ministers? Are the Government saying that they might be prone to issue such certificates too freely without querying whom they were giving them to? If that was the reason for the restriction, it does not stand up to the light of judgment.
      As I understand the practice, anyone can go to a registry office and, on due payment of the correct sum, request a copy of the marriage certificate. We shall not curtail the circulation of such certificates to prevent them being misused by people with a malevolent purpose by restricting the issue of the document to a clerk in a council office or the registrar general's office. Therefore, I query why the Government need to make that restriction. I suspect that there is less likelihood of a local priest or minister issuing the document to someone whom he knows is not the person to whom the certificate refers. I have discovered in 25 years of parish ministry that there are such practices in the issuing of death certificates and marriage certificates by council officers. Many people get certificates solely on payment of the appropriate fee.
      Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider the requirement for the marriage certificate to be issued specifically by the registrar general. If it means that the tradition in Northern Ireland, which has been an accepted method of issuing certificates, is no longer acceptable, that is a slur on many fine men and at the same time calls in question the Government's real purpose.
      I should like to draw attention to subsection (7)(c), which refers to
      "a current book for the payment of allowances, benefits or pensions issued by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland."
      I can understand that there are those who hold on like grim death to their pension book, social security papers, benefit books and so on, but I am not convinced that these in themselves are sufficient safeguards to prevent people from misusing those documents. I say that for several reasons.
      First, the people against whom I understand the Bill is directly aimed, those who have carried on a military campaign of personation, are capable of borrowing such books. It is not beyond their capacity so to do. One might say that people will not give their books away, but they will have little choice if that is done as a military operation. We might be told that the measure will at least allow people to give evidence that the books are being misused—if Paddy Malachy or, to keep it non-sectarian, Willie and Alec turn up and happen to have on them some of those documents. However, in the Ulster situation, it
      1004
      appears difficult to prove that those people had the documents for the purpose of personation. I say that because I know that Ulster people are remarkably friendly. It is a closely interconnected community and an extraordinary number of people draw old people's pensions for them out of sheer kindness. It would be extremely difficult to get anyone to give evidence in a court of law to prove that a pension book had been used for personation because the consequences for people living in the community might well be too horrible to contemplate.
      I believe, therefore, that it would be much better to have a defined document. That is why I support the principle of the amendment and I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that the Bill should be altered accordingly. I hope that the Government will confirm that no slur on ministers, priests or clergymen was intended in seeking to restrict the definition of a marriage certificate to documents issued by the registrar general. I also question whether pension and benefit books, which often go astray in the post, are an effective use of identification.
      Mr. William Ross: My amendment (a) seeks to delete the reference to
      "a current GB or Northern Ireland driving licence".
      I understand that there are about 500,000 driving licences in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland licence carries the name of the holder and his address at the time of receipt. A photograph is pinned into it and the licence is valid for three years, renewable for a further three years. I understand that it is shortly to be replaced by a 10-year licence. We all change quite a lot in five or six years. Given the type of photograph that usually goes into a passport or driving licence, after 10 years the person may well be unrecognisable from the photograph.
      The licence has space for one or two changes of address which are supposed to be filled in and the relevant authority notified as soon as the person changes his address. It should be noted, however, that it is not the authorities who fill it in. The person concerned merely has to notify them. Therefore, anyone getting hold of a licence could fill in a new address to match that on the electoral roll and then present himself at the polling station with the licence, possibly having replaced the photograph. When challenged, he could say that he used to live at the original address but that the new address was shown over the page. Any objection to the document would then vanish.
      Many people in Northern Ireland, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), have Great Britain driving licences which do not have photographs attached. The idea that a driving licence is in any way proof positive that the individual standing before the presiding officer is the person on the register that he claims to be is simply not correct. It is possible to get hold of driving licences and to alter them in such a way as to make them acceptable, especially in hard-line areas where personation takes place on a massive scale.
      I am simply drawing the attention of the Committee once again to the fact that none of these documents are documents which the citizen must possess, and that they are all defective to some degree in identifying the individual.
      There is also the possibility that a person might have lost his driving licence, which could be the only prescribed document that he would normally possess. The driving licence could have been sent away for renewal. There

      1005
      could be half a dozen reasons why the individual may not be in possession of his licence, and he could then be deprived of his right to cast a vote.
      9.30 pm
      Amendment (e) to amendment No. 9 takes up what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) was talking about a few moments ago. I should like to ask the Minister whether a marriage certificate means a certified copy of a marriage certificate, or something less than that. It is not difficult to obtain a marriage certificate. One can write and ask for one just as one can write and ask for a birth certificate. As far as I am aware, there is no great difficulty in that and there is no reason for the certificate to be refused.
      There is also the problem of the change of name which arises whenever a woman is married between the qualifying date, 15 September, and the date of the issue of the new register, which is 15 February. Hundreds of marriages, or perhaps a couple of thousand, take place in the intervening period, and the women who change their names will have to take along their marriage certificates in order to prove that they are who they say they are. Perhaps that is all very well.
      However, let us suppose that, although a woman has lived in Northern Ireland for a number of years, has become a British citizen and is entitled to vote in Northern Ireland, her original home was in the Irish Republic. She wants to get married on Christmas day or shortly thereafter, and she and her husband-to-be go off to County Donegal to get married. Later, she goes to vote, taking notification of her change of address and name, and she is asked for her marriage certificate. Under the Bill, the marriage certificate must have been issued by the registrar-general for England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. This lady was not married in any of those countries. Her marriage certificate is a perfectly valid document but it is not acceptable for this purpose. In that respect, the legislation is defective.
      It is astonishing that, although the Government were so anxious to add to the legislation a reference to the passport of the Republic of Ireland, they have not thought of including the marriage certificate of the Republic of Ireland. It seems as though those who were thinking through the legislation stopped thinking whenever they reached the end of (b) or perhaps (d).
      There are a number of other difficulties. Let us suppose that the girl who gets married after 15 September happens to be aged under 18 on 15 September, which is the qualifying date. If the girl who gets married after 15 September is under 18 and her family move house between 15 September and her marriage, or if her name was omitted from the electoral register and the family moved, it would be possible under existing registration procedure for her to ask to be entered on the electoral register before her marriage. She would then register at her parents' new address. Her parents would still be registered at the old address. Our party agents face such difficulties. How will all that be sorted out if she is married in County Mayo rather than Donegal? There are unforeseen difficulties which the Minister might not like but must face.
      Examination of the prescribed documents leads one to the conclusion that the only satisfactory one is an identity card. Anything else runs into severe difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) has had a sore time ever since he produced his medical card.
      1006
      No doubt the Minister has often looked at hi—I have not seen mine for 25 years. It probably looks worn. Although it might be difficult to produce drivers' licences or identity cards, it is not difficult to make many medical cards, which are the simplest and most effective available form of identification. The only possibility of stopping large-scale personation with those cards is to catch somebody with them. That is extremely difficult. On receipt of a blank medical card a person has only to fill it in with information that does not have to be truthful. It need only look truthful.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is nonsense.
      Mr. Ross: Well, medical cards are simply pieces of printed card showing certain information. That information includes a medical number but there is no medical number on the register of electors so there is nothing to compare it with. It is so much gobbledegook. Nobody will start checking the numbers at 6 pm on election day. The cards will be accepted.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman tempts me. I am quite prepared to accept that it is possible to fill in a medical application form without difficulty and that there is a chance of it being inaccurate or imaginative. However, medical records of people who are on a general practitioner's list are one of the few statistics that can be checked accurately, as they are the basis on which doctors are paid.
      Mr. Ross: It is clear that the hon. Lady has not paid attention to the debate or to the issues before the Committee. I am not talking about properly issued medical cards or about medical records. I am talking about forgeries. There is no way in which such cards can be checked, because as soon as someone leaves the polling station, the card will be thrown into the bin and will be lost for evermore.
      This card is easy to forge. It is easy to make it look realistic. Like myself, many people will realise that a new medical card is the one document that can be easily obtained, and I suspect that between now and May hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of new medical cards will be sought in Northern Ireland for the purposes of this election.
      Mr. McCusker: My hon. Friend may be right.
      Mr. Ross: It is better to travel hopefully, but no doubt the evil day will arrive in May. When it does, I suspect that the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench, who have been so assiduous in welcoming the Bill, will have egg on their faces.
      Mr. McCusker: If there are any eggs left in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend says, "If there are any eggs left".
      Mr. McCusker: My hon. Friend should not get involved in that argument.
      Mr. Ross: I shall follow my hon. Friend's advice, and proceed.
      The series of documents mentioned in the Bill will not be completely watertight, foolproof or effective. Some of them can be stolen or borrowed. For example, we are all aware of what happened on the west bank of Londonderry

      1007
      in recent elections. People were asked for their poll cards and were willing to give them up, only to find that when they went to vote the only ballot paper to which they were entitled was pink.
      These same documents can be handed over to others, and some of them can be forged. The situation will be wide open to abuse, and at the end of the day the honest people will suffer. This will make it more difficult for the honest folk of Northern Ireland. It will no doubt cause some difficulties for the dishonest, but not enough to stop the evil that we are trying to prevent. For that reason the Government have got it wrong. They should look at our proposals and take meaningful steps to amend the Bill to bring it more into line with the thinking of those with real experience of Northern Ireland, and who for three days have tried to advise the Government on the right way to proceed instead of continuing bullheaded down the wrong road.
      Mr. Beggs: My sub-amendment (b) seeks to leave out paragraph (b) which refers to
      "a current United Kingdom, United Kingdom Visitors, or Republic of Ireland passport".
      We all recognise the need for Government to take appropriate action to prevent personation and the widespread vote-stealing which has occurred. Some of us take great exception to the comment, which from time to time receives much publicity, that there is nothing new about personation and that it is peculiar to anywhere where there is an Irish population. It has been said that it has happened in elections in Chicago and New York. I do not believe that personation is an Irish-only export. We have heard it said that there should be positive Government action on the mainland and personation should not be attributable only to Irish residents or representatives of the population.
      9.45 pm
      It is not compulsory for United Kingdom citizens to hold United Kingdom passports and it is probably assumed that more people have United Kingdom passports in Northern Ireland than is the fact. I remember a recent occasion when a school made arrangements for a Continental education tour. The teacher who was to accompany the tour was taken ill and it was found that only one other member of staff in that large school had a current passport. It was that member of staff who made it possible for the tour to take place although it had been planned nearly six months earlier. It was necessary for a teacher to accompany those on the tour to ensure adequate supervision and to assist the tour leader. It seems that in a professional group there are few who have full United Kingdom passports and it is reasonable to assume that those who have less need for a United Kingdom passport, or are likely to have less need, will not have one.
      Northern Ireland is not known for high earnings that permit travel to other parts of Europe, the United States or the far east. That reduces the need and demand for United Kingdom passports for foreign travel. The Province goes overboard with British campaigns to the extent that the majority buy British and believe in spending on British soil. The people of Northern Ireland visit England, Scotland and Wales in large numbers for their
      1008
      holidays. Probably a smaller percentage of the Northern Ireland population holds a United Kingdom passport compared with the mainland population.
      Most of the elderly who participate in the democratic process do not hold passports. They would not benefit by the inclusion of a current United Kingdom passport in the list of prescribed documents and would be only disadvantaged by its inclusion. When an application for a passport is received a considerable time elapses during which the application is processed, with all the necessary checks and safeguards being carried out, before it is issued. There are seasonal queues for passports. The staff who are responsible for issuing passports would be unable to cope if those who do not presently hold United Kingdom passports were suddenly to apply for them.
      I am aware that the United Kingdom passport is highly regarded, but it is not foolproof. There is a belief that some have been successfully forged in the past. The United Kingdom visitors' passport, which is referred to as the quickie passport, is sometimes obtained as a means of jumping the queue or beating the backlog for a full passport. The visitors' passport needs frequently to be renewed and for other reasons is less acceptable than the full passport.
      Should passports issued by the Republic of Ireland feature among the prescribed documents? In certain parts of west Belfast, Londonderry and Strabane the production of a United Kingdom passport would identify the holder and perhaps provoke the wrath at a later date of those not sympathetic to holders of United Kingdom passports. There would be resentment in certain parts of Northern Ireland towards those foolish enough to flash around an Irish Republic passport. We must remember that our objective is to assist the democratic process; it is our wish to avoid confrontation.
      We must consider the position of the minority in Northern Ireland. Many would conclude that holders of the Irish Republic passport could be supporters of the "Brits Out" campaign. That means every one of us. If we allow our imagination free reign, we might think that some of those holders of Irish Republic passports could also support the bomb and the bullet campaign. That could contribute to conflict in certain areas, which is something that we wish to avoid.
      We have no influence on the issue of passports from the Irish Republic. Therefore, we must not place undue confidence in the reliability of that document. Only authentic identity cards produced in Northern Ireland for Northern Ireland electors should be valid and acceptable.
      Mr. William Ross: It is possible for a Northern Ireland resident to hold two passports. If he drove to Dublin he could obtain a passport of the Irish Republic, and he could also hold a British passport.
      Mr. Beggs: It is important that my hon. Friend's point is noted. What he outlined will contribute to the conflict that we are trying to avoid. It is resented in Northern Ireland that some people could, if the Bill is passed, present an Irish Republic passport and so influence the future of those of us who wish to maintain our British links. Such people may not even live in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, yet they could use such a passport to affect the futures of ourselves and our children.
      Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Under the Bill the Secretary of State can, by regulation, introduce other documents and

      1009
      so add to the list. If the Government are not willing to introduce identity cards with a photograph, date of birth, address and so on, could there not be a system of voluntary identity cards for those who wish to use them to prove their identity? They could be registered on the electoral register with stars by their names, and they would have to produce that card if they wished to vote. Various other cards could be provided or made available if people did not wish to have a photograph taken. Cards similar to bank cheque cards could be taken to polling stations and put through a machine, which would show whether the information was correct. A British Airways commuter card is supplied if one sends a photograph.
      The object of the Bill must be to make identification foolproof and to ensure that the person coming to vote is the registered person. That must be clear. I remind those who object to the use of identity cards, either voluntarily or otherwise, that people wishing to drive a car in Northern Ireland must apply for a driver's licence which has their photograph and address on it, and that those who wish to have a passport must also apply with a photograph and their details. It seems peculiar that, if we must have them to drive a car or leave and re-enter the country, people should object to identification for polling purposes. Those who wish to have an identity card with their photograph and details on it should be entitled to have one.
      Mr. McCusker: The debate exposes the Bill's weakness and the nonsense of some parts of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) talked about making identification foolproof without introducing identity cards. The entire business of producing a prescribed document is as strong as the weakest prescribed document. The weakest prescribed document is that which is held most generally. Medical cards were included because they were most generally held. Almost everyone can be expected to have a medical card, which is why it is the weakest document. In no sense is it an identity card.
      The theory is that a person values that document so much that he will not hand it over easily, and that if a person arrives at a polling station with it it is further evidence that he is the registered voter identified on the medical card. Therefore, the inclusion of passports, driving licences and Department of Health and Social Security booklets are only a bonus. The Minister may argue that that makes it easier for those who have driving licences, passports and so on, but in essence it is only a bonus.
      That all boils down to the fact that the medical card should have to be produced by everyone. If that is so, I should have preferred the Minister to say that it was to be the prescribed document. A vigorous campaign could then have been mounted in Northern Ireland to ensure that everyone's medical card was up to date. By having a series of alternatives, we are diluting the possibility of having one card. I regret that we are not basing identification on medical cards or poll cards. The list is a sham. Virtually all of the documents, except medical cards, are available only to a limited number of people. They are included because some of them have photographs, which will help with identification. The medical card does not have a photograph.
      This is another evasion of the issue. The Secretary of State has refused to consider issuing identity cards. I look
      1010
      forward to the Minister addressing the point that the clause is as strong or as weak as the weakest document, which is the medical card.
      10 pm
      Mr. Scott: The amendments under discussion have two purposes. The first is to incorporate—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
    Again considered in Committee.
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Mr. Scott: The first purpose of the amendments is to ensure that whatever list of documents is determined is incorporated in the Bill. The second is to provide an opportunity for hon. Members to explore the list of documents that the Government have in mind. We have said since we embarked upon the Bill that, before it completed its stages through the House, the Government would confirm the list of documents that they have in mind, having listened to discussions in the debate The fact that the list of documents was not incorporated in the Bill did not inhibit discussion, even before we came to these amendments, as to the merits of the documents that the Government propose should be included in an order, which would be debated.
    To reiterate a general point, I accept, and have done from the start, that in undertaking this task to protect the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland we are moving into uncharted territory. The Government have tried to produce a list of documents sufficiently wide so as not to disfranchise members of the Northern Ireland electorate, but tight enough to deter and inhibit the widespread vote-stealing that has developed in recent years in Northern Ireland. The present list is not foolproof and we may have to change it, but I am clear that it is the best that can be produced in time for the local government elections in May 1985, and we must stick to it. After careful monitoring of those elections, we can see how it works in practice.
    May I respond to some of the points made about the documents? I understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) about the problem of marriage certificates issued by ministers of religion, but it is right that the Government should stick firmly to the principle that the list of prescribed documents should include only official documents issued by the Government or by Government agencies. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in taking this view, we are not casting a slur on those ministers of religion who have the power to issue other forms of marriage certificate or, indeed, marriage certificates that originate from the Registrar General. The important aspect is that the document, whether it is the original or a certified copy, should be issued by the Registrar General and should bear his stamp.
    The problem is not that ministers of religion would abuse their position and issue false marriage certificates, but that the certificates could fall into unauthorised hands,

    1011
    perhaps through burglaries. We must protect the integrity of the system by restricting it to marriage certificates that have been issued by the Registrar General. I hope that I have made it clear that there is no slur intended on ministers of religion of any faith in Northern Ireland.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's assurance, but it seems to me that he has missed one aspect of this that I raised, which is that traditionally when a minister or priest issues such a certificate he is acting as an agent of the Registrar General.
    Mr. Scott: I accept that, and the Government considered it carefully because it was drawn attention to by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) earlier in our discussions. But we ended with the result that I have just reported to the Committee, and I hope that the Committee will accept it.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I am amazed that the Government have come to this decision. To get the payment of allowances, benefit and pension books the very certificate that is asked for in some of these cases is a marriage certificate, and a marriage certificate issued by a minister is acceptable, yet a certificate issued by a clergyman or a priest cannot be used as a document which will be accepted at a polling station. It is amazing that it is a proper document to procure another document but that it is not acceptable in these circumstances.
    In keeping with what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, when a minister issues a marriage certificate he is acting as an agent for the Registrar General, and it is the Registrar General's certificate.
    Mr. Scott: With respect, the hon. Gentleman does not appear to have listened to what I said earlier. There is the possibility of stocks of these certificates held by ministers of religion in Northern Ireland falling into the wrong hands and being used for purposes of personation. It is right to keep this as tightly controlled as we can.
    Mr. John Hume: Will the hon. Gentleman emphasise that there are many ministers of religion in Northern Ireland who are active elected politicians?
    Mr. Scott: I would not impugn the integrity of a minister who was also an active politician, least of all in the company in which I find myself at present.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that assurance. However, I understood the Minister to say that it was to protect the integrity of ministers of religion. But there is an official stamp on marriage certificates issued by various council officers or by the Registrar General direct, and the others might be stolen. A stamp on such a certificate would not do anything other than protect the integrity of the issuing minister, because he would not be otherwise involved. But will the Minister address his mind a little further to the time lapse? Why do we need such a document? I do not believe that it is necessary if a person appears on the register under her maiden name.
    Mr. Scott: It is a long-stop provision for those married women who might have no other way of showing that the change had occurred. It is worth having it there as a long-stop. It is one that we shall want to monitor, as we shall the other documents and their use, as we go through the elections in May 1985.
    1012
    I understand the point about someone who was married outside the United Kingdom and who is unable to produce a valid marriage certificate. However, there might be other documents that could be produced by that person. What is more, it would be possible for a married woman in those circumstances to apply for a medical card, which could be issued in her maiden name. She would not be committing any offence by making that application.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Why did the Minister persuade his colleagues to vote against amendment No. 22, when the principle contained in that was that the prescribed documents should be those issued with the approval of the Government? The argument that he is now using to advance the case against the document being asked for by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is that it is not one that has been issued by the Government or a Government agency.
    Mr. Scott: I prefer to stick to the amendment that we are discussing, and to defend the balance of judgment to which the Government have come as to the range of documents upon which we have settled. I do not wish to go back over old ground. I know that there is a temptation, and one to which no doubt the Committee will succumb from time to time, either to leap forward to discuss amendments that we have not yet reached or to go back to ones that we have already discussed. I should like to avoid that temptation if it is humanly possible.
    A great deal of fun has been had about medical cards but perhaps I should explain for the benefit of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) that the medical card that he produced in the House on Second Reading is not the medical card that is being issued in Northern Ireland now. We are in the process of changing over from the sort of medical card that he has kept at the bottom of his drawer for umpteen years to medical cards that are produced on computer stationery. They are perhaps not as durable as one would like, but they bear a computer printout and the details of the bearer, which would make them difficult to forge.
    The cards are issued by the Services Agency in Belfast, where the blanks are held in a store protected with restricted access because they are computer stationery. It would be a bold man who ruled out the possibility of the theft of some of that stock, but it should be difficult to obtain cards. It would also be difficult for anybody who tried to personate in an application for a replacement card, because the computer needs the full name and either the date of birth or the National Health number before it will print out a replacement card. Paramilitary groups would have serious difficulty in obtaining stocks of these cards.
    Mr. McCusker: As the Minister will recall, I was one of those who said that I did not think that the paramilitaries would try to steal medical cards, or even print a document. Is my medical card a prescribed document or do I require, by 15 May, a new card? In the election next year will one or other of the cards be valid? As that card is the one that does least to identify, in the sense that there is no photograph on it, and it will not be held by a person with the same care as a book that will bring him in funds, but it is most commonly held card, is it not the one document that should have been used as the prescribed document? If the Minister is now telling me that the new document

    1013
    is a better one than the original, does that not make my point? Should we not have said that that is the prescribed document?
    Mr. Scott: Either document will do. There will be a progressive changeover to the new card, but not in time for everyone to have one by the local government elections.
    Mr. McCusker: The cards will be issued?
    Mr. Scott: Yes, they will be issued in due course. In the meantime, anybody who wishes to obtain such a card can apply to the agency, and will be issued with one. There will be no problems about issuing them in good time for the May 1985 elections for anybody who claims one.
    I accept, as I have accepted in the past, that the medical card may be the weak link, but in future it will not be quite as weak as has been supposed. because of the character of the new documents being issued. The old document includes on it the date of birth, so a certain amount of organisation will have to go into ensuring that anybody who attempts to personate with the card at least approximates the date of birth on the card. That may not be as good as a photograph, and I do not pretend that it is. However, it is some restriction on the fraudulent use of the card. Therefore, it is less easy to abuse a medical card than has been suggested on occasions.
    Passports have a photograph on them. As I said on Second Reading, I have borne in mind that the franchise for this House includes citizens of the Republic of Ireland. This Bill applies to parliamentary elections and it is right that a passport issued by the Republic of Ireland should be accepted.
    I do not agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) that seems to equate automatically anyone who chooses to have a passport from the Republic of Ireland and to commit himself to an aspiration which is perfectly legitimate and respected in the House with those who seek to subvert the constitution by the use of the bullet or the bomb. I do not believe that that is a valid point. Many constitutional nationalists would bitterly resent any suggestion that the possession of a Republic of Ireland passport should do that.
    10.15 pm
    The point about voluntary identity cards, which was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), falls against the test that the documents to be produced should be official. As I have said before, going over to a full identity card system raises questions that go far beyond what we are considering in the Bill. In any case, there would be no time to introduce such a system in time for the next election.
    We have explored the documents. I have some doubts about the incorporation of the documents in the Bill, but I have listened carefully to the points that have been made. On reflection, I think that it would be right for me to accept the spirit of the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I give an undertaking to bring forward on Report an amendment that will incorporate the list in the body of the Bill. I hope that, in those circumstances, the amendment will be withdrawn. If not, I shall have to advise the Committee to reject it.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am glad, if I may borrow the metaphor of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), that the bulldozer appears to have switched off
    1014
    its engine. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will not regret having made a better Bill by carrying on its face an indication of what are the prescribed documents.
    I accept that, if the Under-Secretary of State is to write the list into the Bill—I obtained the words from the notes on clauses with which he was good enough to provide hon. Members—the hon. Gentleman will need to look more acidly at the definition of each of the documents. I hope that the opportunity will he taken especially to consider paragraph (e) — the marriage certificate. I thought that valid points were made during the debate. I hope that this action will provide an opportunity for those points to be considered by the Minister during drafting.
    In addition, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will consider whether the restriction
    " since the qualifying date for the register"
    is indispensable, since there could well be cases where a woman, married shortly before the qualifying date, would still appear on the list of electors in her maiden name, and thus have the same reason for wanting to use this document.
    I a grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for having made this improvement to the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: I remind the Committee that we have had a fairly long debate on clause 1, and it would not be in order to cover ground that has already been covered on the amendments.
    Mr. McCusker: I do not intend to do that, Mr. Dean. I do not want to delay the Committee any longer than necessary. The Under-Secretary of State will remember that when we discussed the availability of the prescribed documents to the holding agent he produced some convincing arguments to support the case that the documents should not be made available to the polling agents. I suggested to him that paramilitaries may present what purports to be a prescribed document in such a way that only the presiding officer has the opportunity to decide whether it is a prescribed document. Under pressure the presiding officer may accept that it is, take no further action, and simply deliver the ballot paper.
    Secretaries of State in the past have given instructions to presiding officers. During the last election or the one before that, presiding officers were directed to ask a person to state his name and address before the ballot paper was given to him. I do not know whether they all do that, but that was the advice tendered or instruction given. To avoid difficulties for the presiding officer, when he is presented with the prescribed document, could he be permitted to display it to the polling agent? After all, we are now making it law that a document must be produced. He could say, "I have a driving licence, medical certificate or passport in the name of—" and read out the name and address. That does not give away any confidential information, but it would avoid him being put under pressure from the paramilitaries.
    If the paramilitary produces a document which he pretends is prescribed—we must remember that at some polling stations there will be no polling agent and the only people in the polling station apart from the staff might be the police—the police will not be alerted to the fact that

    1015
    the abuse is going on. If the presiding officer had to display the document to satisfy everyone in the polling station that a prescribed document had been produced, it would immediately eliminate the probability of any abuse.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: There was only one matter that was not directly dealt with by amendment but which was referred to in Committee. Unfortunately, the Minister was not present at the time. It relates to the list of prescribed documents. It was suggested that there are those who may fear to use a British passport or a passport of the Republic of Ireland in certain areas, or who may be embarrassed to use a benefit book in front of those who know them, or who may not have any prescribed document. Will the Minister consider adding to the list of prescribed documents a purpose-made identity card, issued through the electoral office, which the individual may voluntarily produce? Everyone would not be required to have it, but it may be more satisfactory for some people to use a purpose-made document rather than one of the documents that they feel might endanger or embarrass them.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to return to the issue of the registrar's certificate. When the Minister considers the list of documents, I hope that he will understand that the certificates are more available to the public in the local registry offices than they are in a clergyman's house, because the public have access to those offices. I have been in the offices and the certificates have been lying around on the shelves. The Minister should think carefully about that. What is more, the certificates that I have seen do not have a stamp. They have the signature of the person who issued them at the bottom. I should like the Minister to consider this carefully because the marriage law in Ireland—we use the old Irish law—is complex and different from that in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Scott: I am sorry to have to issue at least qualified negatives to each of the three points that have been raised. As I have undertaken to introduce an amendment on Report, we will have an opportunity to consider what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said about marriage certificates. I see difficulties, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, with the course that he suggests. I shall certainly consider it, although I am not optimistic that the amendment will incorporate the idea that he has put forward.
    I cannot see that it would be possible, in time for the local government elections next year, to go down the road that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) suggests and have some kind of voluntary identity card. We would want to be sure that anything produced for that purpose, even if one agreed to it in practice, would be uniformly available across the Province. I do not think it would be possible to do that in time for the election.
    I also have grave doubts about the presiding officer holding up the document. He is the man who has to make the judgment. We shall be giving advice to the chief electoral officer and he will be giving advice to his staff in due course. I shall look at the point, but I should have thought that it would be a case of taking the matter away from the judgment of the presiding officer, and my initial reaction would be to say that the difficulties would be outweighed by any conceivable advantages.
    Mr. McCusker: I am not suggesting that it should interfere in any way with the presiding officer's discretion or judgment. It would be demonstrating to all concerned that a prescribed document was being presented. I do not think that he should be involved in any decision making at that stage. He is just saying that he has been given a prescribed document.
    Mr. Scott: I stand by what I said, but I shall look at the matter.
    Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 16.

    Division No. 30]

    [10.25 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

    Hickmet, Richard

    Amess, David

    Hicks, Robert

    Ancram, Michael

    Holt, Richard

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Home Robertson, John

    Arnold, Tom

    Hooson, Tom

    Ashby, David

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

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Benyon, William

    Howells, Geraint

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Blackburn, John

    Hume, John

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Kennedy, Charles

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Bright, Graham

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Brinton, Tim

    Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Knowles, Michael

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Lang, Ian

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Budgen, Nick

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Butterfill, John

    Lester, Jim

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Chapman, Sydney

    Major, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Mates, Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Meadowcroft, Michael

    Cockeram, Eric

    Norris, Steven

    Conway, Derek

    Onslow, Cranley

    Coombs, Simon

    Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

    Couchman, James

    Page, Richard (Herts SW)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Dover, Den

    Pawsey, James

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Durant, Tony

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Evennett, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Favell, Anthony

    Rowe, Andrew

    Fenner, Mrs Peggy

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Scott, Nicholas

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Forth, Eric

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Fox, Marcus

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Freeman, Roger

    Silvester, Fred

    Gale, Roger

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Galley, Roy

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Spence, John

    Gregory, Conal

    Spencer, Derek

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Stern, Michael

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Harris, David

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Harvey, Robert

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Hawksley, Warren

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Hayward, Robert

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Thurnham, Peter

    Heddle, John

    Tracey, Richard

    1017

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    Whitfield, John

    Waddinglon, David

    Wood, Timothy

    Walden, George

    Woodcock, Michael

    Walker, Bill (T'side N)

    Wallace, James

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Waller, Gary

    Mr. Michael Neubert and

    Wardle, C, (Bexhill)

    Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

    Watson, John

    NOES

    Beggs, Roy

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

    Parry, Robert

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

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

    Knowles, Michael

    Robinson, P. (Batfast E)

    Loyden, Edward

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCusker, Harold

    Smyth, Rev W. M, (Belfast S)

    Maginnis, Ken

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Nellist, David

    Mr. William Ross and

    Nicholson, J.

    Mr. Cecil Walker.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      OFFENCES RELATING TO PRESCRIBED DOCUMENTS
      Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 5, after 'of', insert
      'or the day next preceding'
      The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those trying to personate on a massive scale and collecting a large number of documents of one kind or another in advance may be challenged. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) put down a similar amendment, which was not selected, but I believe that the intention is met rather more neatly in our amendment which refers to "the day next preceding"—in other words, the day before.
      There is little point in restricting and making illegal the possession of such documents only on polling day. Past experience has shown that for the documents to be in the possession of the individuals concerned preparations have to be made some time ahead. If people are allowed to go around freely stockpiling documents and making their preparations we shall be ensuring that they are indeed capable of carrying out their intentions on the day. If the amendment is accepted and that is made illegal, the work of the wicked will be very much more difficult. For that reason, we hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I tabled an amendment similar in effect to the amendment under discussion. This is a very important matter. The day before the election seems likely to be the time when the machinery of personation would be set up. It would therefore be very important that the police should be able to go into the headquarters on that day and deal with the matter. It could even be argued that they should have that right two or three days before the election. How far does one go? The proposition in the amendment is a reasonable one, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There is one further point that the Minister might consider. I believe that it has been established that the early hours of the poll are often the
      1018
      favourite hours for the purposes of vote-stealing, being a time when the polling agents may not be on the job and the vote-stealers may have relative privacy and immunity for doing their fell work. If there is to be vote-stealing at 7 o'clock in the morning, it stands to reason that the materials for perpetrating it must have been accumulated overnight. That is an additional reason for accepting the amendment
      Mr. Scott: The Bill as drafted makes it clear that the offence can be committed only on polling day. The intention of the Government in drafting the Bill in that way was to make quite sure that the accumulation of the documents was for the purposes of personation. It was thought that it might be difficult to establish that fact before the court if the offence ran beyond polling day. On polling day, especially if the documents were held in close proximity to a polling station, there would not be much doubt that they had been assembled for the purpose of personation.
      Another factor helped to determine the Government's approach to the provision. We wanted to strike the right balance between protecting the liberty of the individual and the need for the community as a whole to be protected against the evil of personation. To suggest that the police should have the powers a fortnight before polling day would have been to go too wide. However, the amendment does not do so. I have listened with great care to the points made—especially the point made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) about the fact that this work is often done in the early hours of polling day. The amendment could very well be useful to the police and to all those who wish to eradicate the evil of personation from the electoral process in Northern Ireland without unacceptably affecting the rights of the citizen. l urge the Committee to accept it.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. McCusker: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 7, leave out
      'to which this section applies'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
      Mr. McCusker: Subsections (1) and (2) define the new offence which is now to exist, not only on polling day but, thank goodness, on the day before. I believe, however, that the offence is too narrowly defined. Subsection (2) seems to mean that the offence is committed only if the person has in his or her possession one of the five prescribed documents described earlier on. I am sure that that will be sufficient to prove that the person is guilty of or is likely to commit the offence, but there are other documents which will be equally important to anyone trying to organise vote-stealing on a massive scale.
      10.45 pm
      I have already referred to the importance of the poll card, which could be used more fully in the scheme of things. The clearest sign that massive personation was about to take place would be the apprehension of someone on the day before polling day or on polling day in possession of many polling cards. The advantage of a polling card to the personator is that it is a vote about which he will not be embarrassed. He is fairly sure that the people whose polling cards he has will not be polling that

      1019
      day. It would be much easier for large-scale personators to start the day with as many polling cards as can be accumulated. He will poll as early as possible in place of people whose polling cards he does not have, as they will vote later. The holding of a polling card is as good a sign that the offence will be committed as the holding of one of the prescribed documents.
      The Minister will recall that, in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election of two years ago, a van with six or eight citizens of the Irish Republic was stopped. Some came from as far away as County Cork and had a large bundle of polling cards. As they were doing a grand tour of polling stations in that constituency it was clear that they were using those cards. Greater discretion should be given to the police to determine what document is a sign of personation. Polling cards should be included. We are talking of people stealing 10,000 or 20,000 votes.
      If the offence is to be committed by both sides of the political divide on a military scale, some records have to be gathered and produced. Polling cards are a fair sign of vote stealing, but so are lists of the dead, lists of those who are training as nurses in the Royal Victoria hospital and lists of people who are on holiday. Someone who is personating systematically is bound to have other documents that indicate a planned campaign. We cannot specify what those documents might be, but they could include polling cards and a well-marked register. Such documentation might not be conclusive proof on its own but, combined with other evidence that might emerge as a result of police investigations, it probably would be. We want to break out of the restrictions of the list of prescribed documents.
      Mr. Scott: I must advise the Committee that we are on delicate ground. We have to strike a fine balance between giving powers to the police which might unduly affect the rights of citizens. We have made a conscious decision that the way in which to check personation is to insist on the production of one of a list of documents. If earlier amendments, which would have allowed other documents to be taken into account, had been accepted, this one might have fitted in better. The Committee has rejected that approach and insisted that acquisition of a ballot paper depends on presentation of a prescribed document. In terms of not allowing the powers of the police to go too wide and protecting the rights of the individual and in terms of trying to enhance the chances of successful prosecution, it is best to stick to the narrow list of documents. We shall have to monitor this in the context of the elections in May next year and stick to the list of prescribed documents. We would be on very dangerous ground if we went wider than that for this first attempt, and I advise the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was glad to hear the Minister say that during the elections in May an eye would be kept on the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker). I assure the Minister that the intention of the amendment was in no way to go back on the question of what ought to be the range of prescribed documents. But I equally suggest that he should take seriously the consequences of the institution of the poll card in areas where a serious attempt at vote-stealing on
      1020
      a substantial scale is being made. Even in areas where that is not the case, one often has a shiver down the back on noticing the number of poll cards which are lying about.
      It is a common experience of those in an election campaign to be unhappy enough to come across poll cards just lying around, or cards which do not relate to the persons who produced them and who said, "These came through the letter box the other day", or, "My neighbour got these. I do not know what she will do with them. What do you think she ought to do with them?" There is nothing commoner than that experience, and at best the poll card is a two-edged weapon in relation to the integrity of the electoral process.
      It was introduced with the intention of superseding the efforts which parties and their organisations could make at an election to alert selected electors to the necessity of going to the poll and how and when to do so. But, as often happens when we attempt to spoon feed and mollycoddle the electors, we find that we have created something to which unsuspected disadvantage is attached. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann was right when he said that those who organised this operation would think themselves exceedingly fortunate and well on the way if they could make a handy collection of poll cards in the relevant ward.
      I hope that the Minister will ensure that particular attention is paid to the appearance and role of the poll card in any attempts at personation and vote-stealing which may take place in the forthcoming elections.
      Mr. Scott: I can give that undertaking. We must understand that in May we will be in a situation completely different from that which existed in previous elections. Had we not decided to have a list of prescribed documents but had sought to counter personation, we might well have wanted to go down that road. We now have this new scheme, and we are right to test that.
      Amendment negatived.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: We now come to amendment No. 23.
      Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and I tabled this amendment in a spirit of inquiry to probe the matters about which I expressed some anxiety on Second Reading. However, I would not like it to be misunderstood.
      Of course we appreciate that the power of arrest is the cutting edge of the Bill, and we have no wish to remove it. I expressed our reservations at an earlier stage today, and the Committee will not be dismayed to hear that I do not propose to move the amendment.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
      '(d) within the polling station inspect (in addition to presiding officer and clerk) the prescribed document before or after the ballot paper is delivered to the voter.'.
      Like the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), I could say that this amendment is tabled in a spirit of inquiry, because I seek clarification from the Minister on whether what appears to be implicit in the Bill is fact.
      Subsection (3) states:
      "If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has possession of a document in contravention of subsection (1), the constable may"
      take action within a series of possibilities. It is essential that the constable is able to perform part of the process if

      1021
      the Bill is to have any degree the effect that we all hope for it. However, there are many who suspect that it will not have that effect.
      The reality of life in Northern Ireland is that the presiding officer and the clerks in the polling station often live in areas from which the gunmen come and to which they go. The threat of the gun overshadows many a presiding officer and clerk. When a person has presented himself with a document—it may be a prescribed document—and the presiding officer has not been satisfied that that person was on the electoral register, he has often, at least in the past, been afraid to take action. It is suggested that if he, the clerk or the personation agents for the political parties are afraid to involve the police, there should be an automatic right for the constable to require to see the document before or after a ballot paper has been produced.
      The police may be alerted to some of the individuals who would be taking part in personation. However, it would be a deterrent factor if personators could be pretty sure that the Royal Ulster Constabulary would not be afraid to challenge them. That might cause them to think twice before entering the polling station to personate, especially with the penalties that are envisaged in the Bill.
      I hope that the Minister will clarify the procedure. How much a part of the procedure in the polling station will the constable be? Is he to play a passive role? Will he move only when the presiding officer or personation agents of the parties indicate that he should? Does the Minister envisage that the constable will challenge those whom he believes are not genuine in putting forward a prescribed document in exchange for a ballot paper?
      Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has expressed the understandable concern that it would be difficult for a constable on duty in a polling station to determine whether someone was a personator unless he had the power to inspect the prescribed document which the voter had produced to a presiding officer to obtain a ballot paper.
      The Committee will understand the Government's concern, which is reflected in the careful drafting of clause 3, that the powers given to constables to deal with the new offence should be tightly drawn to avoid the police becoming involved in the electoral process more than is absolutely necessary to prevent personation. I do not believe that the Committee would wish to give the police a general power to inspect prescribed documents whether or not the constable had reasonable grounds for suspicion. Nor would the RUC wish to have such a power, which would be only a step away from insisting that all voters must submit to a police inspection of their prescribed documents before applying for a ballot paper. That would be repressive and alien to the free electoral system that applies in the United Kingdom. It would lead inevitably to allegations of police harassment and partiality.
      It is my firm opinion that subsection (3) gives the police sufficient powers to achieve our objectives. It restricts a constable to acting only on reasonable grounds of suspicion. When he acts on those grounds, his powers to inspect the voter's prescribed document is implicit in subsection (3)(c). To include the amendment would cast doubt on whether the power to inspect documents applied outside polling stations. I can assure the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the RUC was closely consulted over the
      1022
      new powers available to it in the Bill, and is satisfied that they are sufficient and that we do not need to cast the net any wider.
      I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      11 pm
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Those of us who studied the Bill from the time of its publication were under the impression at first that the teeth were in clause 1 and that clause 3 was, in some sense, subsidiary to clause 1. Further study and debate has disclosed the importance of clause 3 so that we probably regard it as the most important and effective clause of the Bill.
      As the Minister has explained on a number of occasions, the device—whatever criticism has been made of it and however we would have wished it to be qualified—of the prescribed document does, for the first time, give the constable on duty in the polling station prima facie reason for suspicion of an offence of personation having been committed or attempted, and the document would form the evidence upon which that suspicion would be based. We are, therefore, if we take it seriously, envisaging that the police powers in the clause are very much the effective back-up to the provisions in the earlier part of the Bill. It is on that assumption that I want to put a proposition to the Minister. It is not one that can be expressed in the terms of the Bill, but it is one to which it would be useful if he could offer some form of assent.
      I ask the Minister to envisage the circumstances, not in the early hours of the poll to which we referred earlier, but towards the end of the poll—perhaps between half-past 9 and 10 o'clock at night on the polling day of a general election for this House. Let us suppose that that period has been selected for a substantial operation involving the stealing of votes. What will happen is that during that period, one hopes, a series of documents will be tendered and held by the presiding officer because of a reasonable doubt that they were not tendered by the electors specified on the electoral roll.
      If one has understood the meaning and purport of the clause, the fact in itself of a presiding officer rejecting a tendered document creates a prima facie assumption that the person who tendered that document meant no good and was trying to use that document for the purpose of personation or vote-stealing.
      When the first such instance occurs, it may well be that the member of the RUC on duty will act on his judgment, and having searched and found the document on the person will proceed as set out in the clause. What happens when that is repeated a second, third and fourth time, perhaps within as many minutes—not in the middle of the day, but when all the pressures are on and with genuine electors belatedly seeking the opportunity to cast what may be the vital votes in their constituencies?
      Surely it will be necessary for there to be available a back-up of police so that we shall not fail to utilise this clause for lack of police manpower available in the event of a repetition of a whole series of prima facie offences. We are therefore asking the Government to show that they

      1023
      will put their boot where their voice is, and ensure that in those areas, which are not difficult to define, where such practices are likely to occur, there will be an adequate availability of police, not necessarily in the polling station but readily available, especially during hours of pressure, to make a reality of the powers contained in the clause. It would be encouraging and helpful if the Minister would say something on that subject.
      Mr. Scott: I am happy to respond in supporting the motion that the Committee should approve the clause. As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, it provides the teeth for the entire Bill. I have already mentioned that there have been consultations with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is satisfied that it has sufficient powers. I well understand that there is a second leg to that, which is that on the day it should have sufficient resources to fulfil its obligations. I am sure that in the consultations that the chief electoral officer always has with the RUC before an election, it will be impressed on the RUC, especially since this is the first time that we shall be on this territory, that we look to it to ensure that the new law is rigorously enforced. It is an operational matter, and I shall make sure that it is drawn to the chief constable's attention.
      Mr. William Ross: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks, but we should perhaps consider more carefully what the police will have to do, and how many policemen will be needed to do it.
      There will be a large number of polling stations and polling rooms and boxes on election day. The number is not the same for all elections. I am considering primarily the position that would prevail at a parliamentary election. It will not be simple in the May election because there will be proportional representation. There will be an abnormal number of boxes and, therefore, many more policemen will be needed to cover it.
      If Sinn Fein and its fellow travellers in the Irish Republican Army set out to cause the maximum trouble on election day, they will not confine their activities to polling stations in areas where they are active, but incidents of a terrorist nature will occur in other parts of the Province. That will draw members of the security forces, which will inevitably include many policemen, to those other duties. That could be done with the intention of reducing the number of men available for polling station duties.
      It is apparent to all in Northern Ireland that not all parts of the country will be under threat of personation. It will be restricted to a small number of areas. If the police are to be seen as even-handed, they must have an adequate presence in every polling station. I see difficulties not at small rural polling stations but at large polling stations with large numbers of boxes and rooms. They will need two or three policemen in a room with a back-up force, either in the building or immediately outside it, and somewhere to hold individuals who are arrested. It will not be possible to bung them into a police car and cart them off to a police station. If the IRA and Sinn Fein plan personation on a large scale, they will take other precautions to make the life of the police as difficult as possible. We are not talking about only a few men.
      Can the Minister tell us how many boxes will be needed in next May's elections, bearing in mind the fact that they
      1024
      are not only proportional representation elections, but that they will be much slower than usual? The number of boxes may have to be increased, which is why I do not agree with the proposed extra cost. Could he also tell us how many extra policemen will be needed to carry out the job? We shall need many more than most people believe. As we must expect Sinn Fein to try to bypass the legislation in every way possible, we can expect the maximum effort from its representatives, which must be matched with the maximum effort of the police to stop them getting away with it.
      Mr. Scott: It is not for me to consider the details of the number of boxes required. That is a matter on which the chief electoral officer assured us that the financial provision made in the Bill is sufficient to implement the legislation. For the first time, the police will have the powers that they need to deal with the blatant personation that has characterised elections in some parts of Northern Ireland. I am sure that the chief constable will make the necessary arrangements to deal with it, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to the attention of the chief constable.
      It is slightly difficult to believe that an operation at 9.30 am that led to the arrest of many of those people would be persisted with, bearing in mind the penalties to which those who indulge in personation are liable under the Bill. I do not rule it out, but it is unlikely that they would persist. This is new territory. The police have those powers, and I am sure that they will be determined to use them properly.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7

      CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Question that you have just proposed to the Committee, Mr. Dean, is the only opportunity, in the light of the rules of order and the selection of amendments, which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have to record in Committee our views on the fact that the legislation will apply to only one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland.
      An interesting development—if that is not too complimentary a word—can be traced in the thinking of the Government on this subject. Earlier the Minister recalled the tentative propositions that were put to the parties in Northern Ireland in April 1982 on the subject of the prevention of personation. During a debate on an earlier amendment I quoted at length the response of the Official Unionist party to the proposal of the mandatory provision of documents. On 10 March 1983, the then Secretary of State returned to the subject, and it is interesting to note that his attitude then was different from what it had tentatively been in 1982, and has finally become in the terms of the Bill. He wrote then—and I shall not trouble the Committee with more than the essential quotations:
      "There are two broad fronts on which this abuse…can be tackled."

      1025
      The first front was that laid out in the Bill whose consideration in Committee we are just concluding, and I shall return in a moment to what the then Secretary of State said about that.
      11.15 pm
      The second approach was that we should use the present legislation. The words of the Secretary of State were
      "to concentrate on what more can be done within existing legislation."
      I want to draw attention to the reasons why, at that time in May 1983, the Secretary of State preferred the latter course of seeing what could be done with the present legislation. It was because he considered that the step of making the production of documents a condition for voting in Northern Ireland would involve
      "a major change in the way in which elections are conducted, and if it were introduced for Northern Ireland alone, there would be a significant difference between procedures in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the same election."
      It is pleasant in retrospect to be able to attribute to the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) a sensitivity to the susceptibilities of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and the Northern Ireland people which was not always strongly marked during his tenure of office. I hope that it may come to his attention that this golden sentence from his letter of 10 March 1983 has been exhumed and displayed in this debate to his credit. Quite evidently the Secretary of State did not consider that it was desirable that there should be a significant difference between procedures in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the same election. Nor do my right hon. and hon. Friends and I, nor does anyone in Northern Ireland think it desirable that there should be a significant difference between procedures in the same election in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland.
      But the word "procedures" in that sentence is an understatement of the difference which the Bill creates. I do not think that it can be disputed that the Bill is appending to the right to vote a condition which will be applicable only in one part of the United Kingdom if the legislation is passed for Northern Ireland.
      On the face of it, it is unconscionable that the right to vote should be qualified in one part of the kingdom only. The qualification is an effective restriction of the right of the exercise of the franchise. We are not talking about measures to prevent or to apprehend persons who might be breaking the law. We are talking about a condition which will be binding upon everyone and which must be fulfilled before he can vote. We are saying that that condition shall be applied only to that part of the electorate which is situated in Northern Ireland.
      Even if the circumstances in Northern Ireland in this respect were unique—which they are not—it would still be an extraordinary step for the House to take to qualify the franchise in one part of the kingdom and not in the rest. After all, that is what is happening within Northern Ireland itself. The franchise is being qualified in nine tenths of the Province where the Bill is not required for the effective policing of the electoral process. For the sake of the electoral process in one tenth of the Province a new qualification and limitation upon the right to vote is being imposed on the rest of the Province.
      It is apparently thought to be right that to deal with the problems of a minority of the area the same restrictions should be imposed upon the population of the whole of the area, that is, the whole of the Province. If the House was
      1026
      anxious about the dangers anywhere in the kingdom of widespread personation and vote stealing, rather than break the fundamental principle of an elected assembly such as this that all its Members are elected by electors who have the same franchise and the same opportunity to exercise it, I should have thought that the House would say that this restriction should be imposed upon the whole of the kingdom.
      If we are to change the electoral law, let us change it for everyone. No doubt it will not be required in a large part of the kingdom, but nevertheless we shall have maintained the equitable treatment that is the essence of an elected assembly, which ultimately makes this place in which we are all equals, one to the other, because we have all emerged from exactly the same electoral processes in our part of the United Kingdom.
      Northern Ireland is, even now, not unique in this respect. There are parts of the mainland where already the circumstances are such that the identification of voters and the substitution of one voter for another is extraordinarily difficult to prevent. Exactly the same arguments for imposing the precondition of presenting a colourable document could be urged as have been urged for the justification of the Bill. I am not intending at any length to stand in the way of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) or of other hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom who may tender evidence to show that the case of Ulster is not: unique. However, if the case of Ulster in not unique, the argument in favour of imposing this restriction on Ulster only is correspondingly weak, and the outrage that it has done to our constitutional principle is correspondingly serious.
      I am sure that it would not have been expected that hon. Members returned to represent their constituencies in Northern Ireland, speaking for the electorate of Northern Ireland, would passively accept this discrimination against the Province that they have the honour to represent. 'We shall vote against this clause being added to the Bill as being the only means at this stage of the Bill by which we can place on record our sense of outrage at what is being done and at the inadequate justification for what is itself unconstitutionally untenable.
      Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I find myself in something of a dilemma because we are called a United Kingdom, but we do not seem to be supporting the idea of one united voting system. As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has already said, there are some concerns in Leicester, East, and in the city of Leicester. I agree with him that the Bill will stop cheating and it will stop people voting more than once, but I regret that clause 7 is defective because it is restricted to Northern Ireland. If it were widened, and made to incorporate the rest of the United Kingdom, it would be a far more easy Bill to understand and accept.
      I should not have to give examples of what I describe as voting early, voting often, which occur in other parts of the United Kingdom. What happens is not necessarily vote-stealing, but polling cards are collected and distributed to another party's headquarters. People go in to vote at least twice. Another example is when the turnout in one polling box amounted to 96 per cent., which is obviously scandalous and unbelievable. I feel that I am not the only hon. Member who can say with certainty that personation occurs.

      1027
      Therefore, we must ask ourselves why Northern Ireland should be treated any differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) had a majority of seven. The result could have been the other way. We just do not know how the voting went there. In Northern Ireland there are certain constituencies with very small majorities. Yet again, we do not know whether the democratic process has been interfered with in those cases by the use of personation. While the Bill is acceptable in that it aims at correcting the democratic process so as to treat people more fairly, and attempts to stop other people from taking advantage of presiding officers and polling agents, it is defective, no matter how one looks at it. I regret that we cannot have a Bill for the rest of the United Kingdom. We must ask ourselves whether the abnormally high turn-outs in Belfast constituencies should worry us. We should ask ourselves also about the position in the United Kingdom.
      With great regret, I find myself in a dilemma. I have to support clause 7, but I can do so only to a limited extent because I hope for more to come. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will take account of this debate and the Committee's views so that it will be possible to bring forward a Bill on behalf of the rest of the United Kingdom enabling constitutionally elected Members of Parliament to be elected fairly without the need for any kind of double voting.
      Mr. Scott: I fully understand the depth of feeling of the Official Unionist party about this matter. Those right hon. and hon. Members feel strongly that a Bill which touches the franchise to this extent should apply to only one part of the United Kingdom. I respect that point of principle, but the fact is that the Bill was brought before Parliament to deal with a specific threat to the electoral process in Northern Ireland. Despite the energetic and not unpersuasive remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), I have to repeat what I said on Second Reading: the Government have no evidence that widespread personation is practised in Great Britain. Unlike Northern Ireland, there have been no formal representations—
      Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Scott: Not at this moment.
      Mr. Ross rose—
      Mr. Scott: I shall give way in a moment. I always give way, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I should like to be able to complete this point.
      We do not have evidence that personation is practised to a significant extent here. We have had representations from all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland about the level of personation, but no such representations from this side of the water.
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman used two particular words—"widespread" and "significant" personation. Do the Government have any evidence that there is personation on a small scale or in relatively small areas such as a single polling station or polling box, as referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels)?
      Mr. Scott: I suspect that if the personation had reached a serious dimension, so that it posed a threat to the integrity of the electoral system, the parties here would have made representations to the Government. They have not done so, and therefore I do not believe that the situation exists. Certainly, it does not exist on this side of the water where there are no paramilitary groups organising in a dedicated way on a large scale the personation that we have witnessed in recent elections in the Province. I do not believe, therefore, that there is a case for the extension of the Bill to Great Britain. The Government sincerely regret that it is necessary in a matter as important as the democratic process to differentiate between the treatment of citizens in Northern Ireland and the treatment of those in Great Britain.
      The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) mentioned in particular the change of heart between the original letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) and the Government's final decision. The general election of 1983 occurred during that process, and we saw the most determined, sustained and widespread organisation of personation in Northern Ireland. That led us to believe that the powers under existing legislation were not sufficient and that we would have to seek to deal with that dangerous position by legislation.
      It is true that electoral arrangements in Northern Ireland, even in parliamentary terms, differ from the arrangements in Great Britain—residential qualifications is the example that springs readily to mind. It is a question of balance as to which is the less desirable—to treat those in Northern Ireland differently from those in Great Britain because of the depth and seriousness of the threat to the electoral system there—
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of fact, there is no difference in the electoral qualifications for elections to this House between Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Scott: In Great Britain a person has to be resident on the qualifying date. In Northern Ireland a person has to be resident on the qualifying date and for three months before. There is that difference in the qualifications for parliamentary elections.
      The question is whether the lesser of the two evils is to treat Northern Ireland differently or to allow an evil to disrupt and subvert the democratic process in Northern Ireland. We are determined to prevent the latter. I therefore urge the Committee to vote for the retention of clause 7.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 13.

      Division No. 31]

      [11.30 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Ancram, Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Brinton, Tim

      Ashby, David

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Benyon, William

      Budgen, Nick

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Burt, Alistair

      Blackburn, John

      Butterfill, John

      Bottomley, Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Chapman, Sydney

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Chope, Christopher

      1029

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Lester, Jim

      Conway, Derek

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Coombs, Simon

      Major, John

      Couchman, James

      Mates, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Dover, Den

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Newton, Tony

      Durant, Tony

      Norris, Steven

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Onslow, Cranley

      Evennett, David

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Fallon. Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Favell, Anthony

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Fletcher, Alexander

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Forth, Eric

      Rowe, Andrew

      Fox, Marcus

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Freeman, Roger

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Gale, Roger

      Scott, Nicholas

      Galley, Roy

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Gregory, Conal

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Spencer, Derek

      Harris, David

      Stern, Michael

      Harvey, Robert

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hawksley, Warren

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hayes, J.

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Heddle, John

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Hickmet, Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Holt, Richard

      Thurnham, Peter

      Hooson, Tom

      Tracey, Richard

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

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Walden, George

      Howells, Geraint

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Wallace, James

      Hume, John

      Waller, Gary

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Watson, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Whitfield, John

      Knowles, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Lang, Ian

      Latham, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Mr. Michael Neubert and

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Mr. Peter Lloyd.

      NOES

      Beggs, Roy

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

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCusker, Harold

      Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Nellist, David

      Mr. A. Cecil Walker and

      Nicholson, J.

      Mr. William Ross.

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      OFFICIAL POLL CARDS
      The following shall be inserted after Rule 28(3)(c)—
      "(d) the documents which the elector may be required to produce to the presiding officer at the polling station under the terms of this Act.".'. — [Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Committee will already be aware of the foreboding which is felt by right hon and hon. Members on this Bench as to the number of electors at a future election in Northern Ireland who will arrive at the polling station innocent of the fact that a new qualification and condition has been attached to their right to exercise the franchise, and that if they do so arrive, they will depart not merely disgruntled but in many cases determined, having thus been, as they will see it, insulted, not to cast their vote, certainly at that election, whereby undoubtedly the accuracy of the electoral process would be damaged.
      It is therefore, if we are to have this legislation, essential that as far as possible every person likely to exercise his vote in person, because of course it is only voting in person or by proxy with which the Bill has been concerned, is aware before he goes to the polling station of the new requirement which has been attached to the casting of his vote.
      There is one form of communication, not indeed foolproof, not indeed failsafe, but at any rate of very general application, which can usefully be applied for that purpose in addition to advertisements in the newspapers. Advertisements in the newspapers other than those advertising the respective merits of the different political parties—merely drily announcing legal particulars about the forthcoming elections—are not the favourite reading of those who buy the newspapers. It cannot, therefore, be taken for granted that notices inserted in the newspapers, however accurate, as to the new conditions to be imposed upon voting, will come to the attention of all likely to want to vote in person, particularly the elderly, who, as is the habit with the elderly, think that having done it so often, they know how it is done.
      We ought therefore not to despise the poll card as a means of communication between the electoral authorities and the electorate. The new clause, although its precise terms are related to earlier amendments, invites the Government to consider making it an actual duty for the poll card to carry—I was going to say "upon the face of it", but I suspect that it would be done upon the back of it—a notice of the documents with a firm indication that at least one of them will be required as a condition of voting.
      I know that the Minister is anxious to ensure the best possible success for the operation of the legislation. It will fail miserably if a substantial number of electors are unaware of its essential provisions on the next polling day. I hope, therefore, that he will empower himself to use this valuable means, perhaps the best available means, of communication with electors—the poll card—to convey that information.
      11.45 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I remind the Minister that when brought this matter to his attention previously he said that he would consider it. I trust that he will be able to respond today. It is only right that the poll card received by the elector should make clear not only where he has to 'vote but that he must bring with him one or other of the prescribed documents. I trust that the Minister will take that reasonable request on board.
      Mr. Scott: I am happy to be able to end this Committee stage on a note of agreement and harmony, although not

      1031
      in precisely the way suggested by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I assure the Committee that the Government totally share the aim of giving the widest possible publicity to the requirement for voters to bring one of the prescribed documents to the polling station. I will arrange through regulations for it to be made necessary for that information to be included on the polling cards.
      Rule 28(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states that
      "The official poll card shall be in the prescibed form".
      I shall ensure that the aim of the new clause is met by prescription in regulations.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

  Northern Ireland (Road Traffic, Transport and Roads)
  11.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
  That the draft Road Traffic, Transport and Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
  The order seeks to bring our basic legislation up to date through amendments which have already been put into effect in Great Britain.
  Article 3 will enable the Department of the Environment to conduct experimental traffic schemes. These will last initially for six months but may be extended to a maximum of 18 months, after which the experiment must either be made permanent or abandoned. This will give us more flexibility in testing solutions to road traffic problems. At present, changes can be introduced only after a somewhat time-consuming statutory process. As hon. Members will know, in road traffic management, as in other areas of life, theory and practice often differ. It will therefore be to the benefit of all road users if the Department, as road authority, can quickly make amendments to traffic control measures to ensure that the most efficient and cost-effective measures are adopted.
  Article 4 provides new powers to deal with a common source of complaint in the Province—the parking of heavy commercial vehicles on footways where they not only cause considerable damage to the surface and to underground services, but constitute a danger and inconvenience to pedestrians, especially the blind. There will be a general prohibition on the parking of such vehicles on verges, footways and the land between two carriageways with exemptions in certain instances such as loading or unloading where the operation could not otherwise be carried out.
  The provisions of articles 5, 6 and 8 seek to strengthen the hand of the Department and the RUC in dealing with goods vehicles. Powers are sought to prohibit the driving of overloaded goods vehicles, to require goods vehicles to proceed to a place not more than five miles away for the purpose of being inspected—at present the distance is one mile—and to facilitate the use of dynamic axle weighbridges.
  Article 7 places Ulsterbus Ltd. and Citybus Ltd. on a similar footing to publicly-owned bus undertakings in Britain by exempting them from the requirement to have third party insurance cover as required under the 1981 road traffic order. In effect the companies will carry their own insurance, subject to such underwriting arrangements as they deem necessary.
  The provisions affecting transport also touch on vehicle licensing and railway issues. Article 11 is of special significance. It will enable the Department to attach to a road freight vehicle licence conditions relating to its parking. This power will be used in conjunction with those in Article 4 to ensure that the parking of goods vehicles in residential areas is kept to a minimum. It is an environmental as well as a transport provision.
  Article 15 makes new provisions with respect to level crossings, and was not in the draft order circulated for consultation and considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, I feel that because of the continuing programme of level crossing automation being undertaken

  1033
  by Northern Ireland Railways Ltd., it is important that Northern Ireland legislation should be brought into line with that in Great Britain as quickly as possible. At present it is not possible for Northern Ireland Railways to automate crossings on private roads, many of which are operated by the road user. With increasing urban development, several crossings of that type now have a considerable volume of traffic, and enhanced safety measures are desirable. The new proposals will allow automatic controls on all roads to be introduced by order made by the Department. We also propose an element of statutory local consultation for all roads, in that Northern Ireland Railways will be obliged to refer its proposals for automation to the district council for the area concerned.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Gentleman referred to level crossings on what he called private roads. When does he expect to receive the report of the inquiry that has been established by Northern Ireland Railways into what it calls accommodation crossings, which I believe are what the Minister called crossings on private roads?
  Mr. Patten: I hope that I shall have a chance to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question before the end of the debate.
  Any representations which the council wishes to make—I return to the matter of consultation—must be taken into account by the Department when it decides whether or not to make the order.
  This important proposal seeks to balance, as it must, the needs of railway safety with the need for a more cost-effective railway system. Hon. Members may appreciate a clearer understanding of the considerations that will apply when a level crossing is brought forward for automation. The proposal is subject to extensive consultation involving the railway company, the RUC traffic division and the Department's roads and road safety officer services. The Department will make the appropriate order only when it is satisfied that all the parties are in agreement both on the principle of the automation and on its detailed operational requirements.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister remind the House to what parliamentary procedure, if any, the order would be subject in present circumstances?
  Mr. Patten: As I recall, the order would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. We seek in the order to bring the situation into line with that in Great Britain, but I will return in more detail to the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  The automatic crossing will then be installed to the specification approved by the Department of Transport in Great Britain and inspected by that Department's railway inspectorate prior to coming in operation.
  Article 16 gives the railway company the power to construct railways and to allow the transport holding company compulsorily to acquire land to facilitate such construction. The power is sought as a desirable element in general transport planning.
  I shall deal finally with the roads part of the order. I do not need to tell right hon. and hon. Members from the Province what road humps are, as they have been used extensively as a security measure. Article 18 proposes a new use for such humps as a speed control measure. The Department will be given the power to construct humps on
  1034
  roads with a speed limit of 30 mph or less. Humps are therefore to be used on urban roads, especially those which are designed to serve residential areas only and which have become used as through routes by traffic. The installation of humps with the consequent reduction of speed should discourage unnecessary through traffic and offer an important road safety element.
  This is a wide-ranging order which embraces a wealth of detail and I trust that., even at this late hour, my exposition has proved of passing interest.
  11.55 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: It is a convention of the House that, immediately a Minister has resumed his seat, the spokesman for the official Opposition should rise to express his party's reaction to the Government's proposals. Normally that is a sensible way in which to proceed, but when we are considering a measure that is not controversial in a party sense I wonder whether it might not sometimes be better to see first whether any hon. Member wishes to raise a fundamental objection so that the debate is begun by formulating the principal issues. I have no such issue to raise.
  If there is any one theme running through the order I fail to discern it. It is a collection of measures, each of which seems modest but worthy, for facilitating transport in the Province. We are grateful to the Minister for the clear but brief way in which he described them. I wish to refer only to article 16 which is headed, "Power to construct railways." I hope that the Government have it in mind to use these powers, as they are asking for them, and I hope that one of the earliest uses they make of them is to proceed with the rail link between York road and Central station, Belfast, about which I wrote to the Minister last February. He will recollect the consultants' report on the Belfast urban area plan and the public inquiry that followed. The inspector recommended provision of the link saying that it would increase the overall efficiency of the rail network.
  There was wide public support for the link. It seems generally to be accepted that it would make an important contribution to the complete transport system, yet earlier this year the Minister said that consideration would be delayed for, apparently, three years. That was a deep disappointment to many people, to employees of the railways and to potential 'passengers. If the Minister can say anything to offer hope of an improvement on that time schedule, we shall regard that as a bonus.
  It would be illogical on our part to deny the Secretary of State these powers because we thought that he might be too lethargic in exercising them. Beyond that, at this late hour, the House will be pleased to hear that I confine myself to welcoming the order.
  11.58 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is indeed an order which covers a wide number of subjects and on some of them I hope that I can induce the Minister to expatiate rather more than he did in presenting the order. I do not intend to refer to more than a few of them.
  I should like to mention humps and the experimental traffic control schemes that include them. We have the benefit in the order of a definition of the word "hump." A
  "'road hump' means an artificial hump in or on the surface of the road which is designed to control the speed of vehicles".
  As the Minister said, we are familiar with this device for purposes of security. In Newry—I apologise, as I am

  1035
  being betrayed into trespassing into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson), not entirely having got over no longer representing Newry. If my hon. Friend will permit me to say so, there are humps in the road approach to Newry which could well be reconsidered and thought to be fit for withdrawal, having originated in a security provision.
  One seriously wonders what the potential scope is for series of humps in residential roads. I hope that the experimental period, and its results, will be severely considered before schemes are made permanent, as the apparently good idea of a road hump on many private roads seems to have severe limitations if it is to be applied to public roads, even in residential areas.
  Article 4 deals with the
  "Parking of heavy commercial vehicles".
  I can only agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) that, if we could eliminate the parking of commercial vehicles on verges, many parts of Northern Ireland would be happier places and many roads would be more sightly. But I warn the Minister that it will not be sufficient for this article to become law. He will have to ensure that this provision is enforced and policed. It is all too easy for commercial vehicles to use a road verge relatively briefly and to leave it in a condition which is a horrible offence to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and for that offence to be repeated many times until it becomes virtually habitual and yet for no particular offence to have been identified when it was committed. I hope the Minister will understand that the provisions of article 4 call for very special police attention and vigilance in enforcement.
  I stray again into the same prohibitive reminiscences. On the Minister's visits to Newry, which I know are not infrequent, he may recall that on his way into the town he passes on the right hand side what appear to be a series of monumental little lighthouses along the verge of the road. Eventually these were found to be the only remedy for the harassed inhabitants of the houses on that side of the Banbridge-Newry road against the incessant parking of commercial vehicles, which had reduced the verges to a slough. Legal provision is fine, but it will be inefficacious unless it is severely policed. I hope the Minister will be able to communicate from this House a wish that the vigilance exercised when this order comes into force should be specially acute.
  Article 10 deals with the
  "Licensing of public service vehicles".
  Paragraph 2 refers to
  "public service vehicles…while making journeys to or from places outside Northern Ireland"
  if they are registered in Northern Ireland and vice versa.
  If I have not mistaken the nature of these road service licences, I wonder how this provision accords with the Government's intention to remove from road services the straitjacket in which they have hitherto been confined by road service licensing. It would be a strange paradox if while freeing from that straitjacket the development of public service vehicle traffic inside Great Britain we introduced or continued powers to restrict and licence it as between the Province of Northern Ireland and the mainland.
  It may be that a misunderstanding lies at the root of my comment, but in any case I would be grateful if the
  1036
  Minister could clear it up and bring it into relationship, if there is a lack of one, with Government policy on the mainland.
  Article 15 is directed to level crossings. It is interesting to compare the new section with section 66 of the 1967 Act, which it replaces. The point that will strike a diligent collator of the section in the 1967 Act and the article is the ousting of parliamentary control. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section 66 reads:
  "The Department may…by order provide that, any statutory provision shall not apply".
  It is a general principle that is observed in subordinate legislation that it is objectionable for uncontrolled subordinate legislation to repeal or alter statutes. We do not make statutes in the House, even on railway undertakings and level crossings, to have them repealed by Departments. We have historically been jealous of a suspensory power. In the original legislation that power was properly subject to affirmative procedures in the House. That seems to be the right procedure. If Ministers are to say that a statute which the House has made is no longer to have effect, it should be the House, in effect, which by affirmative resolution says that. I would not regard it as adequate if there were substituted for the former affirmative procedure a negative procedure, bearing in mind how rarely it is possible effectively to assert negative procedure, especially if it should turn out, when the Minister has had further time to examine the matter, that the negative procedure is the sort which, under the conditions of direct rule, turns out to be no procedure at all. We shall listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say on control by the House of the powers in new section 66 to oust statutory provisions.
  The Minister set out the consultations which it is intended shall be gone through with local representative authorities and others before any such alterations are made. However, consultation is no substitute for parliamentary procedure when we are removing safeguards that the House has imposed. I hope that that will be taken to heart more generally as well as in the immediate context of the article.
  I refer last—it is a kindred point—to part V of the 1967 Act, which provides for the construction of railways. It was with some surprise that those studying the order found that they were called upon to enact powers to enable railways to be constructed. I take it that the intention is to enable railways to be constructed more conveniently and with less interference by parliamentary and other action than would otherwise be the case. I notice that this part was described by the Minister as a desirable element in the development of transport. It may or it may not be. That depends on how the powers are exercised.
  I assume that in this part of the order we are converting the old railways clauses, which used to have to be embodied in the private Acts that authorised the construction of the railways, into a piece of a regulation. If so, we are again removing from the purview of the House in its legislative capacity something which has hitherto lain within that sphere. If that is what has happened, we should be clear about it. At this moment, as I understand it, if it is intended to build a new railway—and I shall put forward a suggestion in a moment—
  Mr. Chris Patten rose—
  Mr. Powell: The Minister is about to guess.
  Mr. Patten: Warrenpoint.
  Mr. Powell: The Minister is right. He is aware of my obsession with Warrenpoint and the coming development in communications between the mainland and the Province. However, before I come to that obsession I invite the Minister to be a little more clear about the legislative consequences of article 5. Are we in fact dispensing with the necessity, for the future, of private Bills being promoted for the creation of railways, and are we in effect depriving the public, by these measures, of any opportunity that they would have had by petition or otherwise to put forward their views when a new railway construction is anticipated?
  On second thoughts, I shall not return to Warrenpoint, as I am glad to find it already in the Minister's mind. No doubt he will observe that little major engineering would be necessary to re-extend from Newry — trespassing again — into Warrenpoint in the Down, South constituency the railway that used to serve the port of Warrenpoint which, from next year, will be very much busier than it has been for many a long year, much to the advantage of the hinterland of the Province and, indeed, to the island of Ireland as a whole.
  12.11 am
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I know that it may be hard to detect that the Road Traffic, Transport and Roads (Northern Ireland) order has produced any sense of occasion in this House, but I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that for one hon. Member at least there will be a sense of rejoicing at the acceptance of the order. It will be known to me not under the title that I have just mentioned, but rather as the road humps order.
  Since I was first elected to this House in 1979, I have attempted to persuade the Minister's predecessor to engage in consultation with his colleagues on the mainland to establish whether they would engage in an experiment with road humps and whether our experience with road humps for security purposes could be extended for reasons of road safety to other roads in the Province.
  The road that I asked the Minister to study was one of which he should be well aware. If he looks out of the window of one of the offices at Dundonald for which he has responsibility, he can see it. It is a slip road that runs parallel to the Upper Newtownards road and travellers who use a bank at one end then make swift access to Newtownards road. It is the sort of slip road where a 30 mph limit would be unsuitable. But even that speed would be preferable to the speed of vehicles using the road. I hope that my request will be one of the first that the Minister will have the opportunity to consider when the order is passed, as I suspect it will be.
  There are several matters on which I hope the Minister will give us further information. I have noted in schedule 2 the method by which the Department intends to inform the public that a road hump is to be situated at a given location. The method of site notices is one which he intends to use. I believe that he is aware that their use for this purpose may be used against him by those of us who have been arguing for them for another aspect of his responsibility—planning. I know that he is considering some changes in neighbour notification and site notices and also in third party appeals.
  Are there criteria set down in the Department as guidelines for where such road humps should be placed? Will it be decided on the basis of accident figures for a given area, or of who can cry the loudest to have one in
  1038
  his street? Will any restrictions apply to site lines? I imagine that there would be considerable difficulty if the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) were to travel round a corner at about 60 mph in the Bogside and confronted a road hump.
  There must be some restrictions. Will the Minister tell us about the regulations which he intends to have laid down in his Department? May I assume in the references to the dimensions and spacing of road humps that the regulations are likely to be similar to those that have been used for security purposes?
  12.16 am
  Mr. William Ross: At first, when one reads article 4 about the parking of heavy commercial vehicles, it seems that there is a blanket ban. However, as one proceeds, one discovers that there are a number of let-outs for anyone who wishes to park a heavy goods vehicle. I am curious to know why the bans are imposed on heavy goods vehicles only. I know of areas where the grass verge has been churned into a mud bath by lighter vehicles using them as parking areas. Why should we restrict parking for heavy vehicles when cars, tractors and large vans such as those used by telephone engineers also cut up grass verges? Why is the prohibition only on heavy vehicles? Considerable damage can be caused by considerably lighter vehicles, depending on their tyres, and so on.
  Article 4(3)(a) states that a vehicle can be parked
  "for the purpose of loading or unloading."
  The condition for parking under article 4(3)(b) is
  "that the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been parked on the footway or verge."
  What happens if in a built-up area an individual discovers, as did a constituent of mine, that he must park on a footpath to unload his vehicle but that there is a double yellow line? The end result of constant police and traffic warden action was that he closed his business and moved elsewhere. Because he received so many fines and was constantly harassed, he could not carry on business. Is there a way round the problem? Does this provision open a window of opportunity to such people?
  Article 4(2)(a) states that permission can be given
  "by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabularly in uniform or a traffic warden."
  That would appear to mean that the traffic warden need not be in uniform, although the police officer must. I see no good reason for that. On many occasions a plain clothes police officer might wish to give such permission, but, as the legislation is drafted, he could not. Will the Minister say why that is so, and why an off-duty traffic warden would appear to be able to give such permission? The Minister may believe that this is nit-picking, but it could have practical applications to many people.
  Article 6 states:
  "An inspector of vehicles or a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary may at any time require a person in charge of a stationary goods vehicle on a road to proceed with the vehicle, for the purpose of having it inspected…to any place where an inspection can be suitably carried out not being more than five miles from the place where the requirement is made."
  Why is it that only a person in charge of a stationary goods vehicle can be asked to proceed with the vehicle for inspection? Is the Minister saying that if the police or an inspector of vehicles come across a vehicle parked in a layby, while the driver and has helper are having their tea, they can tell the driver to go to the inspection centre,

  1039
  whereas if the police or the inspector are parked in the layby and they stop a goods vehicle coming along the road they cannot demand that the—
  Mr. Chris Patten: It is usually necessary to stop the vehicle in order to talk to the driver.
  Mr. Ross: Yes, but the legislation does not say that. It refers to
  "any person in charge of a stationary goods vehicle."
  It does not say that the vehicle must be stopped. My impression of the legislation is that it applies only to parked goods vehicles.
  I cannot understand why there is a five-mile limit on the distance within which the vehicle can be compelled to move for inspection. It will mean that the vehicle inspection department of the RUC will try to find stationary vehicles within five miles of the vehicle inspection centres, and nowhere else. At present, it is possible to stop a vehicle and tell the driver to take it to an inspection centre within a specified time. That is a bone of contention of many of my constituents, who say that, although their vehicles have been inspected and passed as fit for the road even the week before—they also have the necessary documentation for the vehicles—they are told to take their vehicles to the inspection centres and have them inspected again.
  My constituents whose vehicles have been passed as roadworthy for 12 months ask why they should be forced to return to the inspection centres after such a short time. It should be enough for them to produce the necessary documents, which show that their vehicles passed the inspection recently and were deemed fit for the road. If something is wrong with the vehicles—apart from minor breakages which the drivers or owners would repair within a short time — the inspection process cannot be very good.
  Does article 6 give the Northern Ireland authorities power to require vehicles that pass through the Province, from or to Great Britain or the Continent, to undergo a thorough inspection? I hope that that is the way it is to be, because one hears horrific stories of vehicles being used which are not suitable and are not up to the proper standard.
  In recent weeks and months there have been a considerable number of orders capable of being prayed against passing through the House on the subject of level crossings on the railway lines between Londonderry and Belfast and Belfast and Dublin, and there are a number of others pending. Until I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), I believed that that type of order would continue in the future. Having listened to him, I am not so sure. If that is not the case, I shall be extremely worried.
  Although this order lays a requirement on the railway authorities to inform the council of the area, which may then make representations, if it stops at the council the representations may not be listened to. It may be that the Department, which will be the deciding authority in this case, will simply overrule the wishes of the council and the people in the area. If there was no order coming before the House on which some sort- of parliamentary action could be taken, our constituents would be deprived of the protection that I feel they need.
  1040
  There are places where the requirements laid down in the order are acceptable. There are many quiet country roads where lights and automatic gates are acceptable, although I personally do not like them. But there are other places where roads are extremely busy, some of them even in towns, and where the proposed regulations are quite unacceptable.
  Some time ago I wrote to the Minister about one example of what I mean in Milburn in Coleraine, where the railway line is crossed at a very dangerous location. The line is at the top of a hump-back. On one side there is a post office. On the other side there are the Crown buildings which house several Government Departments, including the unemployment office, the agricultural office and several others. There is also a large primary school close by, and there is a large housing estate surrounding it, with children going to and from the school in fairly large numbers every day and having to cross the railway line, which at present is manned, with gates.
  I understand that somewhere in the pipeline there is an order to remove the present equipment and put in automatic equipment. That is quite unacceptable to me and to my constituents in the area. It is one of those areas right in the middle of a town where we must maintain the present high standard of protection and manning. Nothing else is satisfactory in those circumstances because this is a very busy road where there is an enormous number of children during the school term, where many other people travel to and from the Crown buildings and where there is quite a lot of traffic passing in any case. That is perhaps an extreme example of where the gates should be kept, but there are other cases, of busy roads out in the country, or where the level crossing is in a bad position, where it is necessary to maintain a much higher level of protection for the public than that which is possible under the order.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us what these changes mean in relation to the representations that we may be making in the House on behalf of our constituents. We want to know what his criteria will be whenever he has to decide whether automatic barriers will be allowed. We want to know about this, and there is no time like the present, before the order for Milburn is printed and distributed.
  12.30 am
  Mr. James Molyneaux: This order is relevant to the reservations that have been expressed about the legislation concerning railway crossings. We may be correct in assuming that this is another victim of direct rule. Under Stormont rule, presumably, these orders were affirmative and, like all legislation affecting Northern Ireland under direct rule, they have all been down graded one step so that we are now faced with negative orders. This is not very satisfactory, because, unless one is fairly quick on the draw and spots those two little lines of italics, one does not get in within the 40 days.
  The Minister spoke about the road humps. In my maiden speech to the Antrim county council 20 years ago I suggested a physical device for the slowing of traffic at dangerous spots. I suggested that the then county surveyor, who is not unknown to the Minister, should examine the Dutch system, in which sections of the road approaching danger spots are replaced with a corrugated device in precast concrete. That has an advantage over the humps, of which we have had all-too frequent experience in Northern Ireland in the past few years. The humps may not be

  1041
  properly constructed, or an inexperienced or nervous driver, no matter how slowly he may proceed, may take the hump in the wrong way. He may lose his exhaust pipe or break his sump.
  That takes me back to an occasion when I was being driven around the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). At that time he had an addiction for what I can only call low flying. He took one of these humps at excessive speed, and when he came out the next morning he found that the sump oil had trickled across the nice concrete parking space. He was held up and missed an entire day's canvassing.
  I come back to the practical suggestion. I hope that the use of the word "humps" in the order can be construed in such a way as to allow the use of the other device. It causes the maximum discomfort to any road hog driver. It may damage the suspension, but it cannot do other physical damage to the vehicle, as can the road humps of blessed memory, which are thankfully now being removed from many areas where they were never necessary anyway. I do not expect the Minister to give a definitive answer tonight, but perhaps he will feed that suggestion into the machine and see whether the experts in his Department can construe humps as meaning the corrugated device, which can be much more effective.
  12.33 am
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I welcome article 4, which is a necessary measure against the parking of heavy commercial vehicles on the pavement. A number of accidents have been caused by large commercial vehicles being parked and other vehicles running into them in the dark. On other occasions, even in daylight, children have run out from behind the vehicles. As the Minister said, another problem is the blind trying to get along the footpaths and finding the vehicles parked in their way, which is dangerous. Attempts have been made to curb that type of parking, using the present legislation. That has not proved successful.
  Generally, commercial vehicles park around filling stations. Double yellow lines are put down on both sides of the road, which means that the people who live on the other side of the road cannot park outside their houses. That disadvantages those who live close to the filling stations.
  At a certain filling station in my constituency, drivers of large vehicles have a habit of driving on to the footpath to fill up with diesel at a pump which is conveniently placed beside the footpath, instead of driving on to the forecourt. A difficulty arises because the drivers forget about their lorries parked on the footpath and go into the café, which is in the filling station, to have their meal. They come out again in about an hour. I am not trying to prevent the drivers from having a meal, but it would be better if they parked on the forecourt or in the lay-by which is just a little way down the road.
  It is fine to bring in the order, provided that it is enforced. What if it is enforced in the same way as regulations dealing with gipsies and itinerants? My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has been fighting a rearguard action in upper Balinderry against vehicles, caravans and even horses which graze on the grass verges.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No donkeys.
  Mr. Forsythe: No donkeys. It is essential that the order should be enforced rigidly. The Under—Secretary should realise — he probably agrees with me — that large vehicles parked on the footpaths destroy the surfaces and perhaps even the electric wiring beneath the footpaths, causing the street lights to go out. It would be helpful if large lorries could be kept off the verges.
  I express interest in this subject because I live on the road that comes from Templepatrick, past Ballyclare to Larne. There are lovely grass verges by the side of the road. The lorry drivers decide that they want to take a rest and so they drive on to the grass verge. They plough up the grass verge and we end up with no grass. That is unfortunate, considering the fact that the Department of the Environment keeps the grass verges in good order.
  Article 26A(2)(a) states:
  "A person shall not be convicted of an offence by virtue of paragraph (1) if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that the vehicle was parked—

  (a) in accordance with permission given by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in uniform or a traffic warden".

  If a driver had been given permission by a policeman in uniform or traffic warden to park, who would take him to court? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give an explanation.
  I understand that a vehicle could be allowed to park on the verge of a road for the purpose of loading or unloading. If the vehicle would otherwise hold up traffic, it must be parked on the verge to keel) it out of the way.
  Article 26A(3)(b) states:
  "that the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been parked on the footway or verge".
  Not having been in the construction industry I do not understand why one cannot unload on the road if one can unload on the footpath. I do not know why this provision is included.
  I can see extra employment being created because of article 26A(3)(c). It states:
  "the vehicle was not left unattended at any time when it was so parked."
  I assume that the driver will ensure that he has someone with him all the time to look after the lorry.
  I welcome, as other hon. Members have, schedule 2, which provides for humps on roads to assist with road safety. I can think of roads in my constituency where cars come to a bottleneck. They slip down a side road and drive through residential districts where a great many children play. We have occasionally asked whether there is a way to stop that, but we have been told that it is not possible to put up a "No entry" sign because the road is a through way, and there could not be a 15 mph sign because motorists would not obey it and the police would have to sit there all the time to enforce it.
  There is a case for humps to be constructed so that motorists are discouraged from taking short cuts. If they run into a couple of humps they might find it better to go up to the bottleneck.
  12.41 am
  Mr. Chris Patten: I am grateful for the varied and interesting contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made, beginning with the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He referred understandably to article 6 and asked whether it

  1043
  related to the cross-harbour rail link and what the Government's latest proposals were on that substantial capital project.
  As I said, the power to build railways provided in article 6 is being taken as a general transport planning provision. It could be used for the cross-harbour link should that project be proceeded with.
  Equally, and this is a point I make because I have listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), it could be used should the rail network be involved in the transport of lignite, given the encouraging signs that there are about that discovery.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) asked about the rail-road link across the Lagan. The rail link remains part of the Belfast transportation strategy. I cannot say any more to the House than I said at the beginning of the year to the Belfast city council. We shall review the position each year when we consider public expenditure for the three-year period ahead, but the rail link will not be provided in advance of the road link. The estimated cost of the rail link, at 1984 prices, is £16 million. That excludes land costs. I am aware of the interest in that project and we shall continue to consider it in the public expenditure discussions year on year.
  The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) referred to the rail network in the Newry area. It is a subject about which I know a certain amount. I spent one of the happiest days of my happy year and a half in Northern Ireland opening the new railway station at Newry. I note what he says about the rail link to Warrenpoint. I am sure that Sir Myles Humphreys, the chairman of Northern Ireland Railways, and his board, will also note it.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the new powers on railway construction. He was right in saying that we are removing the need to proceed by means of a private Act. However, I feel that there are adequate safeguards in the proposed procedure. There will, for example, be provision for a public inquiry in relation to the vesting of the land and the construction of the railway, but the essential point made by the right hon. Gentleman was correct.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the detailed provisions of article 10, particular in relation to paragraph (2). Similar regulations have been made in Great Britain by the Department of Transport, requiring public service vehicles registered in Northern Ireland, when Operating certain services within Great Britain, to carry authorisations issued by the Department of Transport. Therefore, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has to make a reciprocal Northern Ireland regulation to deal with public service vehicles registered in Great Britain which operate similar services in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the object of the licensing to restrict or control the provision of transport services? Is it, as it were, an old style transport planning provision? If it is, why is it still being maintained?
  Mr. Patten: Perhaps I can take up the point with the right hon. Gentleman later in correspondence, as obviously I have not made the point sufficiently clear at the Dispatch Box.
  1044
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the procedure for level crossing orders and the alterations in it. Again he was right. Section 66 of the Transport (Northern Ireland) Act 1967 provided that such orders were to be subject to affirmative resolution. The point was also made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley in the Stormont Parliament. Under direct rule, such orders are subject to negative resolution at Westminister and come before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The substituted section 66 makes no specific provision as to how level crossing orders are to be treated. They therefore fall to be dealt with under section 78 of that Act, which provides that regulations are to be subject to negative resolution, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier. Such orders will be submitted in draft to the Northern Ireland Assembly and will be scrutinised by the Examiner of Statutory Rules. I do not think that it is necessarily appropriate that orders with a very localised impact should continue to be dealt with here at Westminister. I note that their Great Britain equivalents are not subject to any scrutiny such as that.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked about accommodation crossings. Northern Ireland Railways have plans to provide improved safety measures at accommodation crossings. Those measures are being carried through by the company in a programme planned over a six-year period.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) raised a number of issues, particularly with regard to level crossings. I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in and concern for the subject. I assure him that the Department will not consider the making of an order unless it is satisfied that all concerned are content with the detailed safety measures proposed.
  I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern about the endangering of pedestrian safety by the removal of gated crossings, but, as I have pointed out to the hon. Member in correspondence, the evidence from Great Britain shows that gated crossings have the worst accident record, and that the automatic safeguards built into the open crossing system offer substantial protection to all crossings users.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked a number of questions relating to road humps, which understandably concerned other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that our draft follows the Transport Act 1981, particularly section 32. The criteria will be set out in regulations designed to protect not only residents but motorists. The hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about the criteria that would be applied. Of course, as usual we shall have to take account of accident figures, vehicle and pedestrian flows—the usual rational criteria that always determine major and minor capital works on roads.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Perhaps it would be wise at this stage to draw the Minister's attention to the lack of enthusiasm that there will be for road humps in Omagh roads division, especially in my district council area, where we have been beseeching the Minister for a considerable time to provide adequate finance to remove the unnatural humps and other impediments in our area. When that is done, no doubt we shall welcome the provision of humps, to which the Minister referred.
  Mr. Patten: I recently had the opportunity to discuss at some length the provision of funds in the Omagh

  1045
  division with a council in that division. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the point of view that he put to me vigorously was put equally vigorously by several councillors on that occasion. Several councillors wished to make it clear to me that they, too, did a good deal of low flying around their own area.
  I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that we have made more money available in that division, as in others, particularly for minor works, in the past year or so. Roads expenditure as a whole in Northern Ireland has fallen as housing expenditure has risen, almost exponentially. Though that has unfortunate consequences for any Minister regularly visiting district councils. it is wholly justifiable in terms of the overall allocation of funds within the programmes in Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley talked about a device which I suspect is designed for slowing down fast traffic on a main road, but by definition the humps that we are thinking about are designed for an entirely different purpose—to discourage the rat runs, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East referred, through suburban streets, which I know causes a good deal of alarm and concern, particularly to mothers taking their children to school in the mornings.
  The hon. Members for Londonderry, East and for Antrim, South and the right hon. Member for South Down talked about parking on verges. I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East that in Great Britain the Government took power to ban all footway parking, but the difficulty is that the Government have not been as successful as we should have liked in implementing that ban universally. Heavy vehicles do the most damage to verges. We are, therefore, wise to start with them. It is important to ensure that the legislation is adequately enforced—a point made strongly by the right hon. Member for South Down. The way that we are concentrating on heavy vehicles gives us the best chance and opportunity of doing that.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Can the Minister assure the House that there is adequate legislation to prevent the growing development of verge sales throughout the year in Northern Ireland, particularly at roundabouts?
  Mr. Patten: I think that there are two issues here, one of which sometimes stems from sales involving more permanent parking by itinerants or travelling people. I believe that the hon. Member for Antrim, South referred to that. I very much hope that the proposals that I announced recently will help in that regard. As for sales not involving travelling people or the curious category of "static travelling people" as they are sometimes described, powers are available to the constabulary to deal with the problems that arise although I accept that those powers need to be examined.
  1046
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East referred to the powers available to stop vehicles. Power to do that already exists in the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The new provision will enable the RUC or an inspector of vehicles to direct a vehicle that has been stopped to a place where it can be examined. The new power will be useful in dealing with overloaded vehicles, which I believe that the hon. Gentleman had in mind. The Department is engaged in providing more weighbridge facilities, which should help us to deal with those vehicles. The five-mile provision is designed to bring more goods vehicles into the weighbridge net and thus to ensure both fairer competition and road safety.
  Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister saying that the inspections are now to be restricted merely to determining whether a vehicle is overloaded and that the provision has nothing to do with the mechanical safety or otherwise of the vehicle?
  Mr. Patten: No, of course we are concerned about the mechanical safety of vehicles as well. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that he had referred particularly to overloading.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to foreign vehicles. I confirm that power already exists under the 1981 order to inspect, weigh and, if necessary, prohibit the driving of such vehicles. That should catch the kind of vehicle that he had in mind.
  With the exception of the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Down with which I did not deal adequately, I believe that I have covered most of the points referred to by hon. Members.
  Mr. William Ross rose—
  Mr. Patten: I see that another is coming up.
  Mr. Ross: In view of the change that is evidently coming in relation to the provisions about level crossings and as the order will come into operation two months from today, is the Minister in a position to give an undertaking that the Milburn order will be laid under the existing provisions rather than these provisions before that dare?
  Mr. Patten: No, I am not in a position to give that undertaking but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that, as I am aware of his concern about it. I am extremely keen to ensure that there is as full and open consultation as possible on the subject of crossings, as extremely important questions of safety arise in which the hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members, councillors and other people representing the interests of local communities take a very proper interest. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing that interest again today.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Road Traffic, Transport and Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Family Law)
  1 am
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
  That the draft Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
  The main purpose of this order is to bring the rights of occupation in respect of the matrimonial home in Northern Ireland broadly into line with those in England and Wales under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. The order also follows both England and Wales and Scotland in giving cohabiting couples protection from domestic violence. In addition, the opportunity is taken to abolish the action for breach of promise of marriage and to restate the law relating to the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage.
  The order covers some rather technical ground and, as a non-lawyer, I crave the indulgence of the House and especially of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) if I lend more emphasis to the general principles underlying this legislation rather than the legal minutiae. I shall deal first with occupation rights in the matrimonial home where one spouse—usually the wife—is not entitled to occupy the matrimonial home in her own right but does so by virtue of the other spouse's right to occupy it. In this situation the non-entitled wife has little protection if her husband puts her out of the home or sells it over her head. This is most likely to happen when the marriage is breaking down. The husband might first exclude his wife from the matrimonial home or simply sell it behind her back; or he might desert the wife, leaving her in the matrimonial home. Were he then to mortgage the property and subsequently default on the mortgage, the mortgagee could enforce his security by taking possession proceedings against the wife which would result in the wife losing the matrimonial home.
  Part II of the order is designed to remedy this state of affairs. It applies equally to both non-entitled husbands and wives. But, as I have indicated, in practice it is usually the wife whose occupation rights are dependent upon the husband and it is she who is generally in the weaker position.
  Article 4 gives the non-entitled wife the right not to be excluded or evicted from the matrimonial home by the husband without a court order or, if not in occupation, the right with the leave of the court to re-enter and occupy the matrimonial home. Those are the new statutory rights of occupation.
  Articles 5 and 6 contain the provisions which protect the non-entitled spouse from sales or mortgages over her head. In such circumstances, the rights of occupation operate as a charge known as a matrimonial charge. To be effective and binding against a purchaser, defined in article 3 to include a mortgagee, a matrimonial charge must be registered in the Land Registry or Registry of Deeds in accordance with article 6 at the appropriate time. The charge must be so registered before the purchaser enters into a contract to purchase an estate affected by the charge or before the mortgagee takes a deposit of title documents as security for a loan.
  These provisions strike a balance between the rights of occupation of the non-entitled spouse on the one hand and the rights of purchasers and mortgagees deriving title from
  1048
  the entitled spouse on the other. The non-entitled spouse must be able to protect her rights of occupation in the matrimonial home; and the purchaser or the mortgagee must be able to establish that he is not purchasing property or advancing money on a security which is subject to binding rights of occupation on the part of the non-entitled spouse.
  Article 10 is an important provision which expressly provides for the release of the rights of occupation or for the postponement of a matrimonial charge in favour of another mortgage or charge. This provision will be useful where the non-entitled spouse is agreeable to the sale or mortgage, so that the purchaser or mortgagee may proceed in the certainty that he will not be bound by the nonentitled spouse's rights of occupation.
  Before I leave this part of the order, I wish to draw the attention of the House to paragraphs (2) and (3) of article 6 which represent the most significant alterations to the order since it was published as a proposal. They result from the extremely helpful recommendations of the Northern Ireland Assembly—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.
  Dr. Boyson: —and from representations made by the Law Society of Northern Ireland. I am gratified to hear the words "Hear, hear," if only once, while describing a somewhat complicated order. Having received that sign of approval, I can enhance my position further by telling the House that, of the 14 recommendations for change put forward by the Assembly, 13 were accepted.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.
  Dr. Boyson: We stated clearly to the Assembly—the letter was written after I came to this post—why we could not accept the remaining recommendation. If necessary, I shall enlarge on that point tonight. However, 13 of the 14 recommendations for change advanced by the Assembly were accepted by the Government.
  Paragraph (2) of article 6 is an additional provision which has been inserted to define the word "estate" for the purposes of paragraph 1. Its purpose is to ensure that matrimonial charges are only registrable in relation to estates in land which are themselves registrable in the Land Registry or Registry of Deeds, namely, freehold estates and leaseholds exceeding 21 years. These are the estates which are likely to be sold or mortgaged.
  Paragraph (3) of article 6 alters the time before which a matrimonial charge must be registered to be binding against a purchaser. I have already indicated that the charge must be registered before the purchaser or mortgagee enters into a contract to purchase or before he takes documents of title as security for a loan, thus creating an equitable mortgage. As originally published, the order followed the English position more closely by providing that a charge would be void, and therefore not binding, against a purchaser unless registered before registration of the purchase in the Land Registry, or, in the case of unregistered land, unless registered in the Registry of Deeds before completion. But because of differences in the system of conveyancing in Northern Ireland—I am informed that there are major differences as compared with England—strong representations were made to the effect that the original provision did not strike the intended balance between the non-entitled spouse and the purchaser. Paragraph (3) takes account of the representations and produces greater certainty.

  1049
  Part III follows the recommendations contained in Law Commission Report No. 26 on breach of promise of marriage, which was implemented in England and Wales by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970. Article 15 abolishes the action for damages for breach of promise of marriage, which is no longer used in practice in Northern Ireland. I inquired when the last case had been and was told that in the past seven years there been only one, and that it was not completed. Article 16 provides for property disputes between the parties to a terminated engagement to marry by applying the same law and procedure as in property disputes between spouses. Article 17 amends the rules of law which relate to gifts between the parties to a terminated engagement.
  Part III also restates the law relating to the prohibited degrees of relationship in marriage in Northern Ireland. Article 18 sets out the prohibited degrees in a table which corresponds to schedule 1 to the Marriage Act 1949 in England and Wales.
  Part IV contains an important provision to extend to cohabiting couples and their children the legislative protection from domestic violence currently available to spouses, Article 20 widens the scope of articles 18, 19 and 21 of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980. It empowers courts of summary jurisdiction to make personal protection orders and exclusion orders in respect of couples who are living or have lived together in the same household as if they were husband and wife. Protection from domestic violence in respect of such cohabiting couples is already available in the rest of the United Kingdom under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981.
  The order has been well received by those who were consulted, including the Northern Ireland Assembly. There was only one division in the Assembly, and it was on the rights of the cohabiting woman. The provision was accepted by 18 votes to five. The order has been welcomed as a vehicle for some timely and necessary reforms in family law. It brings family law in Northern Ireland more closely into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the House welcomes that.
  1.9 am
  Mr. Peter Archer: This is another order in respect of which it is no task of mine to express any deep disagreements of principle. The Opposition's reaction is chiefly to wonder why provisions so sensible took so long to introduce.
  There are substantial points of detail which we might have wished to discuss had we been accorded the luxury of a Committee stage. One of the unhappy consequences of direct rule is that subjects which on this side of the water would be dealt with in a Second Reading debate, a Committee stage with a plethora of amendments and subsequent stages—which are still frequently insufficiently considered to spare us the mistakes and oversights that bedevil our law and administration—are foisted on Northern Ireland after a brief debate on an unamendable order.
  The extension of rights of occupation in the matrimonial home to a non-entitled spouse is long overdue.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that it is of significant
  1050
  value to the people of Northern Ireland that this order, like others that we shall discuss in the early hours of the morning, has been fully scrutinised by the Northern Ireland Assembly, to the extent that 13 of its 14 recommendations have been accepted and are included?
  Mr. Archer: Yes, the Assembly does an important Job in scrutinising orders of this kind.
  As long ago as 1967, I was privileged to be asked by Baroness Summerskill to pilot through the House a Bill which she had introduced in another place, and which became the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, which first introduced this principle on this side of the water. It is only now being extended to Northern Ireland.
  It is understandable and agreeable that the order has been welcomed by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Women's Law and Research Group and by the women's committee of the ICTU, but I believe that it will be welcomed far more widely by all those who believe in elementary justice. A Committee stage might have been valuable to consider the anxieties of the Law Society about the mechanics of registration, but those were considered in the Assembly. If experience reveals a genuine problem, I hope that the Government will come back with an amending order.
  One consequence of having no Committee stage is that we are compelled in this debate to refer to matters which we might otherwise have explored at a subsequent stage. Article 4 (3) provides that in relation to the occupation of a non-entitled spouse, the court may make such order as it thinks just and reasonable, having regard among other things to
  "the conduct of the spouses in relation to each other".
  I share the anxieties which have been expressed about the consequences of that. Some of us are long enough in the tooth to remember when the courts investigated conduct, both in considering whether to terminate a marriage and for ancillary purposes. The Minister was kind enough to refer to the fact that some of us with legal experience in these matters might have points of detail to contribute. I can remember the tedious hours spent in cross-examination and investigating such allegations as
  "distressed the Petitioner by serving him cold tea".
  I remember how the time of the court was consumed, large costs accumulated and, more seriously, how the parlies were forced to undergo the embarrassment of a public inquiry into the daily incidents of their domestic life. Some were so dismayed by the prospect that they were prepared to forgo a claim to justice rather than submit to such an inquisition. I hope that these words are intended to be construed as limited to conduct related to the disposition of the home. But I fear that once they are in the order it may be difficult to exclude conduct which is alleged to be relevant to the question whether one spouse can bear to be in the same house as the other. This might be a backward step towards resurrecting Victorian values.
  I am troubled by article 5(7). It has never been easy to reconcile the demands of insolvency law with a compassionate approach to the problem. It is unfair that the rights of non-entitled spouses may be overridden by debts which they could and would have paid if they had been given the opportunity. It is even more unfair if a husband deliberately makes himself insolvent to out-manoeuvre his wife. It seems that a not unreasonable suggestion was made by the Law Society, and adopted by

  1051
  the Assembly, that the courts should have discretion and that that should be achieved by making a matrimonial charge not void but voidable at the discretion of the court.
  The decision to extend the principle of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order to cohabitees is very much welcomed by the Opposition. There can be no reason why a woman living in the same house as a man should not be protected from violence even though she lacks a marriage certificate. And it is high time that we abolished the old concept of breach of promise.
  The procedures of direct rule being what they are and leaving us with no opportunity to discuss these matters in Committee, we must judge the order as a whole, balancing its contents with its omissions. On that basis, we have no hesitation in supporting it.
  1.17 am
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister said when presenting the order that he did not have legal training and would therefore deal only with the generalities and principles. I, likewise, do not have legal training. Perhaps it is significant that my young colleague in the Assembly from South Belfast, the late Edgar Graham, had had legal training. The draft order was first submitted to the Finance and Personnel Committee when he was chairman of it. Next week will be the anniversary of his brutal murder. The Province lost an able politician and lawyer in that dastardly deed.
  I welcome the kind remarks about the scrutiny role of the Assembly, but I was aware when the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred to the need to study these matters in Committee that one of the problems that faces the Assembly is the technical absence of a Government representative to defend Government legislation. We have discovered tonight how important it is to tease out information in the course of debate. However, with those limitations, I believe that the Assembly has done a worthwhile job. Despite the invitation to be present, there are problems that mean that Ministers do not like to stay with the Assembly into the small hours of the morning answering questions and supplying information that is vital to us.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the order. We do so because in an age when we hear critics minimising the importance of the family, we discover that there is still a remarkable degree of stability, especially within family units in Northern Ireland. We acknowledge that while the institution of marriage can often be the butt of music hall comedians, it is still a desirous state. Anything which strengthens the institution is to be welcomed. I share the sentiments expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West who welcomed the order as long overdue and needed to give protection to spouses—especially the wife—of a marriage in Northern Ireland.
  In some ways, we may not have gone so far down the road in financial arrangements as is evident in other parts of the United Kingdom where, in joint tenancies or joint accounts, husband and wife have an equal interest. In some parts of Northern Ireland, there is still a tendency for everything to be in the name of the husband. Accordingly, as I understand this, the most important of the three orders before us this evening, it seeks to implement the rights
  1052
  conferred by the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 on the occupational right of a spouse where one spouse has no estate.
  Before this measure was introduced, the husband—especially in the Northern Ireland context—owned the house, and the wife had no legal estate—her name was not on the deeds—and neither did she have any beneficial estate. Because she had not put any money into the house she had no equitable right. I welcome the fact that in recognising the reality of life today, where a woman contributes much in the creation of the home, the order gives her a recognised stake in it. Until now, the law meant that the wife occupied the home only at the pleasure of the husband. The 1983 Act and the order seek to rectify that problem.
  I was interested to note that tribute has been paid to the contribution of the Women's Law and Research Group and the Equal Opportunities Commission. They specifically referred to the taking into account of conduct, and criticised that provision. The Assembly rightly came down in favour of retaining conduct in the order. I am aware that some are terrified of the concept of what they call the "establishment of a fault" principle. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West referred to the restoration of Victorian values. I am not so sure that some of those values do not need to be restored today for the good of the nation. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the order retains the concept of conduct.
  The crucial element in the order is contained in article 4, which gives the occupational right to which I referred. It brings the benefits of the 1983 Act to non-owning spouses in Ulster. Article 4 (2)(a), (b) and (c) provide that a non-owning spouse is given positive power to act against an owning spouse, and article 4(2)(b) is especially useful.
  Perhaps it is my theological and ecclesiastical background that heaved a sign of relief when I discovered that the degrees of relationship had not been changed. It appears that despite the headlong rush for modernity, the nation has a fair amount of sense and sensibility. I welcome the fact that those laws have not been changed. However, they codify what, in a sense, has been traditional. Article 18(3) is interesting. Does it mean that we amend our laws about who can or cannot marry according to the laws of a foreign country? If so, why? I do not fully understand the method of expression and would be grateful for clarification of it.
  I share the sentiments of those who welcome the cancellation of the old breach of promise laws. They were unenforceable and could have left have a difficult position open to abuse. Because it eliminates the legal action that could have been pursued if someone broke off an engagement, this long overdue amendment is welcome, as are the terms on which a marriage-type settlement for property of such an engagement is applied.
  The Minister referred to the one element of disagreement in the Assembly's publication. It was interesting, because it met the terms of the Act—it evidenced widespread support and did not come from one section of the Assembly. It manifested a concern that one part of the order may have tended to undermine the institution of marriage. Members of the Assembly who opposed the article on cohabitation were concerned about that. However, I believe that even they share the belief that if two people are cohabiting, especially if it is for any length of time, have assumed the responsibilities of husband and wife within a family context and the husband

  1053
  mistreats the cohabitee, it is unfair that there is no right of redress. It is essential to the law of natural justice that the rights of such a person should be defended.
  I welcome the general import of the order, which strengthens the traditional concept of family law and ensures that there is a degree of equality between the parties.
  1.28 am
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I, too, welcome the order. Tonight we have illustrated the value of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I sat in the House before there was an Assembly to scrutinise such orders. Tonight we meet at 1.30 to pass the order, when one is not at one's brightest.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Speak for yourself.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Neither the Minister nor the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is at his brightest at this hour of the morning. It does not matter whether the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a loud protest. It is ridiculous to pass laws for a nation at this unseemly hour. The order should have been debated at a reasonable hour.
  However, the Northern Ireland Assembly was able to spend many hours on this order. I entirely endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) about the noble and excellent work of Edgar Graham. It is difficult to realise that a year has passed since his terrible murder. Mr. Graham put his hand to this legislation to try to do something for the ordinary people of Northern Ireland that would benefit all sections of the community.
  The fact that 13 of the Assembly's 14 recommendations were accepted shows that the Assembly is carrying out its work with diligence, courage and zeal. It put forward reasonable amendments to the orders, and the Government accepted the vast majority of them because of the reasoned way in which they were put and because of their sense. It should be put on record that Northern Ireland and the order would be the poorer if we did not have the Assembly. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that there is no Committee in the House to deal with such orders, and that Northern Ireland Members have no opportunity in Parliament, which is the sovereign Parliament of the nation, adequately to deal with them. Therefore, it is even more important to maintain the Assembly structure, and to encourage it to continue the good work that it has done with the orders.
  As the hon. Member for Belfast, South said, with this order we are underscoring the importance of safeguarding family life and its vital contribution to society. Some members of the Assembly felt strongly about cohabiting, not because they believed that a cohabitee should not be protected by the law, but because they believed that such conduct should not take place. I appreciate their dilemma, and understand why they voted against that section. The Minister will probably agree with that when he replies.
  The order is an example of the necessary work being done by the Assembly to ensure the better government of Northern Ireland and better legislation passed in the House. We have no opportunity to bring the Minister before a Committee of the House and talk to him about our problems. I hope that Ministers will attend Assembly
  1054
  Sessions more often when it deals with such orders; arrangements will be made to ensure more playback from Ministers. That is the only way in which legislators will have the opportunity properly to scrutinise and digest the laws that govern Northern Ireland, and to make suggestions for amending and strengthening them.
  I welcome the order. I believe that its approval will be helpful. I am particularly pleased about the arrangements made for the break-up of an engagement. Anyone involved in pastoral work knows the difficulty that occurs between two families and the two parties in such a break-up. I am glad that there is to be some redress in law. It is a very important part of the order.
  1.35 am
  Dr. Boyson: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may be allowed to make a brief reply to the debate.
  It is interesting that the emphasis has been on the moral and the principle side, because I see Parliament's job as being to consider general principles and then to bring people within legislation from there. I do not think that the order can be criticised for undermining any moral values. It restates in modern terms what was laid down in the 17th century.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) drew attention to the end of article 3 about links with people outside the country. I am told that it is highly technical. I was supplied with some material to enable me to reply to the hon. Gentleman which I found extremely difficult to understand because it touches on international law. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when I understand it fully so that he may share my understanding. I feel that it is pointless to read out an explanation which I do not fully understand.
  Mr. Archer: Perhaps I may assist the hon. Gentleman. Any person is normally subject to the law of the country in which he or she is domiciled for this purpose. It would be arrogating to ourselves the right to overrule the law of the country if we said that the law of Northern Ireland should apply in the case of someone who was domiciled elsewhere. It is as simple as that.
  Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for that intervention. I trust that at other times when I have complicated legal matters to deal with I can rely upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that he will always interpret the law correctly. If there is any dispute about this matter, obviously I shall still write to the hon. Member for Belfast, South about it, because it is not one that I have met before. I am sure that others have, but I had not until the question was asked of me.
  We heard two views on the subject of conduct and whether it should be considered. It is one of the factors enumerated in article 4(3), namely the conduct of the spouse, and it is intended that this, with respective needs and financial resources, the needs of any children and all the circumstances of the case, should be taken into account during an assessment. The court would consider all the factors there enumerated and weigh them according to their relevance to the facts of the case.
  Conduct might be considered by the court to have particular relevance in two kinds of case. The first is an application for an ouster injunction under article 4(3), where, for example, the entitled spouse was violent to the non-entitled spouse. In an appropriate case the court would

  1055
  have power to exclude the entitled spouse from the matrimonial home. The second case in which conduct might be considered relevant is where a non-entitled wife with rights of occupation acquiesced in the sale of the matrimonial home without the knowledge of her partner in marriage. I shall not go into further details. The issue is one that is raised in the event of divorce in that the court has to decide whether there is a guilty party. At this hour it would be dangerous to start that debate, with differing views being expressed by right hon. and hon. Members.
  We can all welcome the order. I want especially to underline what hon. Members have said about the value put upon it by the Assembly when considering it before it came back to the House, to say nothing of the fact that 13 of the 14 recommendations were accepted. Although the Assembly may not have liked the 14th recommendation, it brings the law into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  We are grateful for the scrutiny given to the order by the Assembly because it has resulted in an order of which the House can approve. It does not undermine any of the morality that we uphold. It does that morality even greater justice, in modern terms.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

  Northern Ireland (Loans)
  1.40 am
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr.Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Loans (Increase of Limit Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.
  I shall be brief because this is a relatively simple issue, and it would be difficult to introduce morality into this debate, although, I know how, in the House, issues of morality can be introduced into almost any debate.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I shall introduce them.
  Dr. Boyson: I shall leave that to the right hon. Gentleman.
  The order increases by £200 million the amount available for lending from the National Loans Fund to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland.
  The present order is concerned solely with Northern Ireland's level of borrowing from the National Loans Fund. The Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975 provided that a total of £800 million could be lent from the National Loans Fund to Northern Ireland and also made provision for the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to increase this amount, on one occasion only, by a sum not exceeding £200 million, to £1,000 million. It is this £200 million which is the subject of the present order.
  Northern Ireland borrowing has not yet reached the existing limit of £800 million. I believe that in March this year, when another tranche was taken, it reached £798 million, so only £2 million was left for any further borrowing. That is why it is expected that before the end of the current financial year, the £200 million extra will be required.
  The new limit of £1,000 million authorised by this order is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the borrowing needs of Northern Ireland for very long. I intend therefore to bring forward further legislation during the 1985–86 parliamentary Session to enable the limit of £1,000 million to be increased.
  I commend the order to the House.
  1.42 am
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was perhaps because he had family law still so much on his mind that the Minister hardly did justice to what is a remarkable and curious financial mechanism. I hope that I shall not pose to him propositions that are too deep for understanding, whether at this time of night or at any other time, but I assure him that, if not issues of family morality, issues of financial morality are potentially raised by what has been laid before us in so apparently simple and innocent a form.
  One is somewhat reassured by the Minister's indication that, as the power of increasing the limit by order is exhausted by the present order, it will be necessary to legislate if borrowing in this form is to continue, which I hope that it will not, for reasons that I shall explain. When that happens, we shall have the whole panoply and mechanism of a Bill that will enable us to scrutinise both the principles and the details and to be fully informed as to the witchcraft that is to be practised.
  Under the principal Act, sums are advanced by the Secretary of State to the Consolidated Fund of Northern

  1057
  Ireland. I interpose here a fact of which the Minister will become aware before long, although this is his first opportunity to learn it. Hon. Members on this Bench are bitterly opposed to the existence of the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland, which they regard as one of those many artificial devices that are maintained solely for the purpose of insulating and isolating the affairs of the Province from those of the rest of the United Kingdom and preventing them from being seen as an integral part of the financial administration of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  I return after that excursus to my quotation:
  "the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury advance to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland by way of any sum"—
  I come to the words of importance—
  "for the purpose of any expenditure which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is of a capital nature."
  It is to enable the Secretary of State to make advances to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland that this Act and this order tap the National Loans Fund.
  Our inquisitiveness is immediately stimulated as to what may be
  "the expenditure which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is of a capital nature."
  I hoped that my inquisitiveness might be satisfied by the fact that under the principal Act it is necessary for an account to be rendered annually of the sums which have been advanced under the principal Act and there has to be a report upon it from the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  I sought from the Vote Office the most recent account and report, and was served with House of Commons paper 159,
  "Accounts relating to Issues from the National Loans Fund 1982–83"
  which, I must admit, I returned to the Vote Office with indignation, saying that it did not contain the very documents for which I was searching. With customary diligence and curiosity, the Vote Office researched and drew my attention to the last two pages of that paper. Looking at those pages, I ascertained the presence of the annual accounts for the sums advanced during the financial year 1982–83. I said, "There is something missing. We are also due for the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General." In the financial scrutiny which Northern Ireland Members endeavour to give to Appropriation orders and such like instruments, we rely upon the assistance that we obtain from the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. So I said, "Where is the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland?" After an interval, my attention was drawn to the small print at the foot of the very last page—almost a flyleaf of the report. It stated:
  "I certify that I have examined the above Account. In my opinion the Account properly presents the receipts and payments of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under section 3(1) of the Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975 for the year ended 31 March 1983. I have no observations to make upon it."
  This is the first occasion when I have seriously quarrelled with the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, for, indeed, I do have observations to make upon the account. The accounts are entirely uninformative. Surely, when the House asked to have accounts showing the loans which had been made by the Secretary of State, it was entitled to be told the expenditure which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State is of a "capital nature" for which loans have been advanced by him out of moneys obtained by him from the National
  1058
  Loans Fund. What are the expenditures "of a capital nature" so different from the other expenditures incurred in the government of Northern Ireland that they can be contained within the narrow compass of an outstanding total which has not yet exceeded £800 million, to which an addition of no more than £200 million is necessary to tide the Government over for another two years?
  We know the purposes for which advances are made from the National Loans Fund in other circumstances. Those who examine the table of contents of House of Commons paper 159 will be enlightened upon them. They are conveniently classified under various heads which will enable me to make the point of principle at which the Minister and the House will eventually, I hope, discover I am driving. The heads are:
  "Accounts of Loans to Nationalised Industries."
  They are loans to nationalised industries from the National Loans Fund. Then
  "Loans to Other Public Corporations"—
  yes—
  "Loans to Local and Harbour Authorities…Loans to Private Sector."
  Those are all loans to non-governmental bodies, to bodies other than Departments of State, made by the National Loans Fund; for the National Loans Fund is the avatar of the old Public Works Loans Funds which was set up to enable local authorities to borrow for capital purposes—for their capital expenditure, easily distinguished from their current expenditures—at what was then thought would be more advantageous conditions than they could obtain in the open market.
  After all those categories of capital expenditure to which the National Loans Fund contributes directly in the rest of the United Kingdom, we find the final heading:
  "Accounts of Loans within Central Government under: Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1975."
  There is here a splendid spoof. All the expenditure which is incurred by the Government of Ireland, of whatever nature, is granted by the House out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. It is a curious arrangement whereby a small infusion into that Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland is made from the National Loans Fund instead of any of the other sources from which the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland is topped up.
  Of course, the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland is a fictional system; it is a system by which money enters from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund and is poured out again into the expenditure in Northern Ireland, thereby preventing the House from dealing with the expenditures and Estimates for Northern Ireland in the manner in which it deals with other issues out of the Consolidated Fund.
  Yet here is this curious little trickle, as it were, this extra pipe of a thin bore, which leads—I suppose by the principle of the siphon—out of the National Loans Fund into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland to meet expenditures, not distinguished, not named, not identified, which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are "of a capital nature", expenditure so exiguous that, as I say, another £200 million will see them through the next two years. It is nonsense.
  To meet the expenditure of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the Government borrow at the margin—the jolly old central Government borrowing requirement—whatever they do not feel inclined to find by tax or obtain by other revenues. There is no

  1059
  identification or relationship between the total of central Government borrowing in any given financial year and any section of the Government's expenditure in that financial year—no means of connecting the two. Indeed, thanks to the wise dispensation of our predecessors at the end of the 18th and the early years of the 19th centuries, it is impossible to distinguish them. We have eliminated the notion of assigned revenues by the principle of a Consolidated Fund. Thus the borrowings of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to which ultimately this little trickle is attributable, are by way of a marginal financing of the grand total of Government expenditure. They have nothing to do with the sort of purposes for which persons and corporations inside the economy, inside the realm, are allowed to or prudently may borrow. They are not secured upon any particular revenues; they are not related to the profitability or unprofitability, efficiency or inefficiency of any of the activities financed by central Government. It is just a margin—that part of the sums to be expended which the Government do not care to meet by taxation.
  That is of necessity also true of that sham Consolidated Fund—the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. There is a grand total of expenditure for which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is answerable to the House. Of that grand total an undefinable quantity may be attributed to the central Government borrowing requirement of the United Kingdom. The matter cannot be expressed more definitely than that. Yet we have this pantomime of purporting to borrow sums from the National Loans Fund for the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland in order that they may be spent on undisclosed expenditure which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is "of a capital nature".
  It is all humbug. Whether it is capital expenditure—on any economic analysis—or not capital expenditure, these sums do not go any way to meet it. They are not assigned to it. The returns on those investments are not related to these sums. We have no accounts which make any sense of them, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General, finally defeated, had to sink back into being an ordinary auditor and certify the uninformative accounts.
  I will make a suggestion to the Government. Clearly what lay behind this practice in its earlier days was that once upon a time the Government of Northern Ireland found it convenient—and Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were agreeable—rather than borrowing at their margin in the market, to borrow from the National Loans Fund. Some such loans were still outstanding when that Government was abolished and superseded by direct rule. Instead, however, of acknowledging that thereby public expenditure in Northern Ireland was merged in the public expenditure of the United Kingdom, a fiction of borrowing from the National Loans Fund for capital purposes in Northern Ireland was continued, and that is what we have before us in the order.
  It is an order which—I make no complaint about the Minister himself—insults the House by withholding information as to. the nature of the expenditure. Though, of course, we understand very well why that information is not given, we understand very well why the Secretary of State has not published a list of the sums "of a capital nature" on which these moneys have been laid out. If he
  1060
  attempted to do so, it would be seen to be a perfectly artificial and random selection, in no way differentiated from many other much larger expenditures for which he was responsible.
  I ask the Minister, rather than putting the parliamentary draftsmen to work upon a new edition of the Northern Ireland (Loans) Act 1978, not to do anything at all. There will be no difference, no disadvantage or loss whatever suffered by any interest in Northern Ireland, if he does that. Indeed, there will be no alteration in the financing of those expenditures in any real economic sense. Their impact on the general level of inflation will be quite unaltered. So, I say, let it lapse.
  I will tell the Minister from what quarter he will encounter opposition when he makes that perfectly simple suggestion. A suggestion which will put him in favour with the Whips who are not a class of men who go around looking for reasons for additional legislation, particularly Northern Ireland legislation, which is apt at untimely hours to stir the loquacity of those representing seats in Northern Ireland. It will also endear him to his colleagues in the Cabinet, his rivals for parliamentary time. His absence from the Legislation Committee will be but a blessing upon his head. No, it is not from those quarters that the Minister has anything to apprehend; it is from a different quarter altogether. I shall tell him where the opposition will come from. It will come from much nearer at hand—from the Northern Ireland Office.
  Of course, it will not tell him the full reason for its opposition. He will find that it will be opposed to the legislation lapsing, because it will perceive in that the seeds of the eventual demise of the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland; and he may wonder why it is that the Northern Ireland Office, or those whom the Minister will find confronting him, should be so dedicated to the continued existence of that venerable survival.
  It is because they are implicated in an agreement with the Government of the Irish Republic that no alteration will be made in the arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland which in any way tends to consolidate the Union or make it more difficult for Northern Ireland to be hived off into some form of combination with the Irish Republic. That is why those very people regard it as almost the ultimate disaster that had fallen upon their heads when our Province received full representation in this House. That is why they mugged the then Prime Minister the following day when they discovered what he had given away.
  It is for that reason that we shall be supporting the Minister, cheer him on, and wish him success, when he makes his attempt, and because we wish him success, I am offering him this warning as to where opposition will come from. He will encounter opposition when he goes back to officials and says, "You know, I was listening to the debate; and a very lively debate it was". The House of Commons has been at its best at 2 o'clock in the morning, as it so often has been in the greatest days of the House of Commons, which are not exactly these days. So the hon. Gentleman says, "I have been listening to a most entertaining and instructive debate in the House of Commons on that order, and I have discovered that it is not necessary for me to have renewal at all of the Northern Ireland (Loans) Act." It will be quite amusing, when the Minister imparts that discovery to his officials, to be a fly on the wall and hear what they have to say. Nevertheless, let the hon. Gentleman harden his heart, for he knows what

  1061
  nonsense it is to ladle out sums into the Consolidated Fund for Northern Ireland for alleged capital purposes which nobody can ascertain, let alone disclose.
  Perhaps it was a good thing that the extra £200 million was needed. If it had not been needed, or needed so soon, it might not have been possible to put the Minister in the way of questioning the necessity for this whole apparatus. I hope that he has found the debate helpful—which is not what one can always say when expecting the return to the Dispatch Box of the Minister in charge of a Northern Ireland Order in Council.
  2.4 am
  Dr. Rhodes Boyson: I listened with great interest to the analysis given by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). As always, he made a great parliamentary speech. I shall have to study it and look into the points that he made. In the meantime, I should like my order today so that at least we can last until March, which will give me time to read the small print and consider where we are.
  It is part of the greatness of this House that a Member can challenge the whole of what is being done in any part of our society and raise questions in people's minds. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done tonight. I do not know that I shall agree with him in the morning. I certainly shall not be calling any early morning meetings about the matter. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that many people besides myself, other hon. Members and the officials to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, will be taking microscopes and magnifying glasses to what has been said today.
  Clearly no one wishes to intervene after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. We wish to hurry away so as to be fresh to read it in Hansard tomorrow.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On Friday.
  Dr. Boyson: I shall be able to read it in Northern Ireland at the weekend with the feeling of the Province upon me. In the meantime, rather humbly after the right hon. Gentleman's contribution, I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Increase of Limit) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.

  Soviet Jewry (Government Policy)
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
  2.6 am
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I begin by saying how pleased I am that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to reply to the debate, as I know that this issue is dear to his heart as well as to the hearts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government. I also welcome the presence at this late hour of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the distinguished chairman of the all-party parliamentary committee for the release of Soviet jewry.
  The past few weeks have brought a most interesting and welcome improvement in East-West relations. There are signs of reducing confrontation and the hint of the beginning of a period of detente. We are being invited to believe that we in the West can live happily with the Soviet Union and its friends in eastern Europe. The Soviet leaders are seeking to persuade us that if we will trust them sufficiently to scale down our armaments they will respond by scaling down theirs and peace will become enduring. They invite us to believe that they will honour their international undertakings and ask us to trust their declarations of good intentions. They wish us to think only well of them.
  Let us look, therefore, not into the crystal ball but at the Soviet Union's record in one area of international undertakings and declarations of good intentions so that we may judge more safely whether the time is ripe to accept that invitation to trust. Let us consider the Soviet Union's record of human rights and focus for a moment on its treatment of its Jews to see whether the Government's policy towards the USSR is unduly harsh and unjustified and ought to be changed.
  The Soviet Union's international undertakings on human rights are substantial and impressive. It has ratified nearly all major international conventions on human rights and has associated itself with the principal international declarations. I shall refer to three such obligations.
  The first is the right to emigrate. The Soviet Union is a party to the international covenant on civil and political rights, article 12(2) of which states that
  "everyone has the tight to leave any country, including his own."
  Article 5(d) of the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination—of which the Soviet Union is a signatory—accords the same right, as does basket 3 of the Helsinki final act, which, in addition, stipulates that favourable consideration shall especially be given to the reunification of families. The USSR is, of course, a signatory of the final act.
  How are those solemn international undertakings on the right to emigration being honoured? In 1979, 51,000 Jews were allowed to leave the Soviet Union for Israel. In 1980 the figure was 21,000, in 1981 it was 9,500, in 1982 it was 2,700, in 1983 it was 1,300. In October 1979, 4,000 Jews were allowed to leave, but only 29 exit visas were granted in October 1984.
  The Soviet Government tell the world that no more Jews want to leave mother Russia. The fact is that 400,000 Jews still in the USSR have asked to leave and have received notarised invitations from relatives in Israel but have not received exit permits. Official estimates based on

  1063
  past experience suggest that there may well be a further half a million who would request the right to emigrate if, following application and refusal, they would not become outcasts.
  The pattern is as follows. Application by Jews to leave is followed by dismissal from their jobs because they are considered no longer trustworthy. They are then forced either to take menial work or to become unemployed and risk prosecution as parasites—a process which is itself a breach of convention 29 of the International Labour Organisation's convention against forced or compulsory labour which the USSR has, of course, signed.
  There are about 10,000 refuseniks—those who have received over a number of years official notices of refusal to leave and who are willing to confront the Soviet authorities on the issue. They are victimised. Their children are expelled from colleges of higher education. They are subjected to insulting attacks in the media. They are selectively conscripted into the army and often stopped, searched and arrested. They can seek in vain for an effective recourse to the courts for protection. So much for that international undertaking.
  Secondly, there is the universal human right to enjoy cultural freedom. The USSR is a signatory of the international covenant on civil and political rights, article 27 of which gives its Jewish minority the right
  "to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion or to use their own language."
  Article 18 also requires that
  "everyone shall have the right to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, observance, practice and teaching".
  Articles 34, 36 and 45 of the Soviet constitution itself prohibit any form of discrimination on the basis of nationality and, together with article 74 of the Russian Republic criminal code, guarantee the use of national languages to the peoples of the USSR. In addition, article 52 of the USSR constitution guarantees freedom of conscience, as does the Soviet ratification of the United Nations declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of dicrimination based on religion or belief.
  How does the USSR honour those solemn national and international undertakings on the right to freedom of culture? The study of Hebrew, alone among the minority languages, is banned. Hebrew teachers, when discovered, are threatened with severe punishment if they continue. No Hebrew books are published in the USSR. Virtually no books are published in any language on Jewish history and culture. Today there are fewer than 60 synagogues in the whole USSR, and only five ordained rabbis. Jews are denied the opportunity to train their clergy or issue religious bulletins or periodicals. No Hebrew bible has been published for half a century. Prayer shawls and other religious articles are unobtainable.
  Having put a stop to almost all emigration, the Soviet authorities are now attempting to destroy the Jewish community by arresting its leaders and teachers. Yosif Begun, the outstanding campaigner for the right to study Hebrew, received in 1982 a brutal sentence of seven years' imprisonment and five years' internal exile. During 1984, Moshe Abramov, who had been trained as a Rabbi but who refused to accept his rabbinic office because it required him to work for the KGB, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Zakhar Zunshain, a Hebrew teacher of
  1064
  Riga, received a three-year sentence in June of this year. Yakov Levin, also a Hebrew teacher, of Odessa, received a similar sentence earlier this month. Alexander Kholmiansky, Yakov Nesh, Yuli Edelshtein, Hebrew teachers of Moscow, and Mark Nepomniashy, a Hebrew teacher of Odessa, are all being held incommunicado in prison awaiting trial on charges of alleged serious crimes. These policies are clearly intended to obliterate the historical memory of Soviet Jewry, to destroy its ethnic identity and to force assimilation. So much for that international undertaking.
  Thirdly, there is the right to protection against downright racial discrimination—against anti-semitism. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the USSR is a signatory, prohibits
  "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence"
  as do most of the other human rights conventions and constitutions to which the USSR is a party. How is that solemn undertaking being honoured? Under the thin disguise of anti-Zionism there have been an increasing number of scurrilous attacks on individual Jews, the Jewish people, Judaism and on the state of Israel. An orchestrated series of newspaper articles in several Soviet republics refer to Hebrew teachers and cultural activists as spies, criminals and traitors. Jewish money, it is said, finances the military arms race in the Western world, Zionists brought Hitler to power and supported Nazism and the state of Israel and Nazi Germany are to be equated. As the Bishop of Birmingham said at a meeting that was recently held in the Palace of Westminster, the Russians have a long and miserable history of anti-semitism and it seems to be getting worse.
  The list of the victims of anti-semitic persecution in the past few years alone is long and ugly. Anatoly Shcharansky received 13 years' imprisonment in horrific conditions, Vladimir Slepak and Ida Nudel were sent to Siberia, refused exit visas and harrassed, Victor Brailovsky, Boris Chernobilsky and Dmitry Shchiglik of Moscow, Gregory Geishis, Boris Kalendarev and Yevgeny Lein of Leningrad, Lev Elbert, Kim Fridman, Vladimir Kislik and Valery Pilnikov of Kiev, Osip Lokshin and Vladimir Tsukerman of Kishinev, Aleksander Paritsky of Kharkov, Moisei Tonkonogy of Odessa, Iosif Zisels of Chernovitsy, Aleksander Panaryev of Sukhumi and Aleksander Magidovich of Tula are just some of those who have served terms of imprisonment or exile and are now living under the constant surveillance of the KGB and are still refused permission to leave. These are the Jews in labour camps and psychiatric hospitals and the Jews who are suffering harassment and persecution throughout the USSR.
  Refuseniks have told us that if the rehabilitation of Stalin takes place in time for the 40th anniversary of the victory over the Nazis, the anti-semitic campaign could be revitalised and that his plan to transport all Jews to the main centres of Siberia could be put into effect.—"Do not treat this as a fantasy", they implore us, "it is a definite threat to our future safety."
  If those are the solemn international undertakings and if that is how the Soviet Union honours those undertakings, the future is indeed grim for the Jews of Russia and for the chances of lasting and genuine detente based on trust of the Soviet Union. The Government's policy of speaking up at every opportunity for the Jews of

  1065
  the Soviet Union has been beyond reproach. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for his valiant efforts and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the rest of the Government in that regard.
  That activity and concern seems to have had little effect on the Soviet Government, however. Must it always be thus? Next month, Mr. Gorbachev will be an honoured guest of this country and the Government. Presumably he is coming to reassure us of his Government's good intentions and to engender trust. Let us hope that he realises that the best way in which his Government can convince us of their good intentions is to show that they are prepared to honour their obligations toward human rights in general and the tragic plight of the Jews in particular.
  Will my hon. Friend assure me that this Government will not cease to remind Mr. Gorbachev of the very great importance which we in Britain and the West attach to this matter? If we cannot trust the Soviet Union to honour its promises to the weak in its own land, could we ever trust it to honour its promises to the nations of the world which have made themselves weak in the forlorn hope of enduring peace.
  2.21 am
  Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for sacrificing some of the limited time available to him to permit me this brief intervention. I congratulate him on securing an opportunity to raise these matters.
  We in this House are jealous of the privileges that protect our right to speak freely, without fear and constraint. It is appropriate that on occasion we should use that right to speak for those who are not so fortunate and who are not free to speak for themselves. It is right that national Governments should sometimes be invited to hear views that reflect the voice of the whole international community.
  It is easy for any Government to institutionalise repressive practices until they become immunised against them and no longer believe it possible that they may be wrong. That is particularly so of a Government who are not prepared to hear criticism at home. Despite the lateness of the hour, I am grateful for this opportunity of associating myself with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.
  The fact that the subject has been discussed in the House will, I hope, give some of the more compassionate among those who take decisions in the Soviet Union cause to reflect on what is happening to decent people whose only crime is their wish to make their home where their heart is. I hope that this will serve further to offer them the assurance that they are not alone or forgotten.
  2.22 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The subject that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has chosen for this debate is important, and I am grateful to him for raising it. I pay tribute to both my hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for the major contribution which, over a number of years, they have made to this very subject.
  1066
  Since I first became a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I have had special responsibility for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. It has therefore fallen to me on many occasions in my contacts with Ministers from Warsaw Pact countries to raise human rights issues. Naturally enough, when I am speaking to my Soviet opposite numbers, the subject of Soviet Jewry is raised. When I speak on human rights issues, I feel that I can do so with particular authority for three separate reasons.
  First, I can do so confident that I am reflecting the views of all sides of this House. There may be many issues on which we are divided, but seeking better observance of human rights in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is not one of them.
  Secondly, I know from my own constituency mail, and from the many letters that hon. Members pass to me, that these human rights issues are the subject of a deep and genuine concern among ordinary people. Whether from churches, synagogues or human rights groups, or on occasion simply off their own bat, individuals from all walks of life write to express their concern about the many instances of human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, which are recorded in the press and elsewhere.
  Thirdly, I am conscious that by raising these issues I am not unjustifiably interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. The great achievement of the Helsinki Final Act was to put human rights issues firmly on the international agenda. Principle VII of the opening section of the Helsinki Final Act is clear, and says:
  "participating states will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".
  For all that, my Soviet interlocutors claim that raising these issues is unwarranted interference. Their very defensiveness shows that they are aware that, much as they may wish it, it is not possible to go back on the commitments that they made at Helsinki.
  It is impossible not to be shocked by the many reported instances of inhumane Soviet behaviour. Yosif Begun was imprisoned last year for teaching Hebrew. Anatoly Shcharansky has been rotting in gaol for more than seven years for getting together with a few like-minded Russians to monitor Soviet observance of the Helsinki Final Act. Many thousands of Soviet Jewish citizens have been deprived of their rights, their jobs and on occasion their freedom merely because they have applied to emigrate. It is not possible not to feel a sense of involvement in the rate of these fellow Europeans.
  There are too many examples of draconian administrative acts by the Soviet authorities which are completely disproportionate to the so-called offences for one to embark on a systematic account. The fact is that the reports make it difficult not to conclude that the Soviet authorities are operating a systematic policy of discrimination that verges on oppression and is directed particularly against minority religious groups. It is directed against others apart from the Jewish community but it is that community which is the subject of the debate.
  The Jewish community has probably been subject: to more consistent harassment than others, partly because it occupied a more important place in Soviet intellectual and political life. The harassment also applies to Baptists, Catholics and even to Orthodox Christians. Of course, there is carefully sanctioned religious observance in the

  1067
  Soviet Union, and Soviet representatives are not slow to point this out. There are semi-official figures for the numbers of regular worshippers, for the number of "registered" congregations and of the number of Bibles and prayer books published by the state, for example. But the line is drawn at any religious observance which is not officially sanctioned and, of course, at any challenge to the state's monopoly of power in every detail of Soviet life.
  What can we do realistically to show our concern and to encourage more humane practices in the Soviet Union? First, the Government will ensure that the issue of human rights and the Soviet Union's Helsinki and Madrid commitments are kept firmly on the agenda of our ministerial contacts with the Russians. These matters must figure, but that will not be to the exclusion of the many other important matters that we have to discuss with them. We must show that these questions have not been, and will not be, forgotten.
  Secondly, as well as mentioning the wider issues, we should on occasion mention individual names of those we are trying to help. At times—and recent years have been such times—this may be without apparent result, but that does not make it worthless. Anatoly Shcharansky may be lying in an inhospitable camp in the Urals, but a telegram has just got through to his wife to let her know where he is and that he is alive. Would this have happened 40 years ago? Certainly it did not happen in the case of Osip Mandelstam, the great Russian Jewish poet of the 1920s and 1930s. Would it have happened if it had not been for the efforts of Mrs. Shcharansky, which have made the name of her husband a household name in the West? To mention someone who is not Jewish, would we have seen the strangely concocted films of Dr. Sakharov and his wife in Gorky if it had not been for the constant mention of his name by Western representatives.
  Obviously we have to be selective about names. The names which are chosen must be in some sense representative of categories of human rights abuse. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met Mr. Gromyko in July, he mentioned Father Gleb Yakunin, a Russian Orthodox priest, Dr. Koryagin, a Soviet psychiatrist, Anatoly Shcharansky, whom I have already mentioned, and the Sakharovs. In March this year, I drew the attention of the First Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Kornienko, to the cases of Yosif Begun, Ida Nudel, Anatoly Shcharansky and Raoul Wallenberg.
  Thirdly, with respect to what can be done, I think that hon. Members themselves can join in this process. The Russians are more in evidence in social and political circles in London these days, which is something that we welcome. This gives hon. Members the opportunity to mention particular cases that have been brought to their attention by constituents when they meet Soviet diplomats. The point can be put over in moderate and reasonable terms. This would help to show that concern about human rights is something which not only the Government are concerned about. This would show that it is the concern of all hon. Members.
  A question that is often raised is whether these approaches should be publicised or remain confidential? My experience leads me to believe that what is required is a carefully judged mixture of both. If these matters remain confidential, there will be little public pressure on the Russians for visible improvements. If everything is
  1068
  done in a blaze of publicity, the Soviet reaction will tend to be not to respond, out of pride and stubbornness. I think that it is right that Ministers should make clear to the House and the press that they have raised human rights issues with Soviet Ministers, but there will be occasions when the specific names mentioned will not be made public. And when we do make names public, we assure ourselves via those most closely connected with the persons concerned that the public mention of their names will not do them harm.
  There will always have to be a strong element of coaxing on our approaches. The power we have in our hand is the potent one of example and of persuasion, but it does not go much beyond that. Occasionally, those who are impatient for results and anxious for early progress suggest that some way should be found to force the Russians to behave better—that we should not speak to them until there is a major inprovement in their observance of human rights, or that we should not trade with them. Experience, however, shows that rigid linkage of that kind is an ineffective and unrealistic way of proceeding either in terms of our own interests or in the interests of those we are trying to help.
  The successes that have been notched up, and I am thinking for instance of the major increase in the rate of permitted Jewish emigration in the 1970s, have coincided with periods of reduced international tension. We are now experiencing the lowest level of permitted Jewish emigration since the early 1970s. When the Soviet Union feels itself isolated, it has tended to treat its own citizens worse, not better. We should, therefore welcome recent signs of greater willingness on the part of the Russians at least to talk, because it is only through the process of increasing contact and a fuller mutual understanding that we can achieve the sort of East-West confidence that is likely to lead to better relationships and reduced tension. I believe that human rights will, in the long term, be the beneficiary of that.
  Meanwhile, over human rights as much as any other part of the East-West agenda, we must show patience and persistence. We must not allow the subject to slip out of sight as relations with the East improve. It is not part of the Government's policy of pursuing better East-West relations to avoid the awkward issues. The Soviet Union's CSCE commitments remain, and we shall continue to remind it that we expect it it live up to these in their entirety. We shall continue to insist that progress must be made on all fronts, not simply selective ones. Advances on security or trade matters must not be at the expense of the human rights commitments. The fact that attention in the CSCE process this year has largely been on the conference on disarmament in Europe in Stockholm will be balanced next year by the undoubted considerable interest in this House and elsewhere in the human rights meeting in Ottawa. The latter will give the West good opportunity to make that principle clear in practice as well as theory.
  My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the visit of Mr. Gorbachev to the United Kingdom. We look forward to that, as it is important in our relations with the Soviet Union. He asked me for an assurance that we would raise human rights issues during the visit. It is not our practice to indicate in advance the agenda for such visits. We shall bear in mind the issues that my hon. and learned Friend has raised.

  1069
  Meanwhile, the Government will continue to plug away at this issue, to press for improvements in Soviet treatment of its Jewish community, and the other minority communities that suffer discrimination of one kind or another. We will do that not only because it is a most important part of the CSCE process that we should do so, and not only because common humanity compels us to do it. We shall continue to explain that the way that the Soviet authorities treat their citizens creates in itself a wider and real problem of trust and understanding in this country. if
  1070
  they wish us to accept the genuineness of their desire for peace and security, there would be no better earnest of their intentions than to show in the way that they treat their own citizens and especially those who wish to travel or to emigrate that their motives vis-a-vis their neighbours and the West are indeed peaceful and friendly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to three o'clock.

ENERGY
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
  NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pension Funds
  Pension Funds
  Small Workshops (Allowances)
  Small Workshops (Allowances)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Newspapers and Magazines (VAT)
  Newspapers and Magazines (VAT)
  Japan (Bilateral Talks)
  Japan (Bilateral Talks)
  Taxation Statistics
  Taxation Statistics
  Personal Incomes (Statistics)
  Personal Incomes (Statistics)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
TRANSPORT
  A12 (Crash Barriers)
  A12 (Crash Barriers)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Nuclear War (Precautions)
  Nuclear War (Precautions)
  Divorce
  Divorce
  Illegitimacy
  Illegitimacy
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  "Court Business"
  "Court Business"
  Lenient Sentences (Appeals)
  Lenient Sentences (Appeals)
  Justices' Clerks
  Justices' Clerks
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  International Year of Peace
  International Year of Peace
  "Parental Influence in Schools"
  "Parental Influence in Schools"
  Swann Committee (Report)
  Swann Committee (Report)
  Student Councils
  Student Councils
  International Youth Year
  International Youth Year
  Secondary Schools (Community Links)
  Secondary Schools (Community Links)
  Books
  Books
WALES
  International Youth Year
  International Youth Year
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Dairy Industry Workers
  Dairy Industry Workers
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Aerial Crop Spraying
  Aerial Crop Spraying
  Farm Animals Welfare Council (Code of Conduct)
  Farm Animals Welfare Council (Code of Conduct)
  Milk
  Milk
PRIME MINISTER
  Regional Development Grants
  Regional Development Grants
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Nuclear Shelters
  Nuclear Shelters
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Burglaries (Statistics)
  Burglaries (Statistics)
  Coroners
  Coroners
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  City of London (Franchise)
  City of London (Franchise)
  Car Registration Numbers (Police Computers)
  Car Registration Numbers (Police Computers)
  Prison Capacity
  Prison Capacity
  Members of Parliament (Salaries and Allowances)
  Members of Parliament (Salaries and Allowances)
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Police (Expenditure)
  Police (Expenditure)
  Drug Trafficking (National Reporting Centre)
  Drug Trafficking (National Reporting Centre)
  Crime (Clear-up Rates)
  Crime (Clear-up Rates)
  Burglar Alarms (False Alerts)
  Burglar Alarms (False Alerts)
SCOTLAND
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Lawyers (Competition)
  Lawyers (Competition)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  International Youth Year
  International Youth Year
  United States Senators (Dublin Visit)
  United States Senators (Dublin Visit)
  Arms Control
  Arms Control
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Nuclear Disarmament
  World Disarmament Campaign
  World Disarmament Campaign
  United Nations Peace Year
  United Nations Peace Year
  Political Torture
  Political Torture
EMPLOYMENT
  International Youth Year
  International Youth Year
  Young Workers Scheme (Tameside and Stockport)
  Young Workers Scheme (Tameside and Stockport)
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme (Tameside and Stockport)
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme (Tameside and Stockport)
  Job-Splitting Scheme (Tameside and Stockport)
  Job-Splitting Scheme (Tameside and Stockport)
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Dairy Industry Workers
  Dairy Industry Workers
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Ethiopia (Ministerial Visit)
  Ethiopia (Ministerial Visit)
  Sub-Saharan Africa Programme
  Sub-Saharan Africa Programme
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Clothing (Safety Regulations)
  Clothing (Safety Regulations)
  Domestic Accidents (Statistics)
  Domestic Accidents (Statistics)
  British Shipbuilders (Ferry Building)
  British Shipbuilders (Ferry Building)
  Spirits (Sales)
  Spirits (Sales)
  Extended Guarantee Insurance
  Extended Guarantee Insurance
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  EC (Industry/Steel Council)
  EC (Industry/Steel Council)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
ENVIRONMENT
  Water Supplies (Nitrate Pollution)
  Water Supplies (Nitrate Pollution)
  Local and Public Authorities (Land)
  Local and Public Authorities (Land)
  West Midlands Police Force
  West Midlands Police Force
  Local Authority Houses
  Local Authority Houses
  Planning Zones
  Planning Zones
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Local Authorities (Finance)
  Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse (Departmental Transport)
  Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse (Departmental Transport)
  Houses (Improvement)
  Houses (Improvement)
  Merseyside County Council
  Merseyside County Council
  Insulation Grants
  Insulation Grants
  Home Improvement and Repair Grants
  Home Improvement and Repair Grants
  Domestic Rate Revaluation
  Domestic Rate Revaluation
  Northumbrian Water Authority
  Northumbrian Water Authority
  House Condition Survey
  House Condition Survey
  Green Belt Land (Greater London)
  Green Belt Land (Greater London)
  Milton Keynes (Hotel Development)
  Milton Keynes (Hotel Development)
  Water and Sewerage Pipes (Renewal)
  Water and Sewerage Pipes (Renewal)
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Water Mains and Communication Pipes
  Water Mains and Communication Pipes
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Unfit Houses
  Unfit Houses
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  Housing Subsidy
  Housing Subsidy
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Consultative Council on Local Government Finance
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Multi-occupation Houses
  Multi-occupation Houses
  Housing Mobility
  Housing Mobility
  Nuclear Shelters
  Nuclear Shelters
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Defects Act
  Housing Defects Act
  Atmospheric Pollution
  Atmospheric Pollution
  House Building
  House Building
  Block Grant
  Block Grant
  Rates Act 1984
  Rates Act 1984
  Nuclear Shelters
  Nuclear Shelters
  Local Authorities (Competitive Tendering)
  Local Authorities (Competitive Tendering)
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Land Register
  Land Register
  Local Authorities (Expenditure Limits)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure Limits)
  International Garden Festival Site, Liverpool
  International Garden Festival Site, Liverpool
  Great Crested Newt
  Great Crested Newt
  Common Land
  Common Land
  Grant-related Expenditure Assessments
  Grant-related Expenditure Assessments
  Water Metering
  Water Metering
  Council Property Sales
  Council Property Sales
  Public Bodies (Land Holdings)
  Public Bodies (Land Holdings)
  Unemployed Construction Workers
  Unemployed Construction Workers
  Leicester (Rate Capping)
  Leicester (Rate Capping)
  Thamesmead
  Thamesmead
  Islington
  Islington
  North-East Hampshire Structure Plan
  North-East Hampshire Structure Plan
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Stansted-Heathrow (Inquiries)
  Stansted-Heathrow (Inquiries)
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Dog Licensing
  Dog Licensing
ENVIRONMENT
  Environmental Health Officers
  Environmental Health Officers
  Right to Buy
  Right to Buy
  Tenants' Exchange Scheme
  Tenants' Exchange Scheme
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
DEFENCE
  NATO Exercises
  NATO Exercises
  South Georgia (New Zealand Expedition)
  South Georgia (New Zealand Expedition)
  Follow-on Force Attack
  Follow-on Force Attack
  International Year of Peace
  International Year of Peace
  Long Range Stand-off Missile
  Long Range Stand-off Missile
  RAF Tornado Crash
  RAF Tornado Crash
  Naval Refits
  Naval Refits
  Naval Dockyards (In-house services)
  Naval Dockyards (In-house services)
  Members' Questions
  Members' Questions
  Naval Log Books
  Naval Log Books
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Blood Products
  Blood Products
  Housing Benefits
  Housing Benefits
  Cervical Cytology
  Cervical Cytology
  Dogs (Infection)
  Dogs (Infection)
  NHS Property (Security)
  NHS Property (Security)
  NHS (Theft and Fraud)
  NHS (Theft and Fraud)
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  Invalidity Pensioners
  Invalidity Pensioners
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  Office of Chief Scientist
  Office of Chief Scientist
  NHS (Changes)
  NHS (Changes)
  Sickle Cell Anaemia
  Sickle Cell Anaemia
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  AIDS (Blood Donors)
  AIDS (Blood Donors)
  RHAs (Managers)
  RHAs (Managers)
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Consensus Team Management
  Consensus Team Management
  Griffiths Report
  Griffiths Report
  Cigarettes and Tobacco (Tar Content)
  Cigarettes and Tobacco (Tar Content)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Drugs (Generic Prescribing)
  Drugs (Generic Prescribing)
  Newcastle Computer Dispute
  Newcastle Computer Dispute
  NHS (Ancillary Services)
  NHS (Ancillary Services)
  Spectacles (Retailers)
  Spectacles (Retailers)

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

Higher Education: Future Development
Baroness Lockwood: 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 respond to the advice of the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education on A Strategy for Higher Education into the 1990;and whether they accept the principles contained in the joint statement from these two bodies.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science intends to bring forward the Government's proposals for the future development of higher education in the form of a Green Paper in the early part of next year. The paper will take account of the published advice of the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education, including that contained in their joint statement. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot anticipate the Government's proposals.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether we can be assured that a broader and more flexible access to higher education, as envisaged in the joint statement, will become the basis for the Government's projections relating to numbers and also for providing future resources?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, both the University Grants Committee and the national advisory body have published reports of their working parties on continuing education and have incorporated some aspects of their conclusions into their strategy advice to the Government. The response to this advice is currently under consideration.
Baroness David: My Lords, will the Minister convey to his right honourable and honourable friends the Ministers that it is very urgent to have this response, particularly in the light of the news we had this last week that 4,000 fewer applications have gone into UCCA for university entrance this coming year? Moreover, when the request is only for access, is it not very alarming?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, as I have said, we are going to publish a Green Paper on this matter. But I should point out to the noble Baroness that since 1979–80, when the previous Conservative Government took office, the number of home full-time and sandwich students in higher education in Great Britain has increased from 455,000 to 519,000 in 1983–84.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if we are going to have to wait a bit for the Green Paper, can the noble Earl tell us what age participation rate in higher education the Government are aiming for in the second half of this decade? Will the noble Earl say whether the Government support the higher DES student number projection or the lower one?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships will have to wait very long because we are nearly in December and the White Paper is expected to come out in the very early part of next year. So, as I said previously, I cannot anticipate any of the Government's proposals.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, in drawing up their Green Paper will the Government bear in mind the great need for the system of higher education to produce the talents, technologies and knowledge which are needed for young people to provide what industry requires?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords. I think that that is very much in the forefront of my right honourable friend's mind.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is to be a Green Paper or a White Paper? He said at first that it would be a Green Paper and then later he said that it would be a White Paper.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am sorry; I must make it absolutely clear that it will be a Green Paper.

RAF New Basic Trainer
2.39 p.m.
Lord Mulley: 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 have now decided to approve the purchase of a British aircraft as the new basic training aircraft for the Royal Air Force.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we are proceeding with the full evaluation of the four tenders that we have received in respect of the new basic trainer aircraft. As I informed your Lordships on 17th October, we hope to take a decision around the turn of the year.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that Answer. I hope that in that evaluation it will be borne in mind that the British interest is not only that the RAF should have an aircraft meeting its specifications—which presumably all the contenders do, because otherwise they would not be shortlisted—but that we should have the exports that will undoubtedly follow from the adoption of a particular aircraft by the Royal Air Force. Would the noble Lord also consider, in the longer term, what international competitors will make of it if in fact it is known that we in this country have been incapable of designing and making a basic trainer for our own airforce?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that all considerations of that type will be taken into account. It is worth remembering, of course, that all the contenders that we are presently considering anticipate a major part of the manufacture in this country.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that one of the first questions which foreign purchasers ask as regards arms is, "Is this aircraft used by the British Air Force?" If the answer is, "No", it will be almost impossible to think about sales.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am certainly aware of that consideration.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, while recognising that there will be fierce competition for this order, will the Minister agree that the tender by Shorts is as British as any other tender that has been considered, and that in fact the aeroplane that has been tendered by Shorts is in operation? Will he also agree that 80 of these 'planes are in operation in various countries throughout the world, and that 70 per cent. of the airframe will be built on British terrritory—namely, in Northern Ireland—with the exception of the Canadian engine, which I believe all the other tenders will use as well? Given the state of the economy in Northern Ireland, were such an order given to Shorts, will he not agree that it would immediately create 1,000 jobs in Shorts and 3,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom? Given the experience which Shorts has and that it has only 2 per cent. of aircraft orders from the Ministry of Defence, will the Minister not agree that on this occasion Shorts has a legitimate claim, provided that it can fulfil the specifications for this order?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I suspect that all the tenderers will say that they have a legitimate claim to bring to the attention of the Ministry of Defence in this matter. We certainly are considering and will consider all the tenders very carefully and will be taking into account considerations of the sort which the noble Lord has mentioned.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister agree that in this particular requirement parliamentary pressure has probably gone as far down the road as it can usefully go? If there is an important issue of British content here, will he confirm that the PC9 now has a British design leadership? Will the noble Lord also confirm that the PC9 has as high or higher a British content of equipment as any of the competitors? In these circumstances will it not be better now to leave it to the professionals to make their choice?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the even-handedness of your Lordships is reflected by three at least of the four contenders who have produced supporters in your Lordships' House this afternoon. But the sort of considerations which the noble Lord mentioned are relevant in this case and will be taken into account.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, in view of the Secretary of State's statement on economy in
896
defence and assuming that all the contestants are agreeable to the RAF, should we not take into account the question of price when considering choice?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that will of course be a very important consideration.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I remind the Minister that when he spoke on this matter on 17th October he told the House that the prime consideration had three elements to it: first, the aircraft had to obtain cost effectiveness; secondly, that the aircraft had to have a good performance; and thirdly, that it had to have a long fatigue life. Given that all of the applicants or more than one of the applicants comply with those criteria, will the Minister not agree that it would be in the best national interest that the ultimate criterion ought to be that which provides most British jobs?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that the assessment of the first three criteria to which the noble Lord referred is quite as simple as he imagines. We are now engaged upon ensuring that the contenders meet the criteria to which the noble Lord referred, and then we can reach our decision on this matter.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are all in favour of providing adequate defence? Not a word has been said in connection with this Question about additional cost. Is he aware that we spend £17 million on defence, apart from research into the use of satellite missiles which is bound to increase our defence if we make a contribution at all, as indeed we must? In view of our economic position, when will we stop spending on defence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords. I can assure the noble Lord that I am very well aware of the size of our defence expenditure at this time. That is why, with regard to this particular project, the question of cost-effectiveness will be so important.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble Lord recall that during the course of the debate on 17th October he relied very heavily on the fact that the four tenderers were British companies? Will he not agree that, even though a company be thoroughly British from a proprietorial and managerial point of view, it is nothing other than naive to consider that the company is de fact British, because de fact control need not necessarily rest with the company? Will my noble friend be kind enough to comment on that point?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that there is any doubt about the Britishness of British Aerospace, Shorts, Westlands or Hunting Aircraft, which are the companies concerned.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I should declare that I am a Firecracker man and I am not competent to make a judgment on this. Notwithstanding the demands in the interests of employment, will the noble Lord not agree that it is important that the RAF should have the best aircraft for the purpose and that in the past they have had aircraft from some areas which have been mentioned which were not

897
satisfactory? In view of the interest which has been expressed, may I ask that when the decision is taken—and it is not an easy one to take—the noble Lord will consider reporting the results of the assessments?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have no doubt that when we come to make and announce a decision on this matter there will be intense parliamentary interest in what we have to say and I am also certain that we shall be called upon to justify our decision in the most detailed terms. I certainly believe that that would be right.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, if, sadly, we still have to go in for spending more on defence, should not we spend it in Northern Ireland, where we shall have to spend anyway?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that it is part of the purpose of the budget of the Ministry of Defence that it should be used for social purposes in any part of the United Kingdom, no matter how desirable those social purposes might be. Having said that, we shall of course take into account the considerations that the noble Lord has put to us; but I do not think that they could be paramount considerations.

Mental Health Act 1983: Hospital Admission
2.49 p.m.
Lord Broxbourne: 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 are satisfied that the courts are in a position to give effect to their power to order hospital admission or guardianship in appropriate cases in accordance with Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): Yes. my Lords, we are generally satisfied.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that perhaps he is a little too easily satisfied? Has his attention been drawn to the recent observation of Judge Verney, in sentencing a mentally disordered woman, that:
"It is a scandal that people like this woman have to be sent to prison because there is nowhere else to send them"?
My noble friend is too enviably youthful to recall the high hopes that animated us at the time of the introduction and passage of the Mental Health Act 1959. But does he not think it regrettable that provision of facilities for implementation lag so far behind legislative intention?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the remarks to which my noble friend has referred. But I am sure that, with his experience, he will realise that cases which hit the headlines in the way that this one
898
has done are often more complex than they in fact appear from the reports in the media. The courts can have difficulties where, for instance, there is a conflict of medical opinion, but the aim of legislation is to ensure that only those unfortunate people who really need, and will benefit from, treatment are compulsorily detained in hospital. I share some of the misgivings which my noble friend expresses, but there are problems such as I have described, of which I am sure he, too, will be aware.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, how many orders of the type referred to in the Question have been made since the coming into force of the Act, and have the hospitals been able to respond? How many people have had to be detained in custody, and for how long, pending a suitable hospital place? Is it not a scandal that a mentally disturbed female arsonist should recently have had to be sentenced to life imprisonment?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give those figures without notice. The answers to the. second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question were given in reply to my noble friend.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the Minister cannot answer that specific question—which was, how many who ought to have gone to hospital for treatment have gone to prison, where they cannot receive treatment—is that not a very unsatisfactory situation? Is the noble Lord not too easily satisfied by a situation in which, surely he would agree, a number of regional health authorities do not have suitable accommodation, whether it be special hospitals, regional secure units, or hospitals with secure wards? As he looks at his notes, is he not able to find out and to say how many such people have been sent to prison? Is it not clear that since the Mental Health Act was passed, there have been a number of cases where people are now in prison—people who are dangerous to the community and dangerous to themselves, and who desperately need treatment? Is the Minister not being much too complacent in the Answer he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I did not intend to be complacent at all. There are real difficulties associated with some of the more marginal cases. The noble Lord will be aware of that. I have not the figures he asked for, but I shall let him know what they are. So far as regional secure units are concerned, I hope he will be pleased to hear that there has been continuing progress in the programme of regional secure units, and the present position is that seven permanent regional secure units are now open, which will eventually provide a total of 264 places, of which about 120 are now staffed and available. Nearly 500 places are expected to be completed by the end of 1984, or early 1985, and 650 by the end of 1987. There are additional places in interim secure facilities and I shall be delighted to let the noble Lord have those figures, too.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the proceedings on the Mental Health (Amendment) Act, I pointed out that, as a result of the

899
more stringent requirements for the transfer of a person from prison to a special psychiatric hospital—in particular, the requirement that they had to be susceptible to treatment before such transfer could be approved—there would be in our prisons an increasing number of persons who were severely mentally disordered and for whom the prisons had no adequate provision? Is it not a scandal that in recent weeks there has been a succession of stories about self-mutilation by women in Holloway Prison? Is it not apparent that some kind of provision ought to be made outside the prison system for patients of this kind, even if they cannot be treated in special hospitals?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we certainly hope that the implementation of Sections 35 and 36 of the 1983 Act, which has recently been introduced, will help to provide an alternative to remands in prison in cases where there is reason to believe that the person concerned may benefit from hospital treatment. But, meanwhile, both remand prisoners and sentenced prisoners may be transferred to hospital by the direction of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary under Sections 47 and 48 respectively of the Act. The success rate for recommendations from the prisons for the use of these powers is now very high, and we hope that this improvement will be continued.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, apart from the question of the interests of these unfortunate people themselves, does the noble Lord agree that the presence in prisons of mentally disturbed offenders who ought really to be in secure units, or other institutions, places an intolerable burden on the shoulders of the prison officers, who are not trained or equipped to deal with people in those conditions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I would certainly agree that it places a burden. I have described the situation and the way in which the other sections of the Act are now coming into force, and, as I said to the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, those matters will assist the position.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Mental Health Act Commission is now looking at this disturbing situation? The noble Lord mentioned a number of sections of the Act. Can he say how many times use has been made of Section 39, which enables the court to find out what facilities exist in the 14 different regional health authorities?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot off the top of my head give the answer to the noble Lord's question about Section 39. Again, I shall find out and let him know the number of instances. So far as the Mental Health Act Commission is concerned, they have a wide remit and it is proper that they should look at this sort of thing; and that is what my noble friend Lord Colville and his commission will no doubt be considering.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, would my noble friend draw the attention of Ministers in another place to the concern expressed in this House on this sad and
900
sombre subject and urge them to take appropriate remedial action?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my department's officials already have had discussions with senior officers of the National Health Service authorities, consultants, senior nursing staff from individual hospitals, directors of social services, and prison medical officers about the problem of what are known as "difficult to place" patients, who, in a sense, fall between two stools. This has been taking place generally, and ways of making required facilities available are being discussed. In this context they have been discussing, among other things, the position of the courts in making hospital orders.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is always punctilious in writing to me. Will he confirm that he will write to me with the figures I have asked for and that he will place a copy in the Library, in accordance with the new procedure?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can confirm both of those points to the noble Lord.

British Airways: Designers
2.57 p.m.
Lord Reilly: 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 have any views on the commissioning of American designers to redesign the appearance of British Airways' aeroplanes.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the choice of designers was a matter for the commercial judgment of British Airways' management.
Lord Reilly: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which does not surprise me? May I ask whether he is aware that the decision of British Airways not only runs counter to the Prime Minister's many admirable initiatives in the field of design, but has greatly discouraged the whole of the British design profession and not least our very excellent graphic designers? Is it not sad that the organisation which has been exhorting us all to "fly the flag" should set such a bad example?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the initial choice of the American firm as design consultants was carried out by a competitive process, and for that reason I do not think I would wish to criticise British Airways in the way that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the ability of Her Majesty's Government to lean on nationalised industries whenever they think fit is very well known indeed, and is there any reason why the Government should not have leant on British Airways in these circumstances? Is the noble Lord aware that if the implications of his

901
answer are accepted, then the strictures of Sir Michael Edwardes on the quality of British management become abundantly justified, and is he also aware that design is an integral part of all competition? Will the noble Lord bear that in mind when he seeks either directly or by implication to lay the whole burden of international competitiveness on the wage earners of this country, as distinct from management, designers, research and development, and all the rest?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, we are approaching the moment when British Airways will, we hope, be passed into private hands. For that reason, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear to British Airways that they should be operating on a proper commercial basis. That is what they are doing and I decline to criticise them for that.
Lord Somers: My Lords, do we really want our planes to look like American planes? Will the Government possibly commission some American architects to make London look like New York?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I imagine that any such proposals would fail the competitive process.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the passenger does not care what the aircraft looks like, but that all he cares about is that it is safe and comfortable?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that history tends to prove the noble Lady wrong. The fact is that British Airways, like all major international airlines, operates in an international environment and has to compete in the international market place and must, therefore, make its arrangements accordingly.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Gibraltar that is to be made in another place.
This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on regional industrial policy.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say a word at this point about this afternoon's short debates standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and the noble Lord, Lord Annan. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not more than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye it is not necessary to suggest a limit on the length of subsequent speeches because the small number of speakers would put such a limit in excess of 15 minutes. I know that the House will appreciate it if the normal conventions of brevity in such debates are observed.
In the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, subsequent speeches should be
902
limited to a maximum of nine minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to which all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the committee:—

Banks, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Templeman, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Willis, L.

—(Lord Aberdar.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Unemployed: Factors of Special Disadvantage
3.4 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye Lord Balfour of Inchrye rose to call attention to the needs of those unemployed whose prospects of further employment are slender due to age and changes of economic conditions of trade; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion in my name. The first duty I have to the House is to record the answer to a question of mine from the late Lord Swinton, just before he left the House: he died shortly afterwards. We were sitting where the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is sitting here today at the corner and the debate had to do with colonial affairs, on which he was a great expert. I asked him, "Philip, are you going to speak?" He said, almost severely, "No, no one wants to hear the speeches of old men".
That warning I take to heart and I shall not detain your Lordships for very long. However, that rule has its exceptions. We have recently heard the wonderful maiden speech of my noble friend the Earl of Stockton; forceful and, I thought, gentle—that would be my description. Our second exception to the rule which I term the Swinton rule is my noble friend opposite, Lord Shinwell. His contributions we all enjoy. They are pungent and very much to the point. If I may for a moment use the language of the turf, I would say that Lord Shinwell is leading in the veteran stakes but there are several other good horses running up the course and in due course we shall know who in the field will be first past the winning post.
For two reasons, I took particular care in drafting my Motion to keep it limited to one aspect of unemployment. First, I know your Lordships are very shortly to debate in full the question of unemployment and, secondly, I do not wish to detain the House for too long. The size of the problem of unemployment for men of middle age and beyond is serious and great.
I wonder whether your Lordships realise that 25 per cent. of men and women unemployed at the present time have been unemployed for five years or more and, of these, 40 per cent. are over 50 and have given up hope of being in regular employment.
Last November, just a year ago, we touched upon this subject in a debate following a Motion by the late Lord Byers. I was taken to task by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and by the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, for pessimism and for thinking that nothing could be done. I am no pessimist but I do not agree with Lord Scanlon's words. I told the noble Lord that I intended to quote him. He said:
"I want to turn to the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in her rebuttal of. . . the unemployed and, if I may say so, of the right reverend Bishop. If ever we develop this policy of despair, this philosophy that there will be a section of our community doomed to perpetual unemployment, we shall destroy all that is being argued about now."—[Official Repor, 2/11/83; col. 603.]
I am no pessimist. I think I am a realist. I feel that people in a section of the industrial community have written themselves off and I am afraid that we must write them off as well as regards regular jobs.
It is pie in the sky for the noble Lord. Lord Scanlon, to say that everyone over 45 or 50 years of age has a chance of permanent employment again. We have heard so many times about how unemployment can be cured. We on this side of the House have often heard Ministers say—and no doubt the Minister will repeat it today—that the real cure for unemployment is for British industry to sell to the markets of the world goods at the right price and with the right delivery dates. Then we have heard from the other side of the House many interesting suggestions about shorter hours, work sharing, longer holidays, and various other reliefs. All right, we need not argue about any of those, but we must admit that none of them would work quickly. All would take an indefinite period of time ahead. For as long as most of us are here in this House, high unemployment will be with the community. Can anyone say (does the Minister dare to say?) how long it will take the Government to bring about a reduction from 3 million to, say, 2 million? Can anybody on the other side say the palliatives that they would advocate to bring 3 million down to 2 million? I believe that it is an impossible thing to prophesy. Trade revival hopes and talks will not touch them.
To me, the tragedy is that of the 50 or 55 year-old ex-executive and ex-manual worker who suddenly become redundant. What is their life to be? They see lying ahead a long road of unemployment with their just sitting around or, if I may use the expression, sitting on their hunkers, gazing into space. What a future for them to consider! What we have got to do is to see that we can put something of the joys of life and of interest before them so that they may still use the talents and energies which remain to them in creating new ideas, new hobbies, a new form of social life. Leisure means effort. They must make the effort; and we, too, as leaders of political parties, must make the effort.
Today, the Government provide protection from hunger and immediate want. Thank goodness! When I went into another place 55 years ago, unemployment
904
was a savage, cold, harsh knife which cut into families. I am always ashamed that, sitting as I did for a comfortable South of England seat, my greatest worry then was a few seasonal workers. I did not—and some of my friends did not—take the train to South Wales to see what was going on there at that time. That is why I speak today. It is because ever since then I have felt that we must not let things remain static; we must improve the whole time.
To bring some happiness to these men, Government leadership and action is required. There is no use in thinking that local authorities and local authority representatives can do the job: it must be done from the centre by the Government agencies. These men are not seeking charity, they are seeking opportunity. It is true that voluntary work can do much to relieve. We have 40,000 (I think it is) volunteers. They are splendid people, but they are really engaged mainly in looking after the sick and in helping those who cannot be mobile, doing shopping and doing various other things. No, we have got to do something more than that for them.
What I want to see is the Government at the centre carrying out an experiment. The experiment that I would advocate is based upon the work of many voluntary bodies that we can quote with great benefit to all concerned. The body that I choose to quote to your Lordships as an example is Toynbee Hall. Toynbee Hall is celebrating its centenary this year. They have gone for the aged in a big way. They have a senior care and leisure centre where, they say, the keyword is opportunity. They introduce new amusements for the unemployed—many games, indoors and outdoors, and sport—and they introduce new works of art and woodworking efforts. I could go on in this way, but I shall not weary your Lordships.
In many directions the Toynbee Hall leisure centre could set an example of what the Government could do if they were able to start three or four centres as an experiment; if they were to take the centres of high unemployment and start building one of these leisure care centres.
Let them see what the result is. They would need very little cash, but they would need a lot of good leadership, which is not easy to obtain. I think that if we could do that we could inspire minds which have become more and more affected by prolonged unemployment. We could stimulate their minds and stimulate their bodies.
We have now got a new "supremo" of unemployment who has been appointed. I have not had the pleasure of meeting him, and I do not know whether some of your Lordhips have done so. I hope that he will not concentrate entirely on youth and on youth and training, but will take this section of older men in hand and see whether we can stop the rotting minds and the rotting bodies brought about by constant unemployment, and can stimulate them in the ways I have described, by having three or four of these centres built. Try it out for a year or two and see whether there is not a good result! I sometimes think what wonderful material Toynbee Hall and others like it have to work on. How patient and good are these unemployed at the present time! I hate to see the downward fall of good minds and good bodies.
I would say to the Government, "Be bold; be determined to stop this rotting away!" Mr. Churchill used to send periodically to departments a folder labelled, "Action this day." I cannot but say to the noble Lord who is to answer that I would wish that he was able to send a folder to his Prime Minister saying to her, "Action this day"—because that is what we need. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for giving us this opportunity to examine the needs of the older unemployed people among us, for their plight, as he indicated, is both demoralising for them and wasteful of talent and of experience for our country. I shall not be taking the same line as the noble Lord, but 1 am sure that all your Lordships will be glad that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, did not, on account of age, feel precluded from giving us the benefit of his views on this vital subject.
I was privileged to be a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Unemployment under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Seear. We paid considerable attention in that committee to early retirement as a means of reducing the supply of labour, and in our recommendations we made it plain that if there had to be unemployment among older people we preferred measures to reduce the numbers in employment by voluntary means. In thus supporting the option of voluntary early retirement, we concluded that this could best be achieved in three ways.
The first was to extend the Job Release Scheme, under which employed people nearing statutory pensionable age can give up their jobs to make way for younger unemployed people and in return receive a weekly allowance. Our view was that the qualifying age for job release could reasonably be reduced from 62 to 60, to bring about 50,000 more people within the scheme under protections which were current at the time. Incidentally, I believe that the qualifying age for subsidised retirement in Western Germany is now 58. I welcome the decision announced by the Secretary of State in another place on the 12th November to continue the Job Release Scheme for a further year, but I regret that his proposals do not include provision for reducing the age at which people are eligible to take part in it.
A second recommendation of the Select Committee was that as a varient of the Job Release Scheme, and in order to combine the benefit of gradual retirement with a reduction in labour supply, pairing or job-splitting schemes should be introduced, under which two people aged over 60 would be employed half-time in place of one person full-time, each of them to receive half-time earnings. An essential element in our proposal was that, as inducements to participate in such arrangements, no national insurance contributions would be payable by either employers or employees. I am sorry that employers contemplating the introduction of job-splitting schemes appear to have been deterred from taking action by a number of factors: the effect on occupational pension schemes (which we foresaw in our report), opposition from trade unions, and the benefits accruing to employers and employees being regarded as insufficiently
906
attractive. In his Statement in another place a few weeks ago the Secretary of State said he proposed that an allowance should be made to the employer to cover the extra cost involved in job splitting. That, it seems to me, is to be welcomed, and I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when he replies to the debate, would tell us the amount of this allowance, if he can.
I congratulate the Government on having at last abolished altogether the national insurance surcharge on employers. But is there not now a strong case for restructuring national insurance contributions so that they no longer apply either to new jobs—particularly for the long-term unemployed—or to the splitting of existing jobs?
A further recommendation of the Select Committee concerned the so-called "over 60s option", under which all those aged over 60 who have been unemployed for more than 12 months can opt for the higher rate of supplementary benefit in return for their withdrawal from the unemployment register. We considered that at the relatively low cost (at the time) of £20 million per annum, that option could reasonably be made available to long-term unemployed people aged 55 and over. Now that the problem of long-term unemployment has become so much more acute, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would bring this point especially to the attention of his right honourable friend.
I know it is all too easy to talk of ways in which money can be spent in simply limiting the problem that we are now considering. A key criterion in my view is that expenditure in this field should be concentrated as much as possible on finding work for older unemployed people rather than encouraging them simply to accept unemployment as a fact of life—and to this extent I am sorry that I must respectfully disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, had to say on this subject and align myself with my noble friend Lady Seear and with the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, in the remarks they made in an earlier debate on that point.
With that point in view, I should like to spend the rest of the time that is available to me in the debate in saying something about the creation of new jobs for such people, and by way of example to draw attention to the activities of an enterprise agency—only one of about 175 in the country as a whole—which has been operating for the past five years in Cheshire, where I live. It was actually visited very soon after its inception by members of the unemployment committee, and has developed greatly since then. It is located in Runcorn; it is called Business Link Limited; and was established by representatives of industry, commerce and local government to promote employment in Halton—a district where the unemployment rate was—and alas! still remains—relatively high for the North-West. In fact, it is almost part of Merseyside; and I do not doubt that when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool speaks after me he will have a good deal more to say about unemployment among older people in that area.
The core activity of the agency of which I speak is counselling clients, of whom a recent survey showed about three-quarters wished to set up a new business and the remainder wished to receive advice on how to

907
improve the efficiency of an existing business. Approximately half the agency's clients between December 1979 and February 1983—the period covered by the survey—responded to a questionnaire which was sent to them. Analysis of the replies has shown that during that time altogether 185 new firms were started, of which 26 have since closed. The net number of new jobs created in these new businesses—that is to say, after taking account of jobs lost in those which later closed—was 491. To these should be added 577, net, new jobs in existing firms which were counselled, making a total of well over 1,000.
The precise age distribution of people taking up these jobs is not known to me, but it is plain from the facts that about one-third of the respondent clients were facing redundancy; that another quarter were unemployed; that nearly half the newly established firms employ only one man; and that a large number of those concerned must be in the category of people who the noble Lord. Lord Balfour of Inchrye, had in mind when introducing the debate.
I do not for a moment pretend that the activities of agencies such as the one I have mentioned can make more than a small contribution to the solution of the complex problem of how to alleviate unemployment among older people. From the CBI I understand that enterprise agencies throughout the country are helping to create jobs at the rate of about 3,000 per annum, but it is encouraging, I suggest, that these community projects represent a partnership between industry, commerce and local government, which I hope we can all agree should be built on.
The enterprise allowance is a vital element in enabling people to start a new business. It now amounts to £40 per week and is payable for one year. In his recent Statement the Secretary of State said that he was proposing to extend the scheme and to allocate to it an extra £72 million next year, rising to £125 million and then to £128 million in the following two years. The Secretary of State said that this would enable the Manpower Services Commission to increase the programme by 25 per cent. to provide for an intake of about 1,250 new entrants every week from among unemployed people. I very much welcome this development, but would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what increase, if any, the additional amount allocated to the scheme will bring to the individual qualifying for payment of the allowance.
Before I leave this theme, it is only right that I should briefly welcome the scheme announced last Monday which is to be financed by the European Regional Development Fund and which is aimed at encouraging the development of small businesses in depressed regions that were formerly heavily dependent on shipbuilding, textiles and steel making.
I end as I began by saying how vital it is, in my view, that in the national interest we should do everything possible to meet the pressing needs of the older unemployed people about whom we are talking in this debate.

Gibraltar: Agreement with Spain
3.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the outcome of a series of meetings my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary has had with the Spanish Foreign Minister about Gibraltar which is being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the outcome of the series of meetings I have had with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Sr. Moran, about Gibraltar.
"At the most recent meeting in Brussels on 27th November, we reached agreement about the way to put into effect the terms of the Lisbon Statement of 10th April 1980. I am arranging for a copy of yesterday's communiqué to be placed in the Library of the House.
"As a result of that agreement, the specific measures which I shall describe in a moment will be implemented by a date to be agreed, but not later than 15th February 1985.
"From the date of implementation, direct communications between Gibraltar and Spain will be restored. This means that there will be free movement of people, vehicles and goods.
"From the date of implementation, Spaniards in Gibraltar will enjoy those European Community rights which would otherwise become available only from the day of Spain's accession to the Community. From the same date, Gibraltarians in Spain will enjoy similar rights.
"The legislative proposals necessary for this will be introduced in Gibraltar and in Spain. This arrangement does not affect the derogations and transitional periods which will have been agreed between Spain and the Community. These will of course be applicable to Gibraltar, in particular as regards the free movement of labour.
"The range of matters to be covered will include freedom to enter and settle, rights of establishment, trade union rights, together with the right to provide a service and to purchase land and property.
"In addition, the Spanish Government has agreed that it will take the early actions necessary to allow safe and effective air communications within the air space in the region of Gibraltar.
"On the day that communications are restored, the Spanish Foreign Minister and I will meet to begin the negotiating process envisaged by the Lisbon Statement. That process will be aimed at overcoming all the differences between us over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis on economic, cultural, touristic, aviation, military and environmental matters. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, will, of course, accompany me to that meeting.
"Sr. Moran has told me that the Spanish side will raise the issue of sovereignty in these negotiations, as they are entitled to do on the basis provided by the

909
Lisbon Statement itself. Yesterday's communiqué makes it equally plain that the British Government will fully maintain its commitment to honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution. That commitment stands unchanged. Sr. Moran, for his part, has made clear the importance that he, too, attaches to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
"Sr. Moran and I agreed about the importance of establishing practical co-operation between the people of Gibraltar and the neighbouring region. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar has expressed the same view. This will be of benefit to all sides. It will provide an important opportunity for Gibraltar's economy to develop and diversify.
"This agreement marks the development of a new stage in relations between Britain and Spain, who are fellow NATO allies and prospective partners in the European Community.
"Throughout this series of talks, I have kept in the closest touch with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan. I am most grateful to him for his consistently wise advice and support.
"In his statement yesterday, Sir Joshua Hassan said that he welcomed the agreement and believed that it will be beneficial to the people of Gibraltar. In his view, it will be a first step in the process of normalisation and fruitful co-operation between Gibraltar and the immediate vicinity for the benefit of all.
"Sir Joshua Hassan described this agreement as an honourable outcome. I entirely endorse that judgment. I firmly believe that the agreement is in the interests of Gibraltar. The interests of Gibraltar and its people have always been, and will remain, of central importance to the British Government".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and we warmly welcome the decision to re-open the frontier and to restore communications, including air communications, which are of considerable importance to us. We note that this concession is being made in return for Britain's willingness to discuss sovereignty and that sovereignty is to be on the agenda, although the Statement also says that the Government,
"will fully maintain its commitment to honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar".
We further note that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, has given his full support to the plan and will accompany the Foreign Secretary to the negotiations, which will obviously be wide-ranging and which we shall follow with great interest.
These talks will be crucial, and we wish them every success. Would the noble Baroness not agree, however, that the critical issue will be that of sovereignty? May we assume that if that topic is on the agenda it is negotiable in some form, and that some such arrangement as lease-back is now to be contemplated by Her Majesty's Government? Further, does the communiqué's reference to,
"the wishes of the people of Gibraltar",
mean that they will be enabled to vote on any draft
910
settlement before it is finally ratified? Are we to assume that this is what Sir Joshua Hassan supported when he described the agreement as, "an honourable outcome"?
We welcome the progress that has been made, but I believe it is right and indeed crucial to put the major issues into perspective at an early stage.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to congratulate the Foreign Secretary warmly on arriving at what is obviously a large measure of agreement on the vexed question of the future of Gibraltar. On the face of it, it is surely a very considerable achievement and should do much to ease the prospects for Spain's entry into the Common Market. Unfortunately, and as the noble Lord. Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, has just said, the whole wretched question of sovereignty still remains open.
I wonder whether the Government would admit to a certain similarity between the problems posed by Gibraltar and those posed by the Falklands Islands? In both cases there are rival claims founded on legality and nationality, on the one hand, and on sentiment, history and geographical propinquity, on the other. Therefore, is it not conceivable that both sides, while not abandoning their claims to absolute sovereignty, should at least push such claims into the background for the moment and work, rather, for something which I believe is possible: some kind of equal, special relationship between the contested areas and both contesting parties? I hesitate to suggest that Andorra, wedged between Spain and France, and enjoying perfectly good relations with both, is an example of the kind of thing I am suggesting, but at least it makes one think.
So far as Gibraltar is concerned, the determination of the tiny community to remain British undoubtedly poses a real problem; but I cannot see why we should not in the long run be able to persuade that community (and the communiqué leads me to believe that I am not being unjustifiably hopeful) to accept some kind of compromise, perhaps on the lines I have been suggesting, which is surely now, from a political point of view, an absolute necessity.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for his welcome to the Statement, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for his welcome and for his congratulations on the achievement of my right honourable and learned friend.
Both noble Lords have raised the question of sovereignty. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether or not sovereignty was going to be negotiated. The position is that the Lisbon Statement allows any subject to be raised by either side. We recognise that the Spanish side will wish to raise the subject of sovereignty as part of the negotiations, which they are entitled to do.
We, for our part, have stated our position quite clearly. It is set out in the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution. The relevant extract from the preamble to that constitution reads as follows:
"Her Majesty's Government have given assurances to the people of Gibraltar that Gibraltar will remain part of Her Majesty's Dominions unless and until an Act of Parliament otherwise provides, and furthermore that Her Majesty's Government will

911
never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked how we would judge the views of the people of Gibraltar. I would say to him that Gibraltar opinion would be reflected through their elected representatives in government. It is with this end in mind that consultations have been going on very closely with Sir Joshua Hassan, as the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, during the course of the negotiations with Sr. Moran.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked me whether or not there was a parallel to be drawn with the issue of the Falkland Islands. I regret that he should even suggest such a parallel, because there is no parallel at all between the two cases. They are historically, legally and constitutionally different cases. The fact of the matter is that Spain is an ally in NATO and is a prospective partner in the European Community, and that successive Spanish Governments have stated publicly that they will pursue their claim by peaceful means. The Spanish Foreign Minister has spoken of the need to respect both the interests and the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us will welcome the fact that somewhat belatedly, after an interval of four and a half years, restrictions whose withdrawal was promised then, and which should never have been imposed, are now being withdrawn? Is she also aware that some of us are a little concerned that the subject of the sovereignty of what has, after all, been British territory for 270 years should be thought worthy of discussion? Will my noble friend make it plain, quite apart from her very clear statement with reference to the 1969 Constitution, that Her Majesty's Government have no sympathy with the demand by the Spanish Government to acquire territory which has been British longer than it was ever Spanish?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter agrees that we should welcome the fact that there is now a date set for the full opening of the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain. With regard to his point about sovereignty, I hope that I have fully set out the position on this. I am sure that my noble friend knows, as he has read the Lisbon Statement of 1980, that it is possible under the Lisbon Statement for the Spanish side to raise the question of sovereignty. I have no doubt that they will raise this matter at some stage. Equally, as the Statement and the communiqué following from the negotiations between my right honourable and learned friend and Sr. Moran made clear, we have made it absolutely plain that we will stand by and maintain our commitment to honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
With regard to the historical point which my noble friend raised, the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which ceded Gibraltar to Britain in perpetuity gives Spain the right of first refusal to the territory should Britain ever decide to withdraw from Gibraltar. Any consideration of the future status of Gibraltar must clearly take this into account. The views of the people of Gibraltar are at present not in doubt.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary really has to be congratulated on his achievement. I have two specific questions to ask the noble Baroness. In effect, it seems that we are advancing to 15th February 1985, at the latest, arrangements which would have had to come into effect on accession by Spain to the Community. Can the noble Baroness tell me what would happen if accession were delayed, perhaps through the action of other countries outside our control? Would we then proceed bilaterally, regardless of the Community? I, myself, hope that we would do so. The Community is certainly a convenient peg, but if something went wrong, would we ourselves, bilaterally with Spain, adopt a transitional period on similar lines with the fullest exchange of the rights mentioned in the Statement?
Finally, with regard to what appears at the top of page 3 of the Statement, will the rights of establishment, trade unions, etc., work both ways, reciprocally? Of course, the purchase of land and property is already open to British citizens in Spain. Will there be total reciprocity between the two sides on that point?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to the first question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, the fact is that Spain is going to join the Community and we do not anticipate any other answer than that. On the second point, yes, the rights are reciprocal. They are for Spaniards in Gibraltar and for Gibraltarians in Spain.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the massive loyalty displayed by the people of Gibraltar over many decades in very trying circumstances, and in the light of the fact, as seems to be reported in various newspapers this morning that the Spaniards are highly delighted—there is no one on their side with any apprehensions—is the noble Baroness aware that on the Gibraltarian side leaders of the opposition parties are gravely apprehensive? They claim that to them this outcome was an almost total and complete surprise since they were hardly consulted during the talks. Can the noble Baroness confirm that they were consulted? Can she also confirm that if any question concerning sovereignty is raised at any time all the people of Gibraltar—those in commerce, industry, the trade unions and the political parties—will be represented by their various leaders?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that the loyalty of the Gibraltarians has been very great and it is something which Britain has recognised and continues to recognise. As regards consultation, the Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, has been consulted, as the Statement made clear, at each step in these negotiations, and he will be fully brought into the future negotiations which will be held on other outstanding issues.
As regards Sir Joshua's consultation with the Opposition, that would be a matter for him in Gibraltar. With regard to any future discussions on sovereignty, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in relation to consultation with Gibraltar, this would be a matter for both the Government of Gibraltar and their elected representatives to express a view upon and to express a view as to how further consultations might be held.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to convey to Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Foreign Secretary, the regret of two of us sitting in this House at the moment—the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and myself—that it should be Sir Geoffrey who is credited with an agreement which we made in 1968 with the then Spanish Foreign Secretary but which we were not allowed to carry through by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and the then Labour Cabinet on the ground not that the agreement was wrong, but that one should not do such a thing with a fascist dictator? We were told we would have to wait until there was a social democratic Prime Minister in Spain. They now have one; a good one. I am, therefore, first, delighted and, secondly, I say to all my colleagues above me on the Gangway, "Do not go back on what at that time you thought was right but did not want to do with Franco"—which obviously I understand. "You thought it right then, let us stick with it now" Felipe González needs our help. This is one way we can give it to him. Thank heavens the Foreign Secretary never said in the case of Gibraltar that the wishes of the inhabitants had to be paramount. That is what has saved us from making the same mistake in Gibraltar as we have made in the Falklands.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that it would be better if I did not comment on the first part of the statement by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. I am glad to hear that he is pleased with the present position and the agreement reached. I am sure that he and his colleagues agree that at this stage it is more constructive to look forward than to look back.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, as the noble Baroness categorically said that Spain would enter the Common Market, can she say whether a date for signing the Treaty of Accession has been fixed?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it has always been intended that Spain should accede to the Community on 1st January 1986.

The Unemployed: Factors of Special Disadvantage
3.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, we come back to the short debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I remind your Lordships of part of the wording of the Motion:
"To call attention to the needs of those unemployed whose prospects of further employment are slender due to age and changes of economic conditions of trade".
Those noble Lords who have spoken so far have confined themselves to the older unemployed. It perhaps shows where I come from that it never occurred to me, reading those words, that there was any suggestion that this was something about only the older unemployed.
There are areas and definable groups of people which are very sharply excluded from opportunities of employment. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said, if I heard him right, that 40 per cent. of
914
those unemployed for five years or more—and I do not know those figures—are over 50. That would suggest that 60 per cent. are under 50 and that some of them might be quite young people whose prospects of employment are very slender.
Our greater efficiency and national competitiveness, which I readily say is vital to our national life, is being bought at a very great cost. We see that cost in the waste of individual talents, in the stress on families and on children, in the alienation of whole groups from feeling that they have any stake in the affluent consumer society which all-pervasive advertising proclaims to be the right of normal British people. That alienation is the seed bed for apathy, for a great deal of ill-health, for drug abuse—newly- and fast-growing on Merseyside—and for destructive militancy. It is destroying the sense of fellowship and companionship of our nation.
We must include some young people among those whose propects are slender. One of our clergy, who spent the whole of his years of ministry in Kirkby until this year, told me when, in his opinion, large-scale unemployment suddenly hit Kirkby. It was when the Labour Government introduced selective employment tax—was it in 1966? The recently arrived firms on Kirkby industrial estate immediately shook out all the labour that was not absolutely essential and hundreds of teenagers were on the streets, unemployed. That level of unemployment in Kirkby has never been reduced. In recent years it has of course grown much bigger.
That account suggests what "long-term" means in Kirkby. A 17-year-old in 1966 is a 35-year-old in 1984. Many such people have never had serious opportunity to find regular work and their children are now leaving school. For the last three years the proportion of Kirkby school-leavers obtaining employment has been about 8 per cent. Would your Lordships tolerate that if your children or grandchildren were in such a position?
Of course, there are figures that are very much worse in some of the inner areas, such as Liverpool 8. The inner area study—the most careful inquiry ever made into our cities—was being conducted when I went to Liverpool in 1975. There were then in Liverpool 8 wards with 54 per cent. overall unemployment. I have in my study a working party report from 1939 of a study of 200 black heads of household in Liverpool 8. The unemployment rate was 74 per cent.
There are sections of our population who have never had opportunity for regular work. Many comfort themselves that it is not as bad as the figures suggest. "There are three times more vacancies than there are published" say the Government. "There is a thriving black economy" say many. Let me examine briefly these two comfortable words. In Merseyside in September the number of vacancies published at Jobcentres was 4,086. Let us say there may have been three times as many vacancies and call it 12,000. The number of those claiming benefit in September was 140,000. Of those, 70,000 have been unemployed for over a year.
So far as the black economy is concerned, people have assumed that they know that the unemployed benefit from it. However, such an assumption does not

915
have evidence to support it. No doubt there are some small-scale pieces of earning which unemployed people do, but to earn the good money which the language about thriving black economies stresses you need to have your own tools, your own transport. Professor Ray Pahl has shown, in some very recent studies, that those who really benefit from the black economy are substantially those in work doing a second job, moonlighting—not much comfort to be found there.
A woman in Kirby told a group of us that her husband had been out of work for 10 years. "He is a very talented man", she said, "but he needs money to put his talents to use". The Family Service Unit has an unemployed men's group in Liverpool. As the noble Lord said, how important are the voluntary movements at some of these points. The worker who supports that group finished his report very recently like this:
"The image that stays with me is that of five men either stood deep in thought or wandering slowly between deserted wharves and warehouses in Liverpool's dockland. They seem to be reflecting on the human waste and despair that the surroundings represent, and also at the waste and occasional despair in their own lives. One of them expressed his gratitude for that group to which he belonged. All of them, he said, have not broken down again or been back on the psychiatrist's couch".
But, make no mistake, ill health, physical and mental, is marked in the high unemployment areas. What is it like to grow up in this part of Britain? A head teacher told me on Sunday that the children in her school were talking about what they were going to have for Christmas. "I am going to have a computer", said one. What effect would that have on John, whose father has been out of work for two years? The answer is that John tells fibs: "I am going to have a computer and a bicycle", he said.
I talked about alienation with its dangerous effects. The managing director of a company which closed in Merseyside told me he believed that his workforce were good people. He blamed half a dozen militants for leading them into militancy. But we must ask what made it possible for six people to lead thousands of good people by the nose. What was the seedbed for that militancy? How can the difficult process of slimming down take place in parts of industry without disruption if the alternative is mass unemployment? It must be the most urgent priority for Her Majesty's Government to set about restoring the sense of fellowship in this nation.
May I quote some words from Lesslie Newbigin, moderator in the United Reformed Church, for many years bishop in the Church of South India. He delivered the other day the Bishop Gore Memorial Lecture in Westminster Abbey. It was on "The Welfare State—A Christian Perspective". He asked what Jesus meant when He said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God". He said:
"When I used to spend time with people in the slums of Madras or the beggars' home in Madurai, I always felt that I understood those words and needed no further explanation. There is a kind of richness in a place like that, and a kind of poverty in our so affluent suburbs. Is not Jesus saying that these have an actual share now in the blessedness of God's reign, a share which the rich have missed? It is hard to see otherwise what these words mean. And the practical outcome must be companionship: we who are rich must share the bread and so share the blessing".
916
I think we must ask why we are having yet another debate on unemployment, for we know the figures. Ought we to go on wringing our hands? Last Sunday had a traditional name in the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer; it was "Stir up Sunday" —the Sunday next before Advent, before the Church's new year begins. The words "Stir up Sunday" come from the Collect which says,
"Stir up, O Lord…the wills of thy faithful people".
We all know there is an urgent need to tackle the most damaging situation wasting human resources, destroying that sense of companionship in our nation. Do we really not have the political will stirred up to change our way?
From where I live and work I believe we must put away the slogan which says, "There is no alternative". There are several alternatives. Each of them is costly. They might quite properly mean the better off paying more taxes or not receiving cuts in their taxation. What we now know is that the present way is too costly for the good of the nation to continue. I have stressed the long-term human cost and the urgency of action. If the Government are to restore that sense of companionship in this nation—and we have much more violent examples of the breakdown of that than I have talked about—they must reach out with practical and large-scale policies, which will reach the unemployed urgently, for action today.
A much needed programme of public works and of public service would provide real jobs. I chair the area Manpower Board for Merseyside of the Manpower Services Commission. I have done it for seven years. I know that we could create real jobs in the service of the community if the 12-month limits were removed. I know that we could treble the Community Programme if the resources were made available. But the evidence is that MSC strategy is being directed less to areas of the greatest need.
There is a current phrase in government departments which is very influential: it is. "output measurement". That is appropriate in some kinds of work, but it is a very crude tool when it is applied to training. The adult training strategy of the MSC for programmes like TOPS, in which I saw some people of 55 years of age being trained in Liverpool the other day, emphasises people who are likely to get jobs in the areas where there are jobs to be found. That is the output measurement. Money this year has been clawed back from each region, from the employment division of the MSC, to give some more flexible reallocation. Instead of receiving priority treatment, the North-West lost over £2 million out of the £3 million clawed back from us. The North-East has lost, too. The money is being redirected where output measurement would show cost-effectiveness in putting people into jobs—in other words, into the South.
Very substantial cuts in manning the Jobcentres have been proposed. The first draft of those proposals included closing a full-time Jobcentre in Kirby. That was about output measurement as well because there are not so many jobs to be found. Energetic protests have meant that this and some other cuts have been pulled back but there are still heavy cuts proposed. It is said that it is no function of Jobcentres to provide tea and sympathy for the unemployed. All right, but it is crucial for the unemployed that Jobcentres are given

917
enough resources to play their proper role as the gateway to special employment measures like the Community Programme, the Voluntary Projects Programme, Community Industry and the Enterprise Allowance Scheme.
I fear that public expenditure of 1985–86 is already established with no scope for further places on the Community Programme, which for us is a tiny little dent on the numbers of long-term unemployed that we have. If we are realistic about where jobs are likely to come from in the next 10 years for manual workers on Merseyside, Tyneside, Glasgow, Belfast, not to mention now the West Midlands, where do your Lordships really think those jobs are going to appear? For example, what three practical steps would you hope to be seeing in the next year? The matter is urgent. The long-term unemployed are already into a second generation. The good management of this country cannot afford to waste these precious national resources.

Regional Industrial Policy
4.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the Government's review of regional policy now being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Government's review of regional policy. I have made four orders to bring into force the new regional development grant scheme and the new map of assisted areas. The orders, including that specifying the new assisted areas, are available in the Vote Office.
"Our decisions have been taken after very full consultation, including consideration of almost 500 submissions. I have placed in the Library a list and a summary of the submissions received.
"The submissions received show considerable support for the Government's proposals as outlined in the White Paper. While the majority support the continuation of regional policy, many were critical of the waste inherent in the present system and consider it possible to make the policy more cost effective.
"To achieve greater cost-effectiveness we have concluded that the new map should have two tiers instead of three, and that the inner tier, which will qualify for automatic grants as well as regional selective assistance, will be re0stricted to 15 per cent. of the working population. This compares with 22 per cent. for the present development and special development areas. The outer tier of the map, which will qualify for regional selective assistance, will cover a further 20 per cent. of the working population. We have included in the new map several areas, most notably parts of the West Midlands, that have previously been denied regional assistance. Both tiers will be eligible for support from the European regional development fund.
"In redrawing the map, we considered the present and future employment patterns of each area, along
918
with other factors, including the risk of distortions where non-assisted areas are adjacent to assisted areas. Some such effects are inevitable in any regional policy.
"For the new RDG scheme we have set the rate of capital grant at 15 per cent. In our view the new rate is high enough to ensure that grants are an effective incentive to investment.
"For too long regional policy has unduly discriminated against service industries even when such industries offer the prospect of increased employment. We have therefore decided to make some service activities eligible for regional development grant. These are listed in the relevant order.
"Since unemployment is such an important concern today, it is also right that any policy as expensive as regional policy should be tied more closely to jobs.
"We have already announced our intention to make two changes to give effect to that aim. Firstly, capital grant will be subject to a cost per job limit. Too much money has been spent in support of capital intensive projects that create few jobs and do little for the economies of the regions. The cost per job limit will be £10,000. However we wish to minimise the burdens placed on small firms and this limit will not normally be applied to firms employing less than 200.
"Secondly we also announced that in future firms should be able to receive a job grant as an alternative to capital grant. The job grant will be set at a level of £3,000 for each new job created. Firms will not have to choose between job grant and capital grant: they will automatically receive whichever is greater.
"The Government also intend to continue to give selective assistance to projects that protect existing employment but which otherwise would not go ahead. With the increase in the outer tier of the map, this will mean an increase in selective assistance. Overall the balance between automatic grants and selective assistance will shift considerably towards the latter.
"After the working through of the transitional provisions, we expect the new regional policy to cost nearly £300 million per year less than if present policy were to be continued. This will be a considerable lightening of the public expenditure burden of the policy. Even so we will still be spending nearly £400 million on regional policy in 1987–88 to improve job prospects in the worst hit areas.
"The most important feature of our policy is that that money will now be spent in the areas with the worst problems and that, in terms of new jobs per pound of expenditure, the new policy will be far more effective than the old."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement made in another place. The noble Lord will be aware that this is one of the most scandalous Statements that has been made in the past five years in which this Government have been in office. It is made

919
within the context of the situation described in most moving terms by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool immediately before the noble Lord rose to his feet. It is made within the context of unemployment generally in the United Kingdom having doubled since the noble Lord's Government came to office. In some cases, particularly in the distressed areas, it has multiplied itself over three times. This is the time when the noble Lord comes to the House and announces a £300 million reduction in expenditure on regional policy. I have no doubt that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in his capacity as chairman of the "Star Chamber", fully concurred, whatever his personal embarrassment may have been in the light of the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, in what has happened.
At a time of unemployment, at a time of distress, the Government announce that, on regional policy, they are going to save £300 million of taxpayers' money. This is presumably in order that the Government shall be able to spend £200 million of taxpayers' money in promoting, under somewhat dubious circumstances and sailing as near to the law as it can, the sale of British Telecom to the public. This is the level of priorities to which the Government have sunk. Is the noble Lord aware, on the basis of the Statement made by him that £10.000 is to be expended for each job involved, that the increase, on the assumption that the policy was fully effective, might reduce unemployment by 30,000 people during a year? That is merely treading the other way on a moving staircase. With bankruptcies running at a record level of 15,000 a year an additional 30,000 to 40,000 a year are already being added to the number of unemployed in this country from that source alone.
The position taken by the Government amounts to the ignoring of some of the most elemental and moral selections of priorities in public policy and should be denounced as such. It was not even taken on the basis of the majority of opinions that were given to them, including that of the Bow Group of the noble Lord's own party let alone the report of Deloitte Haskins & Sells which recommended a considerable increase in expenditure on regional policy at this time. The Statement is careful to point out:
"While the majority support the continuation of regional policy, many were critical of the waste inherent in the present system and consider it possible to make the policy more cost effective".
The noble Lord was careful to indicate that it was not the majority of the opinions proffered to him from all kinds of sources that he adopted. But because many consider—presumably including the Institute of Directors and others that contribute to his party's funds—that the system ought to be made cost-effective, he decided to adopt this course.
We are very grateful to the noble Lord for having at long last made available a map, which we have not seen. We look forward to seeing the orders that he talked about, which we understand are in the Vote Office. Clearly there will have to be a debate on this subject. It is to be hoped that for once not only financial priorities will be involved—and the Government can be criticised on those grounds alone—but that some of the moral priorities of policy can be discussed at the same time.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the statement that has just been made. Perhaps I cannot contribute with the same eloquence as the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat, but coming as I do from one of the regions, I cannot help but feel that we are rather discriminated against in the Statement which has just been repeated. Last year the total assistance in regional aid under the Industrial Development Act was cut by this Government by one third. For Scotland in fact it was cut by 50 per cent. last year. On top of that now we have an additional regional policy Statement in which a further £300 million is to be saved in regional aid.
The extension of regional aid to the service industries, when there is a limited budget and a limited amount to spend, means that manufacturing industry-will suffer severely. Anyone who has experience of trying to attract inward investment to the United Kingdom, which can contribute to the restructuring of industry and which is so important in getting new high technology industries to Britain, will realise that the substantial reduction in incentives will make new investment go to other areas in Europe and elsewhere which are competing for high technology investment. I regard it as a very serious matter for the future structure of British industry.
The Statement says that the support will now be job-related rather than capital-related. That does not always assist the change which is necessary in British industry and which requires large investment in capital equipment. To reduce the incentives to investment in capital equipment, positively reduces the efficiency of British industry. I should like the Minister to confirm that the Statement which he has just read means a reduction in capital investment allowances from 22 per cent. to an overall 15 per cent., which could have the serious consequences that I have just mentioned. Can he confirm also that some of the areas which are now removed from development area status still have more than 10 per cent. unemployment—that there is double digit unemployment in some of the areas that are now removed on the new map? I have not seen the map but I gather that that is so. Can he also try to tell us just what will be the net impact of the contents of the Statement on the attraction of new high technology industries to areas that are trying hard to get away from the traditional old industries and restructure our economy?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should like to have been able to thank the noble Lord. Lord Bruce, for his acceptance of the Statement that I have just read, but I can perhaps thank him for the latter part of his remarks. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for his reception of the Statement.
May I deal straight away with the two main points that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, made? I say to him in all seriousness that the Statement is very much within the context of this afternoon's debate. The Government are extremely concerned with the levels of unemployment. It is an expression of that concern that the review of regional policy has made the shift from purely capital grant to job-related grant. I believe that that is an expression of our feelings in this matter.

921
Notwithstanding anything that the noble Lord said, I should perhaps point out that even by 1987–88, £400 million will still be spent on regional aid. Since the noble Lord quoted a paragraph from the Statement, I ought to repeat that paragraph in full:
"The submissions received show considerable support for the Government's proposals as outlined in the White Paper. While the majority support the continuation of regional policy, many were critical of the waste inherent in the present system and consider it possible to make the policy more cost-effective".
That is what we believe will occur over these next three and a half to four years.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said that he thought a debate would be absolutely necessary. I do not think that your Lordships would expect me to comment further than to say that that is not a matter for me but for the usual channels. No doubt the noble Lord will make his bid through those channels.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, with his great experience of capital and capital investment, made a number of points which I take on board. He asked me specifically whether the old capital grant which stood at 22 per cent. was to be reduced to 15 per cent. I can confirm that that is so. He spoke of the area from which he came—Scotland. We feel that Scotland has been given a fair share of assisted area coverage. I am sure that he will study the new map carefully. The coverage on it is totally fair as between different parts of Great Britain. How the new map compares with the old is of course another matter; but I noted that Scotland's shares of intermediate areas has not changed and its share of areas eligible for regional development grant has increased. When I was looking at the map I also noted that the whole of the Highlands and Islands Development Board area is eligible for support from the European regional development fund.
The noble Lord asked me whether there were travel-to-work areas not included in the assisted area map but which had an unemployment factor of over 10 per cent. There are 320 travel-to-work areas. I have a list of them, but I cannot from memory tell him which areas—or indeed whether there are any—have an unemployment factor above 10 per cent. I can certainly have a look through the list, and perhaps after we have discussed this matter I can talk to him about that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, notwithstanding the febrile, if predictable, rhetoric of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, many people will feel that greater selectivity in the use of the regional grant is to be welcomed? Is he particularly aware that its extension to the service industries seems to make very good sense in view of the much better outlook for the service industries as compared with manufacturing industry today? Can he say in particular whether that extension takes it into the field of tourism and hotels?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his welcome for this Statement. I am particularly grateful to him for pointing out that now there is a much greater element of selectivity which should enable those astute enough to read the rule book, as it were, greatly to benefit. That selectivity will
922
undoubtedly lead to some job creation and further opportunities. This is particularly so in the service industries. As in general terms tourism comes within that bracket, there will be opportunities for benefit under the present scheme.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that the aim of regional aid is to equalise the opportunities for jobs throughout the country, and that as it has now been in operation for approximately 40 years and the disparities between the various areas in the country have become worse instead of better, the question of regional aid has in fact signally failed to achieve its aim? Would he further agree that even now when new jobs are being created in certain industries, most of those jobs are being created in the South-East and the least number are being created in the disadvantaged areas?
Will the noble Lord urge upon the Government the necessity to look again at the question of devolution of Government jobs from the South-East to the regions in order to relieve the congestion in the South-East? We may even reach the stage where perhaps the 3,500 jobs that were promised to Merseyside under the previous Administration would be restored, and we would get back to some semblance of sanity in regard to job opportunities throughout the country. Indeed, we may even get those 3,500 jobs restored—jobs which were so blatantly and arrogantly taken away immediately following the Government's election in 1979.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, for his contribution. I agree that one part of regional grant policy was to equalise particularly job opportunities. We think that in this plan we are in fact going to do just that. Since the unemployment rates for the new map, as at July 1984—just a few months ago—were produced, the new development areas have within them a 19·1 per cent. unemployment factor. The intermediate areas have a 15·5 per cent. unemployment factor as against Great Britain as a whole with an unemployment factor of 12·6 per cent. The noble Lord will see that on the map the Merseyside area is, in the main—in most of the TTWAs—designated a development area. One would certainly expect industry to take advantage of the opportunities that are open to them under the new regional policy.
The noble Lord asked me to urge my noble and honourable friends about the necessity to ensure that there was no further movement of jobs into the southeastern area. I can tell the noble Lord that in the entire south-eastern area there is not one TTWA which qualifies for regional development grant because they are neither in a development area nor indeed an intermediate area.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the point of my remarks was that regional aid as we see it and as we have been practising it for 40 years has completely failed to remove the disparities in our economy. Will the noble Lord look at the question of devolving jobs from the South-East to the rest of the country as in fact the Government are urging the private sector to do? The private sector needs to be in the South-East: the

923
Government and the civil servants do not need to be there and they could be moved to the rest of the country.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not think that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. However, as he has repeated his question I must say to him that I do not accept that the regional policies over the past 40 years have failed to achieve their objective. But I am prepared to accept that they have not been 100 per cent. plus successful. I thought that when I answered him previously I gave the noble Lord the assurance for which he asked.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, noble Lords have referred to different parts of the country. Is the noble Lord aware that I visited South Wales over the weekend and found considerable apprehension there about the effect of this White Paper—or at least about what the newspapers had prophesied would be in the White Paper, and they were pretty near the mark? Can the noble Lord say what the effect will be in Wales? He told the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, briefly what the effect would be in Scotland. Is the noble Lord aware that apart from Northern Ireland unemployment in Wales is higher than it is in any other part of the United Kingdom? With unemployment at that level in Wales, in Scotland, on Merseyside, in the north and in other parts of this country, how can the Government possibly justify reducing the amount to be spent on regional aid by £300 million at this time? That is the question which the country will be asking.
Is the noble Lord aware that there will be no criticism of the Government for looking at regional aid because regional aid, like every other Government policy, needs to be scrutinised from time to time. There may be deficiencies and I would concede that there have been deficiencies in regional aid. But what the Government have done is to cut the amount of capital available to create new jobs in those parts of the country that need jobs badly. It is that justification which the Minister must make to the House.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, of course I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for the situation in the Principality. But I have to tell him that the coverage of the new map really is quite fair as between the different parts of Great Britain. It would be wrong to attempt to compare the new map with the old map because that really is another matter. The noble Lord asked me how we could contemplate cutting £300 million from regional aid at this time. I must tell him that we are not cutting, as at this time, £300 million from the aid programme—that is the anticipated saving as at 1987–88, because those savings which we hope to achieve will come about as the scheme gets under way. The transitional provisions until 1987–88 really mean that a good deal more money will be spent because both the old scheme and the new one will overlap. We believe that even at that time—1987–88—£400 million of regional aid more properly distributed and spread and becoming more cost-effective, will mean that we are more likely to achieve that which we have set out, than would have been the case under the old scheme which was costing some £695 million.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to detain the House but with due respect I think that one of the major questions which I tried to ask was not really answered. I am referring to the question of reducing the incentives to inward investment. If we cut the capital allowances from 22 per cent. to 15 per cent. we must remember that we are in a highly competitive world as regards attracting inward investment from the United States, from Japan and elsewhere, which has been a resounding success in Scotland. I do not subscribe to the view that regional policy has totally failed. There are many indications that regional policy has been effective in transforming the Scottish economy, but it is in the face of great competition from many other parts of the world that are seeking to attract new, high technology industries. Bearing in mind that competition, if we cut the capital allowance from 22 per cent. to 15 per cent. it is likely that many of the firms that make up what is now called "Silicon Glen" in Scotland will depart and invest elsewhere. I cannot see that that contributes in any way to improving the economy of the nation or creating new jobs.
Will the Minister also confirm that unfortunately it will be the practice of the Government in future to deduct European aid from the regional aid which is now contained in the Statement? Or will he permit European assistance—regional assistance—to be additional to the figure that he has just mentioned?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps I had better amplify what I said with regard to the 22 per cent. and the 15 per cent. The capital grant rate remains at 15 per cent. in the development areas, although of course, having reduced the scheme from a three-tier scheme to a two-tier scheme, we have taken off the special development area. It was only the special development area which enjoyed the 22 per cent. rate.
I think that I have answered the points with regard to Scotland. Scotland receives a very fair share of the aid that is available. We reckoned that 15 per cent. was the lowest rate which would be generally effective in influencing investment decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, argues that that is wrong. However, that is the decision that we have made in the light of all the information that was available to us. There is no doubt that he and I may be some percentage points away from total agreement, and I fear that we may have to be that far apart. However, that was the reason.
There has never been any question, nor is there likely to be, of deducting European Regional Development Fund aid from any of the sums which we provide. The way in which the areas have been distributed across the map will have the effect of enabling more local authorities rather than fewer to make claims against that fund. Noble Lords will probably recall that under the new European Regional Development grant fund arrangements there is an increased maximum available to the United Kingdom of some 27 to 28 per cent. of the total available. That is some percentage points increase over that which we have enjoyed in the past.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the statement which he has just made on additionally, wherein he stated that the funds made available out of the European development fund towards public expenditure were made in addition to ordinary Government expenditure, is directly contrary to the evidence given by his department's own officials to the Select Committee of this House on this particular subject?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, no, I am not aware of that and I think that the noble Lord is rather misrepresenting either what my officials said or what I have said. I wonder whether the House will forgive me if I correct one part of the answer which I gave to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he asked me about hotels and tourism receiving grants. The hotel industry would not normally receive grant through the regional development grant programme, but it does benefit from Section 4 of the Tourism Act.
Lord Wade: My Lords, perhaps, I may try to reduce this discussion to its simplest form. Do I understand that, as a result of Government policy, there will be cuts which will involve suffering? When the noble Lord speaks of equality, he really means that we are being asked to accept equality in suffering. Secondly, when we talk about capital investment, is it not very unwise, taking the long-term view, to indulge in cuts in capital investment, when that will be so vital to the revival of industry in this country?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that in fact the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is quite wrong; this has nothing whatever to do with equality of suffering. This is a redistribution of funds to place those funds where, in the light of that suffering, it is thought best that aid could be given. It provides much greater opportunity for industry—both manufacturing and the service industries—to locate in areas where there is the greatest suffering. There is a capital grant with a job-creation ceiling: there is a job-creation grant where there is no ceiling other than the number of jobs multiplied by the amount of money.
Therefore, that is a real and very positive inducement to—I might say investment in—the creation of jobs. I would quite seriously expect industry to take advantage of this new scheme, which we believe—and we have good reason to believe—will prove to be that much more effective than the old scheme.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Lord not accept that it is very difficult for some of us to see how his remarks this afternoon amount only to a redistribution of funds when, as I have understood him, overall it amounts to a reduction of £300 million?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is of course right. There is a redistribution of funds, geographically in terms of the travel-to-work areas and the rates at which the development area and the intermediate area are settled; but there is also a reduction in the total amount available—which is some £659 million under the old scheme—to £400 million by 1987–88.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is it not the case that today we are debating the effects of Government policy on unemployment, and here is an example where the Government are enacting a policy which, although helpful to service industries—and I am second to none in approving of that—is nevertheless making it less likely that there will be inward investment in manufacturing industry in this country, as a result of which there will undoubtedly be more unemployment in this country than there was before? Is it not right that your Lordships' House should take particular note of policy formation at the point of time when it is being formed, which is now?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, let me first say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in the kindest possible way, that this afternoon we are not having a debate.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, we are.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, yes, we are.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I certainly had not intended that we should have a debate upon the Statement. I was quite happy to answer questions and I shall answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I do not accept anything that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said. Last Tuesday night I was in Helsinki speaking to a group of Scandinavian bankers and top businessmen about the investment opportunities in the United Kingdom. I was able to tell them something about the plans which were outlined in the White Paper. From their reception of my remarks I received very great encouragement. I do not believe that this policy will be reflected in any reduction in inward investment.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me how much less Merseyside is to receive?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I very much regret that I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. I have before me a great list of 320. If I attempted to answer the noble Lord, I fear that other noble Lords might ask me about other areas. I shall be happy to tell him when we finish our discussion on the principle of this Statement.
Lord Sefton of Garston: But it will be less.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are we to understand that the noble Lord communicated these proposals to Helsinki before he communicated them to this House?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is being slightly mischievous. I said that I was able to talk to those bankers and leading industrialists about the proposals that were contained in the White Paper.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, is it in order for a debate like this to continue in connection with a Statement?

The Unemployed: Factors of Special Disadvantage
4.51 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, to continue Lord Balfour's debate on unemployment, I want to say straight away what bad luck the Government had in having the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, come here this afternoon to make his appalling and anaemic Statement, which can be so dangerous for the issues we are discussing and which was rightly roughed-up by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I listened carefully to that little debate inside this debate. Either the Government are being foolish or they do not understand the proportions of what is happening to our country because of unemployment.
In that Statement the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had to dwell on waste. What a neck for this Government to talk about anybody wasting anything when they are guilty of the criminal act of wasting four million of my fellow countrymen who could be making a substantial contribution but who are unemployed! They rightly say that they are appalled at the number of unemployed. They said that this year, they said it last year, they said it the year before that and they said it the year before that. too. All we have had is different characters coming to the Dispatch Box. wringing their hands and saying how terribly upset they are about this unemployment, and that they intend to do something about it. And they have: they have increased it! They have made it worse. That is what the country must understand.
It is difficult for the country to really understand it, with the appallingly biased press that we have in this nation, which seems to think that the present Government cannot do any harm whatsoever when in point of fact they are the worst Government we have had since the war. When the noble Lord. Lord Balfour, talks about the problems of unemployment for those in a particular age group and for those in a particular economic set-up, do the Government not realise that it stretches right across? There are young folk who have never had a job in their lives. There are skilled artisans who had 10 years left in them to contribute to our nation but who were flung out of work. It goes across the whole lot. There is not much difference, except in one aspect to which I shall refer later.
Unemployment is the most deeply harmful and dangerous of all social tensions, as the right reverend Prelate has indicated a number of times in this House—and I am glad to support him. At the conclusion of what I have to say I shall return to a theme about which I have been talking for the last three or four years. I have to do so. If I do not stick to what I have been saying about how unemployment can be conquered, then either I have not been speaking the truth or I have been guilty of submitting a false prospectus, unless there has been some good reason to change my mind. But there has been no good reason whatsoever.
The Government have been patently, totally and absolutely hopeless over the past four years in trying to cure this, because they are so doctrinaire. Only
928
reluctantly did they give up the dreadful policy called monetarism, which they imposed on this country. They knew full well what it had done to states like Israel and some states in South America. They knew that it had lacerated them. In the state of Israel, when you buy a pound of potatoes, by the time the last potato has gone on the scales inflation has increased by 3 or 4 per cent.
The person who dictated this to our Prime Minister and our Government is someone we ought to take care of. I would never accept that we have not got enough brainy and intelligent people in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland who can indicate the way we ought to go. and run our great industries, so that we have to run to foreign countries and import some of their elderly gentlemen, and take cognisance of other philosophies which have done no good whatsoever.
On the question of social tension, what I would reiterate is that being unemployed does not simply mean a person being out of work. If he is a married man with a couple of children, the tensions of unemployment go through the family. Some of us have gone through it all before. My father was a skilled engineer. I witnessed family rows because he had come in at half past eight after traipsing around the docks of Swansea or Cardiff, only to be told by my mother that she had heard that a few men were being taken on up in the Rhondda, working the machinery in the pits, and she wondered why he was not there. He said, "I did not think. Nobody told me". I beg your Lordships to listen to this: the children were sitting silently, watching the row between their mother and father, and the basic reason was unemployment.
I regret to have to say that one of the contributors to our discovering the answer to unemployment was Adolf Hitler, aided by Benito Mussolini. If this Government cannot find another way, they can make one massive contribution: move out and let someone else have a try. The social tensions now are enormous. I travel all over the country, speaking in universities and technical colleges to groups of young people, sometimes getting all the abuse in the world hurled at me when I even defend the Government by saying they are doing their best. Their best is not good enough.
We do not want to be standing in queues becoming what we call dole paupers. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, mentioned that it is a waste. Of course it is a waste. I can remember the time in the dole queue—which we took three hours to walk through—when there would be miners, steelworkers, navvies, bachelors of science and masters of arts. They were all there. Then, as in this day and age of 1984, the only thing they shared was the scrap heap.
My nation is not going to survive unless something is done. There was very little confidence in our country in the 1930s. There is a great possibility of people having confidence sapped from them in my country today. I can remember Aneurin Bevan—it is there to read in his book. In Place of Fea —saying that the fear of unemployment was not that you could not get money to buy things, but the rows within families, the rows between one set of workers and another.
I have seen men lined up on the docks and the foreman walking along—I do not know whether they do it in Liverpool now—and having a look. I never

929
stood much of a chance, I was too small. You had to be a big bloke of about six foot, because they could probably get more out of you. That was Great Britain in 1937 and 1938. Of course in 1939 the then Government did not care two pins how big I was, as long as I was capable of holding a gun.
The youth of today in Liverpool, Cardiff, Glasgow and London are not going to be as docile as we were. This is what we have to understand. There is an infamous link, a creeping industrial cancer, between some of the Government's activities, their obsession with privatisation, and unemployment.
How on earth can we not get excited when we realise that it is four o'clock on this afternoon in this ancient Chamber and there are a few thousand doctors, a few thousand nurses, midwives and ward ancillaries also on the dole? Some of them have been shoved out because private entrepreneurs have taken over and they have such a big love for the hospital that they want to clean, provided there is a big profit at the end. Nurses and doctors do not calculate their overtime because to them the patient is the most important person, and their reward for that sort of attitude has been to get the sack. It does not give me much pleasure to say this sort of thing, but I want to see my nation lift itself above this terrible problem.
In the field of taxation there is the taxpayer Jekyll, who is pleased and proud of his country which provides old age pensions, widows' pensions and service pensions and provides a health service, education and so on. But then there is the awful bloke Hyde, who resents paying the bill and supports all the cuts and reductions in the state's duty and responsibility which the Government advocate.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has said, that there are also other personal disadvantages of which it behoves us to take full cognisance, particularly those of the long-term unemployed. They are unfortunate, but they are human and as British as I am, even if they have low intelligence, if they have a lack of intellectual ability or some illness which prevents them from doing any sort of work, if they are disabled or if they are old. I am proud to be the president of the largest group of branches of the Royal British Legion, the metropolitan group. It hurt me a few Sundays ago when I was taking the salute in Middlesex to know that the chaps walking past with their medals clinking had been to see me to see whether there was any chance of them getting a job because they had been sacked from Hoover's and from other firms. As they said, in these days one does not get the sack but is made redundant. That hurt me. I cannot understand why the Government do not say that they have tried every mortal thing that is possible within the Conservative book of rules and they have all failed. Why do they not try something else. There are some other things which could be tried which will overcome the fact that someone might be unemployed for a long time because of where he lives or because of his trade or profession. There is a way in which we can overcome that and we have done it.
Speaking parenthetically, I get a little angry when I hear the pathos and the bathos from the other side of the Chamber and in the other place about everybody's concern for the unemployed. They all want to help the unemployed but no one was prepared to agree to my
930
little Bill for concessionary fares so that when a chap in Fulham thinks that he might get a job in the London docks he does not have to wonder, "Is it worth my trying because by the time I get there and back the fare will have made a hole in the ten quid of my dole?" That probably happens in Liverpool and Birmingham. I know it happens in Cardiff and Swansea and in some parts of London. We were not big enough to hold out the hand, even if not of compassion, of practical assistance so that if one person got a job that would be one family which could celebrate.
I have said before and want to say again that I do not change my views. Having gone through the terrible threat that my country survived in the middle 1930s which ended with the Nazi menace against which at one time we stood alone, I believe we have to have those sort of guts again. We are not being given a lead by our present Government. They are afraid of the solution that was provided in 1937 and 1938 through the economic philosophies of Kenneth Galbraith and Maynard Keynes, which were accepted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when the Americans had such a massive unemployment what it makes ours now, as it did then, look almost negligible. They overcame it and one motto Galbraith, the Scots Canadian, nailed to his mast. Simply put, it was "spend and prosper".
We all know that in those days wonderful town halls, marvellous buildings and some brand new lovely roads were created by the construction industry. There are very wealthy firms in the big construction industries such as Cementation, who found the route of recovery for their industry in the philosophy of spend and prosper. The Government said then, "We will build houses for the homeless, new town halls and new hospitals". Hospitals are now falling down today and tens of thousands of men in the construction industry are unemployed.
In conclusion, I believe that we need a big, courageous plan to mobilise the talents of this nation—to march together: the unions, the great captains of industry, the men of practical knowledge and their entrepreneurial staff, men who travel the world to gain orders for this country and the workmen who must now work as hard as they possibly can to fulfil those orders to restore the world's confidence in this nation. We have nothing to lose except our own shame and frustration at having so many of the skilful men of Britain unemployed.
I sit down with the words that there is everything and all to gain. There would be more taxes paid, which would please any Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we could get them all back to work there would be an increase in productivity. What is wrong with that? There would be an increase in the morale of a great many of our fellow Britons and perhaps, above all, with the bold plan that I have only had time to adumbrate and outline, there would be not only an increase in morale but the unemployed would receive the most valued gift, to them as it is to me: they would have their self respect restored.
5.7 p.m.
Lord MeAlpine of West Green: My Lords, in the United States during the last 10 years some 9 million jobs have been created. Most of these new jobs have been in the service industries. Here in Britain, too,

931
service sector employment has been rising steadily for two years, with more than 400,000 new service jobs since 1982. While jobs in manufacturing have declined, and probably will continue to decline, clearly the service sector provides us with substantial opportunities.
Yet here we come upon a problem. For some perverse and unfathomable reason there is a strong prejudice against service jobs. They are supposed to be not as worthy or so valuable as manufacturing jobs. A howl of rage goes up when our balance of trade in manufacturers is in deficit, while the critics tend to ignore the fact that our balance of trade in services is in just as strong a surplus.
I have never understood why it is supposed to be better to be a manufacturer of Carmen curlers than it is to be a hairdresser using them. People are proud to be a car manufacturer, but are hesitant about car salesmen. The prejudice against service sector jobs is strong and insistent. Yet as the wealth of those in work grows, as it has, so the opportunities for new jobs in the service sector also grow—in catering, tourism, entertainment and leisure, or even in hairdressing and among second-hand car salesmen. These are all real jobs and every bit as valuable as any job in manufacturing.
It is particularly the elderly unemployed who can benefit from such opportunities. They have a lifetime of working experience behind them and are ideally suited to fulfil service sector vacancies, where success is based not just on training or operating machinery, but also on the ability to respond personally and sensibly to an individual customer's needs. Experience can be much more valuable than youthful vigour or physical strength. The possibilities are tremendous.
Let me take one current example; that of Battersea power station. As a power station it employed approximately 125 people. Converted into an industrial estate, it could employ some 600 people. But as a fun centre it will employ 6,000 people and require no special Government subsidies.
The challenge for Government today is not to spend vast sums of money in an attempt to buy our way out of unemployment. I do not believe that unemployment in the long term is any more responsive to cheque book solutions today than it was in previous Governments. Employment schemes, of course, can and do help, but clearly they are not enough, either.
What is required is a commitment from the Government on two fronts. First, they must stamp out the prejudice in their own thinking about service jobs, which actively hinders their creation; and, secondly they must apply their energies and ambitions to moving the barriers within the Civil Service to job creation in the service sector. This is easier said than done, perhaps. Decision makers in the Civil Service are subjected to all sorts of pressures—not only to create new jobs, but also to preserve the environment, enforce planning codes, conserve the neighbourhood, protect those already in work, and to take heed of the various race and sex equality codes.
But, put at its simplest, the priority today must be in favour of job creation. I am not against conservation,
932
preserving the environment, planning codes, employment codes and other similar considerations, but I do not value them above the creation of jobs. We can restore hope and a sense of dignity to the unemployed through the creation of new jobs, and we must. Our present set of administrative rules and regulations was largely developed in the heyday of manufacturing, when large industrial conglomerates employed tens of thousands of people. Today the employment world has changed, and its industrial units may employ just a handful. But the rules and regulations have not kept pace with such changes. It is all too easy for those in secure jobs, such as civil servants and administrators—and even Ministers—to delay and prevaricate while they consider all the traditional pressures in all the traditional ways—all at the expense of jobs. Delays in such circumstances are little short of malicious. While those in jobs delay, those out of jobs are robbed of hope.
There are times for caution and there are times for action and imagination. When I tell my noble friend Lord Belstead that there is one development in this city offering some 2,000 man-years of work which was given outline planning approval 16 years ago and yet is still under appeal, then, clearly, the time for caution has run out.
The rules need changing and adapting to a new era of service industries. The delays and barriers need removing and the attitudes of our administrators need bringing up to date. The prejudice which says that we should prop up traditional manufacturing jobs rather than promoting new service jobs must be done away with.
I am gratified to see the progress already made by the Government. I am encouraging them to further action, rather than criticising them for lack of it, and I noted with considerable satisfaction that the new regional policy rules referred to in the Statement from another place this afternoon went some way towards removing the bias against jobs in the service sector. But I ask my noble friend Lord Young to use his energies and imagination to ensure that priority is given to speed decision-making whenever the possibility of creating new jobs arises.
My Lords, we must give priority to job creation if we are serious about tackling unemployment. There is no easy answer to unemployment, and there can be no easy excuses if we allow bureaucracy to get in the way of new jobs.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, during the fourth day of the debate on the Address, almost all the speakers spoke about unemployment and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, has put down his name for another general debate on 12th December. I think that we must get used to this. I think it is right that we should go on talking about unemployment, even if we have to say the same things over and over again, simply because it is the major problem at the moment. But I was glad to read the Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, because he was concentrating on a particular aspect of the subject, and I think that, when there are between 3 million and 4 million unemployed it is very good for us to have to think sometimes about particular people because we

933
become bewildered by figures of 3 million or 4 million unemployed. We forget that each of them is an individual and each has his special problems.
A good indication of the pressure to talk about this problem has arisen this afternoon, because not only did the Statement on the regions develop into a debate on unemployment, but most of the speakers in this particular debate have wandered far away from the subject put down by the noble Lord—and I do not envy the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in winding up. I have forgotten the definition of "latitudinarianism", but there was an element of that (shall I say?) in the right reverend Prelate covering the whole waterfront. The indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who is so eloquent on this issue, certainly burst all bounds, and although the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, made a very interesting speech, I think that it was not one that would much help the particular problem.
What I am going to try to say is that this is the worst of all the problems that we are facing. It is a new problem. During the period when full employment was a high priority there was constant unemployment. Firms were closing down, industries were changing and people were coming out of work; but because of the high level of employment there was, broadly speaking, no difficulty, except perhaps in the development areas, in their getting other jobs. I remember that when I was mainly concerned with advising the Government about this there was always an outcry if a firm closed down and there were a lot of redundancies because in those days unemployment was thought to be the thing which would bring down any Government. But if one waited a couple of months and then went back to the place, one found that everybody had a job. In those circumstances the skills and abilities that they had were preserved because the period between when they lost their job and when they got another one still kept them in the running and it was not difficult in that case for them to make the adaptations that would be required by some other job.
But in the last four years the situation has changed entirely because of the growth of unemployment. What is happening now happened very little before. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and the right reverend Prelate used very eloquent words for what is happening, which is the rusting away of the skills of a section of the community. And that rusting away is going to continue.
Why I say that it is such a bad problem is that, although the Government virtually say that they cannot do anything about unemployment and that the control of inflation is the high priority, and therefore the deduction (as I said in the debate on the Address) is that we are in for high unemployment for a long time, the body of opinion on this side of the House thinks that there is something that can be done about it. We have made a number of proposals—which have been constantly referred to, and I shall not go into them again—about the desirability of work starting on all the infrastructure jobs which need to be done; jobs on housing, roads, sewers, water supply, and so on. But, my Lords, if that were to be done, it would not help the people whom we are talking about today. That is because there are now out of work so many
934
people who left their jobs more recently. Therefore the competition for any jobs that arise due to general measures would preclude those measures from helping the people we are talking about, those whose skills, as I have said, have rusted. And nobody is going to use a rusty part if there is one that is not so rusty.
I come back to the central point that I want to make today. That is that if anything is to be done for these people, it will have to be done by special measures directed to their particular problem; and that gives us an indication of how hard it is. In this context I looked at the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, made during the debate on the Address, when he very elegantly diagnosed the problem. He was referring to the problem of the long-term unemployed and he put the figure of those who would never get absorbed again very high at 1.2 million. He said this at col. 302 on 13th November, 1984:
"the Manpower Services Commission is now adding a retraining element…that is working very hard and, I believe, very successfully towards returning to the world of work those who have been out of it some time".
That is an encouraging statement which is at least specific, because whatever else the MSC is doing it is doing something for these particular people and I feel that if we are to deal with this problem it will have to be done in that way.
Very few suggestions have been made in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned various suggestions which might alleviate the problem, but taking people off the register is a second-best solution. He also mentioned enterprise centres. I was not quite clear how that would affect this particular one.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, mentioned the possibility of setting up leisure centres, and he mentioned one of the settlements but I forget the name of it. They have done, and no doubt could do again, admirable work; but the scale of the problem is much larger than that. There will have to be some decentralisation in order to get the individual attention that is required. I feel that if anything could be done more would have to be done by the local authorities. But when we say that we then see how little can be done, because at the moment the local authorities are being forced to add to unemployment and not to decrease it. The cuts that are imposed on them are causing people to be thrown out of work. Some money would have to be available, anyway; and even if the money were earmarked for the local authorities it would be running counter to the rest of their policy.
Therefore the problem is very serious, and if anything can be done about it, it will have to be done by specific measures adapted to these particular people, and not be available to all the competition waiting around from all the rest of the unemployed.
5.24 p.m.
The Marquess of Ailsa: My Lords, I wish to make a few comments concerning the problem of unemployment. While I am fully prepared to accept that there are over 3 million persons currently drawing unemployment benefit, I find it difficult to believe that there are a similar number who are actually desiring to work. I get the feeling that there is a lack of will and a lack of desire to work. Some years ago I had the privilege of being in charge of an organisation which

935
organised young adults' clubs and the purpose was to train young people to take up employment. We had some very nice young people, but if the truth be told they were not very keen on employment.
I go further and speak of some of my personal experiences as a very, very minor employer. Most of my staff have come through various youth employment schemes, but a great number who have been tested on the way have failed. I also have direct knowledge of those who have found it better to leave my employment and to be counted as unemployed, although there is still a vacancy for them. Whenever one advertises vacancies, one is not overwhelmed with a rush of those even seeking details of what the job is.
I can now go slightly further than my own personal experience to that of an industrial organisation which has recently had the same task. They want various forms of trained or semi-trained industrial workers. They advertise, but people do not come forward. If they wish to employ people, they have virtually to steal them from somebody else; so while I have every possible sympathy for those who generally wish to work and are unable to do so, I find it hard to believe that there are not a great many who rather enjoy the situation that they are currently in.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, let me commence by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and complimenting him on the remarks that he made in his speech. It is obvious, when he looked back to his earlier days in the political arena, that he was comparing what is happening today with some of those very difficult years in the early 1930s. I, for my sins, am old enough to remember those, and I think he spoke from the heart.
But in order to deal with this problem—which is without question the most urgent and dangerous problem which we have to deal with today—I do not think that you can cull one section of the community out and say this is how you would deal with them, because just over 12 months ago I happen to have been one of the types of people that this Motion speaks about. By a quirk of the electorate, in June 1983 I found myself for the first time in the dole queue, after having left school at 14 years of age and never having been out of work for a day. It was the most traumatic few weeks that I ever experienced in my life. I was made aware eventually that I might be sent to this place. I just do not know what I would have done if that had not happened. I suspect that although I am a highly skilled engineer (and I have made every thing from locomotives to Churchill tanks during the war and helped to erect some of the massive turbine sets that are now servicing our grid) I would have been surplus to requirements.
I do not believe that any retraining programme for people of my age group will bear very much fruit because whether we like it or not as we grow older we are not as receptive to the assimilation of knowledge as are younger people. The managing director of the turbine generating division of GEC, which I used to work for told me at the time that I had been in Parliament for only about three years, about the type of machine that was being installed in Trafford Park in
936
Manchester where I once worked. But I would have been at a loss, after a lifetime in engineering, to cope with that machine unless I had started from square one.
I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I cast my net a little wider because I believe that there is such an interdependence among the total unemployment situation we face that it would be wrong to concentrate on a specific group. I also say that at this point in time, though it would be very helpful perhaps to make more finance available individually to cushion the blow, most of the people involved in this age group are people of dignity who want that dignity restored and want the chance to work again, if that can be done.
The noble Lord the Minister, who is to reply to this debate, will know that since my ennoblement 12 months ago I have repeatedly questioned Her Majesty's Government on the unemployment situation. He will also know that the answers given in this Chamber by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who is now a member of the Cabinet and who at that time held Government responsibility in the House for employment, showed a steadily worsening situation in terms of real jobs for school-leavers and adults both men and women. One of the most serious and worsening situations was the continual rise in the number of long-term unemployed.
In my opinion, at times the noble Earl, who I repeat then had responsibility in this House, treated this very tender subject with some diffidence and disdain that was not warranted. He reiterated on more than one occasion, as Ministers have done in another place, that it is not the Government's responsibility to create jobs, but it is the Government's responsibility to create an economic climate where, subject to the usual market conditions, industry itself will expand creating the increase in employment which we all so earnestly desire.
But is it not obvious to anybody watching the situation closely and listening to ministerial answers that, although the number of jobs coming on stream has increased, the dimension of this is nowhere near sufficient to reverse or remedy the present situation, and there are no factors emerging at the moment that suggest any significant change in that situation?
In order to illustrate the present situation, may I, by leave of the House, draw the attention of noble Lords to the Answers which I received from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to two Questions which I put to Her Majesty's Government on 24th and 25th October. On 24th October, I asked what was the number of people employed in the manufacturing industries for each year from 1979 to 1984. The answer that I received from the noble Lord showed that on the latest figures the number had been reduced from 7,113,000 employed in 1979 to 5,480,000—a drop of 1·6 million plus in our manufacturing base, which I suggest to the noble Lord is the most important section of our working community. So that is the dimension of the fall there.
On the following day, 25th October, I asked Her Majesty's Government whether they would list the number of people unemployed for over one year, two years and three years: in other words, the group of people who are now classified as long-term

937
unemployed. The answer from the noble Lord indicated that the number of people unemployed for over three years had more than trebled from 109,591 to 376,273. Other figures which were quoted in the Answer showed the same trend in the case of those unemployed for over two years and over one year, and, as I understand it, the latest information shows a further worsening of the situation.
I fully accept the noble Lord's answers to these questions, regarding the increased measures that the Government announced during the autumn, and the comfort that 247,000 more people are in work than a year ago. Of course, I welcome the information on both counts. But the underlying trend, according to the latest figures and predictions, is that under the Government's present policies unemployment will continue to rise unless there is a dramatic change in direction.
I have just quoted a number of statistics to support the case for a substantial reflation, as I think there should be, by the Government in the public sector in order to assist us in dealing with the present dangerous situation. But could any statistic illustrate more starkly the peril we are in than the one given by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, in his both moving and compassionate maiden speech in this Chamber? I want to put on record that I considered it a tremendous privilege to have been able to be present and to listen to that speech, so I pay him my compliments on that.
But what he said was that unemployment in this country now stood at one in eight—I assume that this means the available workforce—and that next year it would be one in seven. I have to put it to the Minister: what are the predictions for 1986? Does it mean one in six and, in 1987, one in five? If that is the type of ball game that we are in, then the sooner people are made aware of it, the better. But these are strange results coming from a Government which fought the last two general elections with one of their main platforms being a reduction in unemployment.
While we in our debates on unemployment, both in this Chamber and in another place, quote statistics at great length in order to argue our case, these are meaningless if you are one of the army of unemployed who want to work. If you are in that position, your unemployment is total and not just a part of general statistics. It is a personal tragedy which no statistics can adequately illustrate.
I now come to what could possibly be done to help the situation, some of which could be done fairly quickly. I go back to three or four years ago, when the TUC were the first to put forward proposals for a general Government—inspired reflation to take place in order to provide some relief from the present situation. Obviously I am referring to the public sector. Now, in addition to the TUC, we have other national organisations supporting to various degrees those proposals of the TUC. For example, the CBI, I think the Institute of Directors and the national bodies representing the building industry in a wide spectrum—and nobody could suggest that, apart from the TUC, there is much sympathy for my party among those bodies—are now on record as supporting such a policy. In addition, we also have the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, the Secretary of State for Energy and a number of other distinguished Tory parliamentarians,
938
who would grace any Conservative Government with dignity and distinction, calling for such a change in Government policies. For what are we waiting?
Not for one moment am I suggesting that Her Majesty's Government are solely responsible for the present unemployment situation. I think it is accepted and recognised by most people that the increase in unemployment by 3 million people since 1979— though only 2 million are shown in the global figures—is half due to the world recession and half due to the Government's own policies, and I submit that now is the time for these policies to be changed in the interests of all concerned.
People—certainly those in the building industry— waited with great expectation for the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, but, in a phrase that has been coined, it went down like a lead balloon. He did nothing at all, except cut the money that was to be made available. As surely as night follows day, further unemployment will occur in the building industry. It is on record, and I raised it myself only a few weeks ago in this Chamber, that the Policy Studies Institute report of a short time ago—and this is in line with some of the points which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool made—recommended an annual additional investment of £3.5 million over the next 10 years in the public sector for the building of new houses for the maintaining of our existing stock and for the building of new roads and the maintaining of our present ones, in order to arrest the serious deterioration in our national infrastructure. The Chancellor's statement contained only further cuts. Therefore it contained no comfort.
Most of my life has been spent in a big city not far from Liverpool, to which the right reverend Prelate drew our attention. I was born and spent most of my life in Manchester. It is becoming more and more apparent to people in the North that the big cities of the North, such as Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield, are deteriorating at an accelerating rate because of the lack of, or reduction of. resources made available by this Government. I urge the Minister to use his good offices with Her Majesty's Government to make these resources available, thus enhancing the quality of life in those areas. It is a measure which would also have the effect of substantially reducing the record high levels of unemployment which those areas have been experiencing for a long time.
Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have expressed sympathy with the unemployed but have done little or nothing about it. It is almost like attending a funeral to express sympathy when the death itself could have been avoided. The nation quite rightly united behind the Prime Minister in the fortitude and compassion shown by her during the appalling events at Brighton some weeks ago, but would it be asking too much to ask the Prime Minister and her Government to extend similar compassion to many areas in this country which are dying, both as communities and in a social sense, from the disease of unemployment?
During my maiden speech, delivered in this Chamber about 12 months ago, I warned that people suffering from the adversities of unemployment over a long period would not wait for ever and might resort to measures through the ballot box, and outside it, which

939
are completely contrary to our democratic beliefs as socialists, or whatever colour we carry. I suspect that we are now seeing the first signs of this type of action. I am not referring to the insupportable brutality which has been evident during the miners' strike, but to the disenchantment which is spreading rapidly among, mainly, younger people in this country who believe that no future is being offered to them. I am pleased to have had such an attentive audience. We ignore what is happening at our peril.
5.43 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, on one point I can certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick: that we are debating a tragic problem. During the first part of his speech the noble Lord gave an account of his own experience. Unemployment undoubtely represents hardship and a waste of human opportunities. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye for having introduced the debate and for making clear that whereas a great deal is often said about the problems of the young unemployed there is a greater problem with older workers who in some ways face even greater difficulties.
But it does not help to pretend that there are easy solutions. Unemployment has been rising, under successive governments, for the last 20 years. Many remedies have been tried and failed, but the root causes—economic decline and loss of international competitiveness—have been left unchecked for too many years. The Government believe that only by reversing those trends and ensuring that we have an efficient, competitive industry selling more goods and services can we ensure long-term sustainable growth in output and jobs. Put in blunt terms, that means real jobs for real, deserving people.
Let me look at the brighter side. There are indicators which point to the success which this country has achieved as we have begun to win our way out of recession. Our gross domestic product is at its highest ever level. Total investment for the first half of this year was up 10 per cent. compared with the figures a year earlier. Retail sales are up; inflation is down. Industrial and commercial company profits are, in their turn, up. It is a strong picture of economic recovery. It has to some extent been reflected in the labour market. Vacancies have reached their highest level for four and a half years and the number of people in work has increased by 250,000 during the last year. However, the problem is that there has not been any impact on the total unemployment figures.
Since 1979, about 400,000 people have joined the labour force. We are therefore having to run, in terms of job creation, even to stand still. Our prospects depend, I suggest, most of all upon achieving strong, sustainable growth, which means that we have simply got to do more in terms of cutting costs, increasing competitiveness and adaptfng to changes in technology and demand. That includes manufacturing, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said, with his very long experience of the manufacturing sector. As my noble friend Lord McAlpine of West Green said, it includes also the
940
services sector, where, during the last decade, over 1 million new jobs have been created and where 270,000 new jobs were created last year.
Since the Government came to office we have eased the burden of the employment legislation on small firms. We have reduced labour costs by, for instance, introducing the young workers' scheme and by abolishing the National Insurance surcharge, which undoubtedly acted as a tax upon jobs. We have taken action to modernise training and to make it more relevant to the needs of industry. We have done everything we can to encourage enterprise, both through the Department of Trade and Industry's schemes of assistance for small and medium sized firms and also through the highly popular and successful enterprise allowance scheme. We have encouraged the adoption of new technology. This is one area where new jobs, skills and markets can replace the old. Here in particular the Government can help industry.
Last year the Government spent £200 million on schemes to promote the use of micro-electronics. Fears are sometimes expressed about new technology bringing about job losses. In the short term that must be true, but new technology also creates new jobs. Home computers and video recorder markets come to mind. The consequences of not competing in new technology are likely to be far more damaging to job prospects in the longer term.
The Government's emphasis upon education and training for the future will ensure that we are equipped to meet the challenge of new technologies. In particular the Micros in Schools scheme, which ensures at least one micro computer in each secondary school, is an initiative which should ensure that the young people of today are equipped with skills for the future.
I would suggest to my noble friend who opened the debate that older people need not miss out. It is important not to underestimate the flexibility and positive response to change of many older workers, nor the continuing value of their experience and knowledge. In that respect, I would refer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, which he has made on previous occasions: that there are difficulties connected with the retraining of older people. The noble Lord is speaking from experience. However, we ought not to underestimate older people. Research suggests that with the right methods of training and a positive attitude, extensive retraining can be achieved and that in many cases the previous work experience of older workers proves to be an advantage. We ought not to run away with the idea that youngsters always have the advantage. That is certainly not the way in which the Government are tackling retraining.
I turn to the training and employment measures generally which the Government have introduced to help employers create jobs by encouraging enterprise and the efficient operation of the labour and product markets and helping people to equip themselves to perform the new jobs so created. Older workers can and do benefit from the training opportunities scheme and the developing programme of adult training. From the speech that he made, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, will welcome the news that from April 1986 the adult training strategy should provide one quarter of a million training opportunities

941
in a full year, which compares with some 110,000 under the existing programmes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already announded in another place that the community programme will be linked with short courses of work preparation and basic skills training as part of the adult training strategy.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to intervene, those figures are very encouraging—but do they all apply to the people in the category we are discussing tonight?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, they do not all apply to older people and it is not possible for me to give a forecast to the noble Lord as to how that split would come.
I will say a few final words about the Community Programme. Of the 200,000 or so who pass through that programme in a year, some 50,000 are likely to benefit from such training when the arrangements are fully in operation. Again, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, that I cannot say how many of them will be older people and how many younger. But older workers have much to offer on these programmes—for example, in teaching their skills, in supervising or in otherwise leading young people on the programmes.
My noble friend Lord Balfour put forward the idea of minders or helpers for the long-term unemployed— particularly for the older long-term unemployed. The Government feel that this is an interesting concept and one which could well be explored further. I will draw it to the attention of the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, Brian Nicholson, since I believe that posts of that kind could possibly be funded through the Community Programme.
Opportunities for unemployed people of any age to take on voluntary work are at present provided through the voluntary projects programme and the Department of Health and Social Security's opportunities for volunteering scheme. Nearly 100,000 are participating in those schemes; there is no need, with those schemes, for time to be spent unemployed and wasted. The enterprise allowance scheme, which I have mentioned, is of particular interest to older and more experienced people, as it enables them to leave employment to set up a business for themselves. My right honourable friend has recently announced a 25 per cent. increase in the enterprise allowance scheme, which means that some 62,000 unemployed people will have the chance to start up in business for themselves in 1985.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked if in allocating more money to the enterprise allowance scheme there is to be an increase in the £40 per week now available. The enterprise allowance will indeed be increased in due course, broadly in line with state benefits. However, the extra money for the enterprise allowance scheme to which I am referring now is to help meet additional demand for the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, referred to the speech of my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham during the debate on the gracious Speech, when my noble friend referred to the retraining of the long-term unemployed. He was speaking then of the expansion by the Manpower Services Commission of its training
942
for enterprise programme, which is designed to provide further help to those who are starting up or running small businesses. It is an earnest of the Government's concern to help those with the initiative and experience to create real jobs in the private sector.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, have referred to the job release and part-time job release schemes enabling those nearing retirement age to give up all or part of their job early in exchange for an allowance, provided that their employer undertakes to replace them, directly or indirectly, with an unemployed person. The scheme particularly benefits people one year from pensionable age, but disabled men from the age of 60. Although the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, expressed regret that the qualifying age cannot be reduced at the present time, nonetheless some 86,000 older workers are enjoying early retirement by virtue of these schemes, and their jobs have consequently been released for unemployed people.
The long-term rate of supplementary benefit and national insurance credits have—as your Lordships will be well aware—been made available to men aged 60 and over. However, within the employment and training measures which I have been speaking about, some priority has undoubtedly been given to younger people. The right reverend Prelate spoke of the social consequences of unemployment for young people, and I say to him that I really do believe the youth training scheme is a significant step forward in preparing young people for the world of work. Early results are showing that the scheme is placing 60 per cent. of its trainees in employment and a substantial further number into education and training. Apart from that scheme and the young workers scheme, the measures to which I have referred are open to people of all ages and are used by people of all ages.
My noble friend Lord Balfour and other noble Lords asked in essence this question: what about the future? There are too many different economic and social assumptions to be made affecting future levels of employment and unemployment for the Government to do other than that which all governments have done before; that is, not make predictions about what will happen. But we do not accept that it is inevitable that unemployment should remain permanently high. The right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, in winding up from the Opposition Front Bench, called in essence for more public expenditure as being a solution. But as public expenditure has claimed an increasing share of the national income over the years, so, inexorably, has unemployment risen.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords,——
Lord Belstead: Before giving way, my Lords, I will suggest that, if public expenditure were in itself a solution, there would have been almost no unemployment problem for many years now. Indeed, if one takes the specific example of Liverpool, that is an area which has received a higher level of government assistance than any other area in the country. Of course, to be realistic, there will continue to be massive government help to the Merseyside area; I am certain of that. There will continue to be the large

943
amount of some £2¼ billion in special employment and training measures. But, if we are to make an impact on the figures, we shall have to do far better in selling more goods and services at home and abroad.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I did not mean to convey the impression that I thought expansion into the public sector was a cure for all ills. I believe it is the quickest way of providing some relief, but it would only be part of a package. When I spoke of a 50/50 split between the international recession and government policies, my point was that some aspects of the public sector have suffered literally thousands of jobs being wiped out because of the withdrawal of government finance from local authorities.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is always very fair in debate and I hope that I am not being unfair when I say that his last few words nonetheless, came awfully close to saying that public expenditure in itself will and should simply support jobs. It is no use saying that the public sector should go on being supported because there happen to be jobs in the public sector—and regardless of the fact that some real jobs for the future can be created elsewhere. But perhaps I ought to study more closely what the noble Lord said; I know that the noble Lord will look at what I said.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to intervene for just a moment, when we on this side of the House talk about the public sector, we mean this: when I was the leader of Fulham Borough Council, I was giving orders worth millions of pounds to private builders, to private entrepreneurs, to the people who make books for schools, and to the people who build schools. There is nothing magic about the public sector. When the public sector was expanded in 1937/38, it not only enriched the life of Britain, but most valuably helped to recreate the apprentice system, which served us so well after the war.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not think that we can go any further down this particular road. It is interesting that the words "public sector" did not, I think, pass my lips. Noble Lords have perhaps got them slightly on the brain. What I said was that while the amount of public expenditure in this country has claimed a greater and greater part of the national income, so nonetheless unemployment inexorably has risen. If it was the case that public expenditure was a panacea for all ills we would not have had a problem with public expenditure for many years now; but we have had a problem because public expenditure of itself is not a cure and I do not think it is going to be for the future.
May I very quickly answer some questions from your Lordships? There is one important question from the right reverend Prelate who questioned the management proposals for the development of the employment service. The aim of these proposals is to provide an effective service which meets the requirements of the labour market of the 1980s. I am advised that the proposals in fact envisage an increase in the number of Job Centre outlets with greater variation in
944
different offices to reflect local needs and circumstances. I assure the right reverend Prelate that the underlying strategy is to promote an efficient and effective service to be maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, kindly gave me notice of three questions which he asked. The first was whether the amount of job splitting allowance to be paid to employers will cover the costs of the arrangements being made. I should like to say to the noble Lord that a sum of £840 in this particular respect is being considered at present. The noble Lord also asked whether the Government are considering the restructuring of national insurance contributions and whether there was any prospect now of reducing from 60 to 55 the qualifying age for the higher rate in the supplementary benefit scheme. On both those questions the Government are certainly looking at any cost-effective ways of trying to help the unemployed. Certainly I will, as the noble Lord asked, draw the attention of my right honourable friend to those two suggestions. Without going into detail, the noble Lord will know that I shall say, on his second suggestion, that it is a very expensive suggestion indeed.
My noble friend Lord Balfour gave us an extremely interesting account of what my noble friend had seen and learnt of the provision of facilities for older unemployed people at Toynbee Hall. I simply say to my noble friend that there are other facilities to be found. For instance, I am told that Hammersmith and Fulham, under their urban programme, run a scheme called Alternatives which provides counselling and leisure guidance for unemployed people aged 35 and over. The scheme is funded to the extent of £25,000 in the past financial year by the urban programme; a programme which provides money specifically for sport, leisure and recreational facilities in inner-city areas.
There is one last question to which I should reply and that is form my noble friend Lord Ailsa who referred to those who, he felt, might lack the will to work. Recent research suggests that the vast majority of people who are suffering the tragedy of unemployment genuinely want to get back into work; but as the time goes by one can understand how difficult they find it. There may be a problem of skill mismatch; but here we hope that the youth training scheme and the adult training strategy will help.
I am grateful to your Lordships for bearing with me in answering this debate because it is a subject on which it is quite clear that all noble Lords, many having a close knowledge of the subject, feel very deeply. I will only say, in concluding, that on behalf of the Government we are spending—it may have sounded from the debate that so little is being spent—on the special training and employment measures alone some £2¼ billion. I think that some of the ideas put forward in this debate can be explored within that very large budget for those measures. I assure your Lordships that we shall continue to keep that programme of measures under review in the light of the financial and economic situation. We shall look very carefully at the sound ideas which have been put to us today. But, ultimately, our prospects have to depend on achieving strong and sustainable growth, which means we must be prepared to respond quickly

945
and flexibly to changes in technology and demand. Through that method I believe we can ensure a future for all our citizens of all ages.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, in view of the number of speech-hungry noble Lords I see all around the Chamber, there is nothing for me to do except to thank those who have kindly taken part in this debate, to thank the Minister for his reply, and to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Books: Problems of Production and Sale
6.5 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to call attention to the problems facing the production and sale of books, in particular of those read in schools and institutions of higher education; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main reason why I am rising to move this Motion is this. Your Lordships may have seen a kite flying over the Treasury with a streamer inscribed "Why not put VAT on books, newspapers and all publications". When Government fly a kite to see how people react, it seems good sense to ask your Lordships whether you in fact agree.
Of course, in theory VAT on books would bring in about £85 million a year in revenue. But against this one must offset the reduction in spending on books in universities and schools; and there would also be a reduction in corporation tax. So the actual yield might be something in the order of £45 million; still, a tempting figure. What is more, our partners in Europe, except for Greece and Ireland, impose VAT on books; so why not grab the money and run? Here are some reasons why not.
First, the effect on education would be deplorable. The Secretary of State has made a name for himself by taking practical steps to raise standards in the schools and improve literacy as well as numeracy. We all know, of course, that when local education authorities are cut they react like universities. They take the easier option of cutting the library and book grant instead of cutting yet more staff. They should not, but they do. It is a fact of life. That is why the purchase of books has declined every year and this year has nose-dived into a decline of 16 per cent. If VAT is imposed local education authorities will have to find £15 million more. Could the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, confirm that the Government are not intending to undermine the policy of the Secretary of State for Education to raise standards in the schools?
The second reason: English is the lingua franc of the world. Unlike European countries, we have an enormous world business in books. English is the language of computers and information technology. As we export £276 million a year, or 30 per cent. of the product, our publishers are contributing to maintaining the balance of payments. That figure of £276 million is 1 per cent. of Britain's total export of manufactured goods. It is produced by 0·1 per cent. of the British workforce. Why hit such a highly productive industry? Why give away our share of the
946
market to American publishers, who are only too willing to grab it? Increase the price of books and the markets in Europe, North America, the Antipodes, India, South-East Asia and Africa will be wide open to American publishers.
This is the third reason. If VAT is imposed it will bankrupt hundreds of small booksellers. It will also add numbers of publishers to the unemployed. The Government make great play of the fact that they encourage small businesses. Well, booksellers are small businesses. Over half of them have a turnover of under £60,000, but they have to stock 7,000 to 10,000 titles. Books are not like groceries, where one can stock only a few brands. Even the largest booksellers who survived would stock still fewer books.
There are some arguments one cannot put into figures. There are certain traditions, such as free entry to public libraries and—dare I say it?—to museums and galleries, formed in Victorian times which are grand and dear to those who believe in liberty of thought. The tradition not to tax books or newspapers was not established by intellectuals such as myself bleating in their own self-interest. It was established by a long line of Chancellors of the Exchequer, beginning with Gladstone and continuing with Iain Macleod, Lord Barber, Sir Geoffrey Howe and, as late as September a year ago, Mr. Lawson.
At this point I feel somebody tapping me on the shoulder. It is Mephistopheles. Mephistopheles says: "Don't be so pious and po-faced. Don't give us that stuff about great literature and taxing knowledge. Why not tell the truth and admit that vast quantities of what is published is cheap, trashy entertainment, ranging from pornography to do-it-yourself books? If the rest of the entertainment industry pays VAT, why should books be excepted? As for the schools, they would be far better off using a word processor and a Xerox: then at least their textbooks might be up to date. All those great biographies, novels and philosophy you jaw about are simply the froth on the pint of lager—lager which ought to be taxed".
Mephistopheles, as we all know, is a devilish clever fellow, but he cannot understand any argument which is not put in pounds and pence. Our culture—not just literature or history, but the way we think of ourselves in relation to our friends, to other human beings and, indeed, to the universe itself—comes to us, even if the images appear on television, ultimately from the written word. How should I live? What is it my duty to do? What qualities matter most in life? Those are the profound questions which men and women can explore adequately only in books. Make them that bit more expensive and it is those books which would disappear. Serious books and magazines with short print runs will become so unprofitable that the sales of popular items will no longer be able to finance them.
They will not be able to finance serious literature because the sales of popular books will also fall. Ephemeral books often awaken or satisfy curiosity—the curiosity not only of the young, but of the old: of all those who learn to fill their leisure hours by consulting books, say, on gardening or on angling.
"Ah", sneers Mephistopheles, "I see you have avoided saying how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could raise £85 million. I suppose like all intellectuals you think it should be raised by direct taxation to

947
bolster your interests and your ego". Unlike some noble Lords who call for greater government expenditure, while at the same time protesting that they want inflation to fall, I take that sneer to heart. If you must raise more revenue, do not tax books; tax television advertising. I beg to move for Papers.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst: My Lords, it is natural and proper to feel humility and trepidation in addressing this House for the first time. I ask the indulgence of the House.
I must also declare an interest. I have spent most of the last 35 years as a book publisher, working on what has been called the coal-face of publishing—that is, discovering and encouraging authors, and doing one's best to see that their creative work is properly respected. I have worked as an employee for various famous book publishers, though never as an owner or shareholder. I have little detailed knowledge of educational publishing, despite the fact that the company I now work for is a leader in that field. My main concern has been and is fiction—fiction both good and popular. The two very often go together.
Therefore my knowledge is peripheral to the central subject of the debate, though I would suggest that these lines are not, in practice, very clearly drawn. It is perhaps worth noting that books read in schools and institutions of higher education are not necessarily books that were first published as educational books. This is part of the complexity of the whole problem. One has only to mention writers like Thomas Hardy or George Orwell in this context, or in another context authors like Koestler or Solzhenitsyn, to see that the most erudite specialist tome may have a great deal less influence than books first published under the general heading of "entertainment".
To come to the subject of the Motion, it is probably naivety on my part, but I am not quite clear what the terms of the debate mean. The Motion refers to,
"the problems facing the production and sale of books".
It is the word "production" that puzzles me here. When we see the absolute avalanche of new titles being published every year—every variety of book from coloured atlases, encyclopaedias and pop-ups to novels—it is difficult to see who is having problems over production. Indeed, book publishers are always being charged with producing too many books. So I can only register my failure to understand what is intended.
As for the problems of selling books, these are—and have always been—manifold. Indeed, it would be possible to weary the House for hours on the subject. Such valued and established practices as the net book agreement would feature large in any such debate. So I will touch only on one aspect which is clearly relevant to selling books, and that is their price.
It is said that books are expensive, and I agree with this. We are told that the rate of inflation—the multiplier used to measure the great debasement of the pound sterling through which we have lived—is something like 21:1 over the last 50 years. Against even these shocking figures books are expensive. In the case of hardback novels the book that cost 7s. 6d,
948
before the war in likely to cost about £9 now. This is a multiplier of 24, which is not much out of line. In the case of paperback novels, it is much worse. Sir Alan Lane's Penguins cost 6d each. The comparable price now is somewhere between £1 and £2. It is reasonable to take £1.50 as an average, and this produces a multiplier of no less than 60. So books are expensive without any direct blame being attributable to any Government.
This debate is being conducted at a time when there is a great anxiety in the book trade about the possibility that VAT may be imposed on books in the next Budget. There is some very well-informed gossip on the subject and reason to believe there is something in the wind. If the gossip is true—as I fear it may be—we have the suggestion that it is newspapers, magazines and books that are chosen for inclusion, almost as though they had something in common. But really these are very different creatures. A yardstick that trade publishers often use for comparisons of price is the cost of theatre tickets. Another comparison is gramophone records. It seems to me that all these curious associations and comparisons merely serve to stress the fact that books are different. There really is nothing—but nothing—that they can be sensibly compared with.
I return to the question of price. As I have said, books are expensive, but the reasons for this are complex. Book publishing is still a cottage industry in the United Kingdom, and what is more it is extremely competitive. No doubt the normal process of competition will contain these prices and as time goes on reduce them in real terms. It is worth noting too that the profits of book publishing tend to be low compared with most other industries. So the idea of making books artificially more expensive—if such an idea exists—is a very bad one. My argument and submission therefore is that books really are different, as the search for comparisons shows. They are also indispensable—I really do not see how even in this electronic age there can be any argument about that.
On first taking advantage of the immense privilege of addressing this House, I was advised to be both brief and dull. I have had no difficulty in following this excellent advice.
6.21 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, making his maiden speech. He was certainly brief, though hardly briefer than the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who said more in eight minutes that perhaps any speaker in this House since the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—who was a very brief speaker—on the subject of Suez. That comes back into my mind now. The noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, was brief, but certainly not dull. It is also a great pleasure to think that he is just beginning his political career at a time when some of us happen to have been excluded from office. I looked his name up in Who's Who , and so far as I can make out he is about 64. Well, there is no harm in being 64. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, did not become a Minister until he was 66 and look where he has got to. So, after his speech tonight. I see a very bright future in politics for the noble Lord. Lord Hardinge.

949
I am very glad that I am being followed by another maiden speaker, the son of my old friend—the old friend of so many of us, who was so prominent and so fruitful in this House for so many years. I remember the debate he started on Christian unity; then another one on badgers, and then another one on homosexuality—which became quite a topic, almost an obsession, of his in late years. I remember that debate when Lord Montgomery moved an amendment that the age of consent should be 80. That was the age that Lord Montgomery had just attained himself at the time. I am sure that noble Lords will dwell on further matters as time goes on.
In order to keep well within the time limit, following examples so wonderfully well set, I should like to say clearly that I regard the imposition of VAT on books, if it takes place, as a seriously damaging event in the whole history of the culture of this country. I hope that it will not take place. Curiously enough, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was my pupil. That may not be a great claim to distinction on his part. Of course it is a dangerous point to bring up, because pupils are often quite nasty about their old tutors. I remember Evelyn Waugh had a tutor called Crutwell and as time went on he never wrote a book without bringing in a rather sordid character called Crutwell. So I am not suggesting that my having been the tutor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be helpful here.
Now I come to think of it, I should declare an interest as the author and the publisher of quite a few books. I am not a publisher in the league of the noble Lord. Lord Weidenfeld, who has published more than 30 books written by my wife, myself, or two of my children. That shows a broad mindedness on his part which certainly wins my praise. However, I have those connections.
I do not intend to say very much. It has all been said so well in those eight minutes by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, dwelt on a very important point when he talked about the cost of books. I have just lately reviewed a very fine book published by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, The Diaries of Barbara Castle. That costs £20. I got it for review. I would not have been able to afford it otherwise. In case anybody thinks that books are more expensive from that great house than elsewhere, I can assure them that The Diaries of Hugh Gaitskell, published by Jonathan Cape last year, cost £25. These figures are very high. The real point about this discussion is that eventually costs will be driven so high that these books cannot be bought. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, published the first volume of my wife's book on Wellington 15 years ago and the price was £3.50. So the prices of books have gone up a great deal. There has been a tremendous rise in costs. I am not suggesting that the publishers are doing so tremendously well.
If any noble Lord has a relative who has left behind some extraordinarily interesting memoirs and he goes to a publisher and tries to get this book published, assuming that his relative was not Mr. Gladstone—or even if he were—he will probably find that he is asked to guarantee at least £10,000. And he certainly would not get a book published for that unless there was a good commercial prospect by the firm—the firm that
950
I know best; I do not know about other publishers. So it is very expensive to produce a book. I think everybody has to realise that. We are reaching a point where we are pushing the prices beyond the buying capability of the public. This tax would be the straw breaking the camel's back. It would be a vicious move against the culture of this country. I hope it will be strongly resisted.
6.27 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, since these are my first words in your Lordships' House, I have particular apprehension this evening, knowing so well the great understanding and compassion that my father showed in this House, not only for his fellow humans but also for members of the animal kingdom whom he loved so much.
In making my maiden speech on Lord Annan's debate, I must declare an interest of a financial nature in a group of central London bookshops. Not unsurprisingly therefore it is on a much discussed and indeed expected imposition of a value added tax on books that I wish to talk. Very shortly, as the first salvo is fired in this anti-VAT campaign, a mass of stickers on cars will be appearing across the country, bearing the message, "Don't tax reading". The surprise and delight that Santa is coming so early this year with such fond messages of generosity and good will will scarcely be able to be contained by the good citizens of Reading.
One of the very real problems on the threat of VAT being introduced in any industry is how best to develop those arguments which will most successfully persuade the Chancellor to divert his attentions elsewhere. In this case, as in all other cases, the bookselling industry is besotted with financial arguments, some of which may be justified but many of which have all been heard before—heard before so often from so many industries which have set delegation upon delegation upon those wearied men at the Treasury, industries convinced of the justness of their case and strong in their determination to resist the ever-hovering talons of the taxman.
The booksellers' plea is not exceptional in its economic arguments. It is my firm belief, however, that if the bookselling industry is successfully to resist this tax, it must assemble arguments which are first and foremost of a nature and appeal that will attract all those in the land who read and love books, and those arguments must be well and truly publicised. The compelling argument is that it is against the national interest. The book trade is, and has been for many years, one of this country's best export earners. In fact, it is the largest exporter of books in the world. Conversely, the domestic market has traditionally never been very strong. If VAT is imposed, our competitiveness abroad would be bound to suffer. In the EEC countries, all other member states saving Greece, levy a tax, with the exception of Ireland, which eliminated VAT because of the considerable damage it did to its domestic publishing and bookselling industry. Unlike this country, most member states employ overall VAT rating ranging between 2 and 7 per cent. Here 15 per cent. is being envisaged.
In the home market, it is an indisputable fact that if VAT is imposed on books, their sales will undoubtedly

951
fall. And what will that mean to our local friendly bookseller? It will of course depend very much on where the shop is. In the more affluent communities the probable result will be an immediate fall-off which is likely to be quickly remedied as those with more disposable income readjust. In the poorer and more remote areas there is very likely to be an immediate and sustained sales decrease which in many instances will probably lead to the closure of that bookshop
Even the smallest bookshops which, by tradition, represent the heart of the quality book trade, carry thousands of individual titles in stock—a wider range than supermarkets normally carry—but are, sadly, supported by relatively small sales. It is so easy nowadays to dismiss at a stroke the closure of the small shop. But are we not terribly aware of all the attendant misery that it brings with it? Not only does it succeed in furthering the disappearance and fragmentation of the community, but it also adds to the costs to this nation as unemployment shows scant signs of abating. Would it not be yet another nail in the coffin of the community? And are we really to let this particular nail be driven home to raise some £80 million to £90 million on gross revenue per annum? The final figure is likely to be very much less.
Furthermore, there are many who believe that such a tax. leading inevitably to even tighter margins than currently exist, could prove a serious threat to the continuity of the net book agreement, with smaller shops being put out of business by larger chain stores. But beyond this community aspect. I believe that there is an even nobler and more important element to be considered which affects us all as individuals and thereby the nation. It is that if this tax is brought to bear, it will be a tax on culture, a tax on knowledge. If, my Lords, you weaken either of these, the logic is simple. Illiteracy will increase. So, therefore, will ignorance which, in turn, leads to a weakened quality of democracy. And are not the edges of democracy already frighteningly frayed?
Can any Government really afford to tinker, however indirectly, with that fragile state, and never more so than today? Do we not all have the responsibility as iron guardians of light and liberty? And can any Government afford to endanger the knowledge of the next generation, to tax the books that our children will need in their schools? Are poor Peter Rabbit and Ba Ba the Elephant to suffer the indignity of a value added tax upon their innocent tails?
The Time newspaper, during the course of the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1855, referred to it,
"as a tax on knowledge, a tax on good order and good government, a tax on society, a tax on the progress of human affairs and on the workings of human institutions".
In closing, I beg three questions. Are we to add to the fast fading status of the community? Are we to imperil that already endangered species, democracy? Are we to levy a tax upon reading and learning and to increase ignorance, all for a few million pounds? I humbly suggest to you, my Lords, that the continuity of a civilised society depends upon these very qualities, that these qualities are above value and are in no need of a value added tax.
6.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Earl and to be the first to offer congratulations to him on his maiden speech. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has anticipated this by an account of the contributions of the noble Earl's father in this House. I can only say therefore that a great tradition is being maintained. We are helped greatly at the beginning of this debate to have a speech giving us so much informed and sensitive advice from someone who is in a position really to know about the subject. We hope to hear the noble Earl on many further occasions.
I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, if I have to leave before the end of the debate. There is, I am afraid, an urgent matter with which I have to deal before I go home to Chichester tonight. As noble Lords seem to be declaring interests, I should perhaps also declare an interest as an author, although my half dozen works can hardly rival the family production of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I should like to address myself to the part of the Motion referring to books, in particular those read in schools and institutions of higher education. I start with the problems created in schools by the shortage of books and the difficulties faced by authorities in finding the money to keep an adequate supply of books used in the classroom. I give an instance, about which I heard only the other day, of a class in a secondary school where 24 pupils were studying French. There were 12 copies available of the book being used. One of those had to be used by the teacher. This meant that there were 11 books available between 24 pupils.
Consider the effect of a situation such as this. First, it means that no books can be taken home to be used for homework. No exercises can be set from the book to be done at home. If it is suggested that the exercises could be photocopied, you run into all the problems of copyright and that sort of thing. This puts an extra burden on already over-burdened teachers who have to work out material for homework to be given to pupils to take away. If this school is one of those, of which, unhappily, there are quite a lot, with serious problems of classroom discipline and order—one hears at first hand of places where there are very serious problems indeed, including filthy language used by pupils, girls and boys alike—then having to share books contributes to the problem. Nothing helps more to enable people to have a pretext for disorder than the sharing of books. This leads on to the whole problem of violence in our society of which the state of things in school is so very much the beginning.
A table issued by the Educational Publishers Council shows that there has been a very big rise in the cost of production in the last 10 years. It also shows that the educational book publishers have done their very best to keep costs down and have indeed kept them below what would have been warranted by the rise in the cost of production. But one really wonders how much longer this can go on and how quickly the situation in schools as regard school books will deteriorate much further.
I should like to move on to the more specialised field of religious literature. There is always a sale for the sensational. The latest theory that Jesus did not really die on the Cross—particularly if it can be linked with

953
some occult movement or some new pseudo— scientific theory—will always find a ready sale, especially if it is put out just before Christmas. But there is also a sale for some of those paper books which are subsidised by fringe organisations.
By comparison, serious theological literature suffers greatly. The market is much smaller than that for books of general interest; hence, the publishers have to print smaller quantities, their costs are higher and the retail prices are proportionately higher. This hits the field of source books and books for background material particularly hard. Those are the books which are essential tools for the student who often has very great difficulty in being able to afford them. This again runs into other areas: the cuts in grants to libraries so that they are less readily available there; and the cuts in grants to students so that they are less able to afford these essential tools.
In preparation for this debate I have been in touch with three religious publishers who all tell exactly the same tale; but I have little doubt that other specialists in minority interests would say the same. Certainly as an historian I have noted how even in that field of much more general interest the cost of source books has risen fantastically and they have become almost prohibitively expensive except where they are subsidised. This must place great hindrance in the way of research and scholarship.
I am told that many booksellers are now recovering from the recession and from the cuts of the mid to late 1970s. But there are already signs that recent increases in production costs are slowing down and limiting that growth in the market. Publishers in some areas—notably education—are exploring new techniques of book production which may quite possibly in time reduce costs materially. But at present, so I am informed, the number of systems available makes this a very hazardous and costly exercise if one invests in expensive equipment only to find that in a very short time it is obsolete almost before it has become operational. It is possible that the position may improve in a few years' time, but at present there can be no doubt that in the whole field of scholarly and educational book production the situation is very grave and is becoming worse. If a tax on books is introduced it will be, whatever anyone says, a tax on knowledge and we should remember that that is something which the country and Parliament rejected as abhorrent even in the crisis of a world war.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, let me congratulate the two maiden speakers on their pertinent and thoughtful remarks. I must say that it is heart-warming to be able to welcome two new contributors to future debates on cultural topics, topics which are rarely—perhaps I dare say too rarely—debated in your Lordships' House.
In declaring my interest as a book publisher, I am in good and indeed vast company for the insistent—dare I say?—anguished plea against a departure from zero rating of books, which is not just the reflex action of an endangered vested interest, but one that is passionately shared by the entire literary community of this country: publishers and booksellers, writers and large sections of the public, readers old and young, rich and
954
poor, left and right. They are all joining in a concerted call on Her Majesty's Government to retain and thus respect the status of the written word intellectually as well as materially, thus keeping faith with their own avowed and electorally endorsed programme of making Britain prosperous as well as keeping her civilised. For, my Lords, nothing less is at stake.
Book publishing, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has reminded us, is a small industry. It employs around 40,000 people and yet they produce 400 million books each year with a turnover of more than £1·3 billion. At least a third of that is attributable to exports, and books account for 1 per cent. of all our manufactured exported goods. Approximately 75 per cent. of all books currently produced can be considered as educational material. The book publishing industry has had its ups and downs in recent years, with short-lived booms alternating with recessions. The current overall profitability of the industry is well under 8 per cent. The effect on this industry of value added tax could really be calamitous for it would lead to steep rises in prices and concurrent dramatic drops in demand. According to recent impeccable research, a 15 per cent. rise in prices must be assumed and would lead to an equivalent 15 per cent. drop in demand. This would entail a lowering of publishers' profit ——margins to well below 4 per cent.—possibly 3 per cent.—which means (most certainly in the high quality ranges of the industry) certain losses for and the probable demise of many time-honoured names as well as many independent young publishing houses.
The process of polarisation of taste and quality, which has already begun, would accelerate. Polarisation means that in order to survive, more publishers would chase fewer best sellers, cut their lists and play safe. Concessions to scholarship and experiment would become unwarrantable. Authors would face far lower incomes from their works. The risks of nursing young talent would become unbearable. The House of Macmillan proudly stated that Thomas Hardy never made them any money until he ceased writing. It is indeed the pride of any self-respecting publisher to have deliberately in each list "loss leaders", works of scholarship and literary experimentation. Constrict and imperil the publisher; how much scholarship will remain stillborn, how much talent unfulfilled?
A weakened home market—weakened by the imbalance of mounting costs and shrinking sales, weakened by the plight of the bookseller whose margin is even smaller than that of the book producer—also means a drastically weakened export market. It is quite clear that you can only export at an inevitably higher discount rate when your home market is strong enough to serve as a base. But our export performance is not only a tangible contribution to the national total: it transcends its commercial role; it is a manifestation of British civilisation, part of the national ethos and that intellectual influence which sustains Britain's reputation as a cultural great power.
As it is, our share in the world's vast English language market is not unchallenged. The powerful American publishing industry, reliant on its vast home market, has only begun to flex its muscle and discover its enormous world-wide opportunities. I remember that 10 or perhaps even eight years ago American

955
publishers hardly bothered about the world market, or only very marginally. Today they have set themselves the enormously ambitious target to dominate it. Already our outposts in the Commonwealth as well as in the open market are threatened. Do we really wish to endanger opposition further and yield our place unnecessarily?
Let me turn to two related issued issues. What is the fiscal logic of abandoning the zero rate on books? The optimum assumptions of £85 million or even £90 million gained by the tax man are demolished by the inevitable drop in publisher's profits so that perhaps only a fraction could be retained—but at what a loss to the nation! Reduction in staff and investment means unemployment and denial of access to a profession coveted by dedicated and enthusiastic young recruits. It means less output of books destined not only for the general reader or the registered student but also for the large number of unemployed in whose ranks there are many avid readers to whom the book means hope and self-improvement. In this repect value added tax discriminates against the disadvantaged.
The other issue begs a side glance at how others live with value added tax on books. Australia and New Zealand are like ourselves free of that tax. As for Europe, the EEC as such does not press for new legislation in this country. It is true that, of the Ten only Greece and Ireland have zero rating, and that all but one of the rest have a special rate of value added tax which is only a fraction of the standard rate; but these countries, if you look more closely, have different cultural environments and traditions. They have vastly compensating tax advantages or public grants governing all phases of the written word from bursaries to authors, to heavy export subsidies. France, which by tradition can almost be described as an intellectual theocracy with the French language as the supreme being, has a robust system of helping writers and exporting-publishers in an environment in which books, writers and literary prizes are front page news and the furtherence of the French language is one of the great national priorities. In Germany, the home market is solid, the writer fiscally favoured. The Government spend substantial sums on translations from German into other languages and underwrite many books of educational relevance. Even a small country like Holland prides itself on keeping the book business in good shape through Government and municipal subvention. At a time when Her Majesty's Government cuts Arts Council spending on literature and curbs the British Council, it would be unrealistic to seek major redress from those quarters either at home or abroad.
I earnestly hope that even a brief overview of a case that has been amply documented should lead the decision-makers in their current deliberations to come to the same conclusion as those who scrutinised this very problem on three previous occasions. In 1940, a national government retained zero rating on books. In 1957, a Conservative government upheld the decision until 1969 when a Labour government re-endorsed it. It is to be ardently hoped that in 1985 a government which harbours writers and scholars in its midst, which has in your Lordships' House a responsible Cabinet Minister who is a poet and was a don, and a
956
Prime Minister who more than once paid tribute to the book as a civilising force will come to the same conclusion: that a healthy book industry is a substantial factor in the recovery of Britain at home and the retention and renewal of British prestige and influence in the world at large.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, I should like to join previous speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, on their maiden speeches, both of which augur well for the many future contributions which we hope to have from them in this House. Like some previous speakers, I must begin by declaring an interest, but I hasten to add that it is not a pecuniary one. I am not connected with any business involving books, except account books, but I am honorary chairman of the Book Development Council, which is the export arm of the Publishers' Association, and for some years I was chairman of the National Book Committee which brings together all organisations interested in the book from authors to publishers, booksellers, librarians, and so forth.
Therefore, in what I am about to say I shall confine myself to books and not deal with any other types of publications. This is a short debate and there are still a number of speakers, so I shall endeavour to be brief. But the subject is of such importance that even if I have to repeat some of the points which have already been made, I think that the House will bear with me. As I understand it from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, to whom we are all very grateful for initiating this debate, the purpose of the debate is, if I may put it this way, a contraceptive one: we are trying to deflect the thoughts of the Chancellor—should he have such thoughts—from the idea of imposing VAT on books. I need hardly say that I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said by previous speakers about the special nature of books. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, this is a point which is perhaps difficult to demonstrate strictly scientifically, but I hope it is one which will be accepted by most, if not all, noble Lords in this House.
I also agree wholeheartedly with those who have spoken of the retrograde nature of the imposition of value added tax, the present zero rating on books in my view being one of the more enlightened parts of our otherwise not very glorious tax system. In most countries of Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, has just told us in some detail, where incidentally the history of taxes on knowledge is not as gratifying as it is in our country, books already enjoy a special status: in some—unfortunately perhaps not in all—there is zero rating; in many others a special status: a rate lower than the standard rate, and in those countries there is a great deal of evidence that the pressure for introducing zero rate is constantly growing. I believe that the preservation of zero rating in Britain will be a powerful inspiration to other countries on the continent to go along that same road.
In the few remaining remarks that I have to make to the House, I want to concentrate on the economic effects that would follow if the Chancellor were to be so misguided as to make this unfortunate change. The first question to ask. as in all matters affecting taxes, is:

957
what will it bring in? The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has told us that it will bring in of the order of £85 million. I believe that this is the estimate of the Treasury and I have no reason to question it, although I believe that the allowance made for the decline in volume, to which I shall refer in a moment, again is probably too modest and may have to be increased.
In this connection, I should like to remind the Chancellor, through the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, of Adam Smith's famous maxim of the economy of taxation. I take the liberty of mentioning that name in the hope—indeed, in the exception—that it will be received by the Chancellor with respect and approval, unlike the names of many other economists of whom I can think. Adam Smith, in his maxim of the economy of taxation, said that it was important that a tax should take out of the pockets of the people not much more than it puts into the public Treasury.
By that he did not mean only the costs of collection, because he went on to state that a tax that may obstruct the industry of the people and discourage them from certain branches of business would be bad and would offend against this maxim of economy. He added:
"While it obliged the people to pay, it may thus diminish some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so".
This is exactly the case that would be found to operate were we to have VAT on books, because in the instance of the value added tax on books, as several speakers have already pointed out, there is first to be taken into account the decline in the yield of corporation and personal income tax which would follow on the decline in the volume of business, to which again I shall refer in a moment, both in book selling and in publishing; and there must also be expected, as a number of speakers have already pointed out, increased pressure for greater public expenditure for universities, students, local authorities, and so forth, as well as the cost of unemployment which would result not only directly in the publishing industry, but would spread quickly through book selling and other branches of industry.
In short, I believe that because of the effect of the, shall we say, lack of economy in taxation by the imposition of VAT on books we probably should not count on more than about half of the original estimate of the yield. I think a number of speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Annan, have already said that something of the order of £40 million to £45 million may be expected.
Beyond these aspects there are other questions of wider economic effects beyond these immediate commercial and fiscal ones. Here the arguments rest essentially on an economic concept which is known as the price elasticity of demand. This sounds very portentous, but it is really a simple concept. It means simply what effect on demand may be expected from a change in price.
This is not the easiest calculation to make, but some careful calculations have been made for the case of books, and the best opinion that can be obtained on this subject is that books have a price elasticity of minus one, which means that any percentage increase in the price of books can be expected to lead to an equivalent percentage decrease in the demand for
958
books. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, has given us a calculation of what this might involve through a reduction in sales in its effects on publishers' profits, and so on.
The first effect of such a decrease would of course fall on the suppliers, the publishers, and the booksellers, but it would also fall behind them on the producers; namely, the authors. As always in economics, this is a question of judgment: what is likely to be the reaction of those involved in any change in the circumstances that face them in the data on which their original calculations for their actions have been based?
I shall not attempt to take noble Lords through all the intricate chain of first, second, and third stage consequences that might follow from this decline in the demand for books through an increase in price. But consider the cost structure of publishing—to which a number of noble Lords involved in the publishing industry have already referred—and the structure of publishing and bookselling in our country, as well as the important part played in both by relatively small units—a point which has already been made several times—notoriously always on the margin of viability. Given those circumstances—and I am sure I may make this point with, I hope, some favourable reaction so far as this Government are concerned, given their many public professions in this regard—these industries and these small units both in publishing and in book selling are extremely important because they are, and they demonstrate that the industry is, highly competitive; and entry into this industry is always open.
However, the almost inevitable effect of a shrinkage in the demand in the market would be to concentrate more heavily on the larger units, with a consequent decline in competition in this industry. The effect of a decline would be a reduction in titles published or in print runs, or both, and in a reduction in stocks carried by publishers, but more particularly by book sellers. Let us remember how many highly important books are published, even though publishers know in advance that they will not even break even but will result in a loss, as the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, has reminded us.
I remember clearly that my own publisher, the late Sir Geoffrey Faber, who was responsible for encouraging many brilliant authors, particularly poets, to the greater glory of English literature this century, once told me that his greatest pride was to have published a book which became the standard work on the Italian risorgimento but which sold in the first five years exactly 280 copies. This kind of thing could not happen if the margins are severely reduced because it is the books with more popular appeal which have to carry these works of scholarship.
There is one further point. When one remembers the heavy pressure on the budgets of universities, on libraries—many of which will, incidentally, not be able to reclaim VAT; not all these public authorities and universities are in a position to reclaim value added tax—and the greater responsibility which will therefore fall on students and their parents to provide their own books, just at a time when their own access to public funds for tuition and maintenance is being reduced, the wider powerful economic effects of these consequencies can easily be appreciated.

959
Even exports, which have been referred to several times by previous speakers, are bound to suffer. May I just add to the evidence which has already been produced, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, about the importance of book exports to the industry of this country, let alone to culture and, dare I say it, to the political influence of this country in the world. I wish to point out that books are, I believe, second only to Scotch whisky in the proportion of the total output that is exported, which is a considerable achievement and something to be proud of.
Thus even if we leave aside the larger cultural arguments which have been adduced so eloquently in this House this afternoon, in sheer economic terms, in what is nowadays called the cost-benefit equation, it must be clear that the imposition of value added tax would produce highly unfavourable results. Thus the question, "Would such a change be worthwhile?" must, in my view, be answered with a categorical, "No".
7.7 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in investigating the kite which has apparently been flown, and to join every other speaker tonight who has attempted to tread on its tail—and I hope successfully. Before I go on I should like to congratulate the two maiden speakers who have spoken today. I wish to congratulate them especially on choosing such a civilised subject to speak upon and on choosing, too, the civilised side of that subject.
Most speeches so far have been fairly general in that they have covered publishing as a whole. I should like to narrow the discussion down for a moment or two to a specific and small part of the subject, the part which is within my own experience, which is the publishing of technical information by learned societies and professional institutions. It is a narrow, small part of publishing, but an extremely important one for a highly technical society such as ours. My experience of this—and I declare an interest here—is gathered in Thomas Telford, which is the publishing arm of the Institution of Civil Engineers, one of our oldest engineering learned societies, with which I have been connected for quite a number of years.
A publisher like Thomas Telford—and there are many others in the other engineering learned societies and other institutions in the scientific world— publishes the proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers learned society meetings, the proceedings of its conferences, monographs on the state of the art of engineering, academic treatises, journals and periodicals. They tend also to run a bookshop which sells not only their own publications, but also technical publications—always technical publications—from other publishers.
Publishers of this kind do not have a cushion of popular titles with which to support their learned works. The nearest thing which appears in engineering to a popular title is The Theory of Structures by Pippard and Baker, one of whose authors is a well-known and distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. It is a wonderful and popular book, but it will
960
never be filmed. Books such as this start off by being extremely expensive. Each page is covered with mathematical symbols; there are differential equations, graphs and perhaps other diagrams. Typesetting is extremely expensive, proof reading is extremely expensive, and so these books start off by being dear.
It is made worse by the fact that in the nature of things the demand for a technical treatise is likely to be small. If one published 1,500 or 2,000 copies that would be a lot. This is not the world of Frederick Forsyth with many thousands in hard back and a few million copies in paper back followed by the variety of spin-offs in the film world, television, musicals and things of that sort. These are small readerships, buying very expensive books. The costs are dear for readers who are students, academics, researchers, practising engineers, to all of whom cost is acutely important. Cost is always the key.
Lord Hardinge and Lord Longford both mentioned earlier the price of books. Lord Hardinge spoke of books costing £9 and Lord Longford spoke of books costing £20 or even £25.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I ought to have said that they are both very big books.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I know them both well. I ought to say something, which I hope nobody will listen to—they are both actually too big.
That is perhaps an editorial comment and nothing to do with price. What I wanted to say was that a book costing £9, £20 or £25 would be very much at the cheap end of the engineering spectrum. I will give a few examples. I have brought along a bookshop catalogue to illustrate my comments. Both this House and the other place have recently enjoyed Select Committee reports on acid deposition, populary known as acid rain. Earlier this year Butterworth's published nine volumes of the proceedings of a symposium on acid deposition held in Las Vegas about two years ago. That costs £240. Should VAT be added to that at 15 per cent. that would be another £36 bringing the total to £276. I shall not claim that that set of books is absolutely essential for the study of acid deposition, but it would certainly help.
One of the conclusions of each of the Select Committees was that knowledge of this sort should be disseminated much further than it now is, and how better than through books of that nature? That is perhaps a special case, but in my catalogue here I see that a book called The Handbook of Engineering Economics— which would no doubt appeal to Lord Roll—costs £54. Let us add 15 per cent. to that. I turn the page and I see that Probabilistic Methods in Structual Engineering costs £47.50. Cable Supported Bridge comes in cheaply at £37. The Introduction to the Theory of Thin-walled Structure costs £57.50, and there are many more. So these books are extremely expensive. If one were to add 15 per cent. to each of them what joy would that bring to the mind of a student or a practising engineer or researcher? These books are dear enough as it is and they do not need arbitrarily to be made any dearer.
We all know that many books of that nature will not be bought by the average undergraduate. He will go

961
along to the library; not the public library but the library at his university, college or in his firm. About 40 per cent. of our output goes to libraries of that nature. But in my experience—I think this bears out a comment made earlier by Lord Roll—libraries are an inelastic market. I do not wish to fall into economists' jargon, being an engineer, but my impression is that a 15 per cent. increase in price to a library would be followed by a 15 per cent. reduction in the number of books bought; that effect would be near if not precise, so it would have a severe knock-on effect for the publishers of technical literature.
Technical literature of this sort is essential. It needs to be encouraged; it needs to be supported rather than discouraged. All these institutional publications deal with information and knowledge. In no way do they deal with entertainment, except for very special people who seek their entertainment in strange ways. Information and knowledge are the aims of that body of publications, and a tax on them is a direct and a brutal tax on knowledge. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any notions of this kind for his forthcoming Budget, I strongly suggest that he should forget them.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we authors—if I may use a phrase once used by Benjamin Disraeli to Queen Victoria—we authors, who also have to declare an interest as well as the booksellers and publishers, are impecunious and often in search of free refreshment. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, and I drank a glass of wine earlier today at a reception to celebrate the four hundredth anniversary of the oldest continuing publication house not only in this country but in the world—the Cambridge University Press—which since 1584 has not let a year go by without publishing at least one, and nowadays it is very many, books. It struck me then how odd it was to be going on to discuss this misbegotten child of some back-room official in the Treasury who believes that uniformity is more important in taxation than its consequences, either economic or cultural.
The economic argument has been so well dealt with by others that I should like only to add a footnote or two about the impact on schools and universities. As the noble Lord, Lord Roll, reminded us, certain public authorities, for instance, local education authorities, can reclaim VAT. This does not apply to universities. It does not apply to parents, whom we are told nowadays buy some one-third of books which their children use in school; and it does not apply to the independent sector of education, for which Her Majesty's present Government have so often expressed particular affection. This is a tax of a very uneven kind and, as the noble Lord who preceded me said, it is a tax on knowledge.
There is another economic point which I am surprised neither of the two maiden speakers—whom we were very pleased to hear—mentioned in regard to book selling. There is not merely the fact that books will become more expensive, and therefore harder to sell, but the fact that the business of administering value added tax (by which one is made to do the work of the Inland Revenue for it) will undoubtedly be a big disincentive particularly to those small bookshops and
962
small enterprises which one assumes that the Government, to judge from their own declarations, are keen to encourage. I think the argument is not, and should not be, wholly on these economic bases. The economic argument is so patent that I cannot believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is said to have studied economics, could possibly bring himself even to try to refute it.
There is a much more important argument—and here, if I may, I should like to dissociate myself for a moment from the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who brought in newspapers as well as magazines, periodicals, and books. I do not think that the words "tax on knowledge", appropriate in the 1850s to newspapers, are quite so appropriate in the 1980s. The only form of knowledge that one obtains, as far as I can see, from the publications of Messrs. Murdoch and Maxwell is knowledge of the female human anatomy. And that, although a perpetually interesting branch of knowledge, is a very limited one. But I would, if I may—and it is improper perhaps even to question what a maiden speaker has said—say that the word "magazines" is an ambiguous one.
It is not only of the first importance that books should not be taxed; it is also (as again we have just been reminded from the technical side) enormously important that learned periodicals of different kinds should not be taxed. They have been suffering, quite without the question of extra taxation, very difficult times in the light of costs which have been rising for a variety of reasons with which noble Lords will be familiar. I do not think that it is sufficiently appreciated that, quite apart from this new threat, there has been a major fall in the purchase, by nearly all of our universities and polytechnics and other institutions, of learned periodicals necessary at the moment for their students and necessary for future generations. As anyone who has tried to start a university library (as I once had to) will be aware, if you have missed a number of years in the life of a periodical it is very difficult to recover it. So our universities are already suffering an important blow to their capacity to attract good students, particularly graduate students; our competition with the United States (to which the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, referred in relation to the export of books) is also a competition for retaining brains.
I am also worried, and I think this must have been in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he phrased this Motion, in the deeper sense, in that I think there has been a notable decline in the attraction that books have for the youngest members of our community, for children at the earliest stages. I, myself, think that, by and large—and I shall not go back to our vexed debate of yesterday—television has been an unmitigated disaster; and, in particular, that the facility of looking at a screen—which is a facility easier for a young child than learning an alphabet and easier for the mother than reading to it from books—has been a major educational setback.
We have a higher degree of virtual illiteracy in this country than many educationists like to admit, particularly on international occasions, and some of it derives from the fact that unless children acquire the thirst for books at a very early age indeed, they may never acquire it. Anything which is done which would

963
make it more difficult, not only for schools to buy the kind of books to which the right reverend Prelate referred for use in class, but anything that makes it more difficult for families to have enough books about—a variety of books so that they can try out what is likely to attract a particular child—anything which makes that more difficult would be a major blow to our whole cultural future.
It is at all ends of the scale, from scientific research, which is what we are told is in the end going to enrich us, to the ordinary everyday intercourse of society and politics, that books and learned journals and magazines of different kinds are of very great importance. I find it unimaginable that any Secretary of State for Education and Science could remain for 24 hours a member of a Cabinet which had agreed to a tax of this kind; and I hope that, whatever else the noble Lord who is to reply does after this debate, he will refer both to the speeches of the maiden speakers (who, I think, may be a powerful voice if this subject is ever discussed again) but also will give that opinion which is mine and, I suspect, shared widely in this House, to his noble friend the Secretary of State.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for enabling us to debate a subject which is so important to us all. Realising what expert knowledge many of your Lordships have of writing, publishing, of education and of economics, I was initially very hesitant in taking part today. But it is precisely because books are important for everyone that I felt that I should give the view of the ordinary consumer. Books are for people of all ages, and it seems to me that the imposition of VAT on books would adversely affect people at every stage of their lives and particularly those least able to bear the extra cost, which the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, has already touched on. Where children are concerned, any book which encourages them to read is a good thing and we would be doing anything but increasing the standards of literacy by raising the price of books, which are already having to compete, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, for children's interests with television and with the computer.
We are told that 6 per cent. to 10 per cent. of the adult population are at present, for all intents and purposes, illiterate and it is a devastating restriction on a person's life and it affects it in all aspects. I am particularly worried about children with special educational needs, especially those with physical and sensory handicaps. The greater a child's physical disability, the more essential it is to develop its mind to the maximum possible potential in order to compete successfully in an adult, able-bodied world; and the more severely-disabled children tend to be in special schools. A considerable number of these are charitable institutions with the local authorities paying the pupils' fees. These schools would not be able to reclaim VAT on books.
University and polytechnic students will be increasingly having problems making ends meet and may be faced with a price rise in books of from 17 per cent. to 25 per cent., which is quite a large sum when, in some cases, we are talking about books of from £20
964
to £30 each or, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has indicated, in some cases a very great deal more. Students may find that university libraries have to reduce purchase still further and that they can even be deprived of some works of scholarship altogether because certain specialist books with a very small market may simply not be published. And this, my Lords, is at a time when we are undergoing a technological revolution and it is very important to produce a generation of highly-qualified, well-trained people.
I do not see that it would be practical to exempt educational books from tax, even if it were desirable. It is quite impossible to make a distinction between what is educational and what is not. It would entail dangerous value judgments being made about the quality of individual books. The dangers of such a distinction, I think, apply particularly to adult education. Just because learning about wine is enjoyable, is it any less educational than studying Arabic or, for instance, applied engineering? We are very fortunate in this country to enjoy such diversity of opportunities in adult education; and none of the hundreds of thousands of people who attend evening classes and the Open University—and we must remember that the Open University has very many disabled students—can reclaim VAT on their required reading materials.
When we look at leisure reading, again that would affect the less well-off: the elderly, the disabled and the unemployed. Many, particularly the elderly disabled, are housebound and very avid readers. Even the more mobile disabled still face problems of access to cinemas and theatres and so they find books very important. A rise in the price of books would be a blow to those trying to cope with the additional costs of disabled life. They might even lose that great boon, the mobile library, if libraries are forced to cut down on their services because of an increase in costs due to VAT.
The unemployed will also be affected. According to the British Journal of Social Psychology, a recent study shows that 31 per cent. of unemployed people read more books, compared with only 2 per cent. who decide to take evening classes and courses.
I find it extraordinary that, at a time when we are being told that we must re-think our lives in regard to work and leisure and what an important part leisure will play in our futures, this tax is even being contemplated. For over 100 years successive Chancellors have rejected taxes on the dissemination of knowledge, as has already been said many times, because they recognised the value of books to this country and the damage—out of all proportion to the revenue—that taxing them would bring. The damage will not only be to the consumer and to education generally; noble Lords have fully and expertly covered the problems of those in the trade.
Although the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in what I thought was a very interesting maiden speech, referred to the problems of the small bookseller, may I just point out how concerned I am too, because the small booksellers cannot cut their overheads any further. They already operate with a minimum of staff and any attempt to cut down further on, for example, publicity

965
would just be pointless penny-pinching. Furthermore, the problems they face with small order surcharges would probably worsen if VAT were imposed because they would be encouraged to cut down on stock coding.
Small bookshops provide an invaluable service. Book-selling is very much a matter of responding to an individual buyer seeking a particular book. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, books really are not like groceries. Larger chain stores just do not give the same sort of service and they offer a much more uniform choice. The imposition of VAT is a very real threat. One of my local bookshops, which was family run, and excellent, was recently sold to a chain bookshop, precisely because the family feared they would not be able to cope if VAT was imposed; so they sold out.
Books are a very important part of a nation—one could almost say they are part of a nation's identity. In Orwell's 1984, all literature of political or ideological importance was continuously altered so that every prediction made by the party could be shown to be correct. Of course, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the imposition of VAT would represent a similar violation of a national asset—although, after the words of the noble Lord, Lord Roll, I am not sure that "violation" is not quite the right word after all. But I do feel very strongly that it would be imposing a serious handicap. It would be particularly ill-judged in that it would affect adversely establishments and individuals already under economic pressure at a time when education and training have never been more important; and it could seriously damage an industry we can be very proud of—all for a relatively small yield to the Treasury. I very much hope that 1985 will not see this come about.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I suppose that I too, like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, ought to declare an interest as an author. I shall be very brief. I should like to express my appreciation of the maiden speeches made by the two noble Lords: they were absolutely excellent and most interesting. I think we should be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for having introduced this subject.
My own view, as your Lordships would probably guess, is that the imposition of VAT would be an iniquitous and retrograde step. The often-quoted words of Mr. Gladstone—and I am rather surprised that they have not been quoted already during the debate—when pressing for the repeal of the pepper duties in 1860 are as true today as they were then. He said:
"The tax has long stood in evil odour."
If my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was taught by the noble Earl, Lord Longford—I believe I actually had the responsibility of admitting him to Christchurch myself, although I do not think I actually taught him—imposes a tax of this sort in his next Budget he will be doing something, as noble Lords have already pointed out, which, even in the dark days of 1941, when every penny the Government could get was needed, was not done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to withdraw
966
because of the public uproar of the whole nation. And if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does this, he will indeed stand "in evil odour"—and, what is more, for a long time to come. Furthermore, he will stand in evil odour with his own political supporters, just as much as he will with those on the Opposition Benches.
One of the successes of the Conservative Party in the last 10 years is to have captured some of the intellectual ground which for so very long seemed a monopoly of the Left. My right honourable friends, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, have themselves notably contributed personally to this success in the intellectual and academic world. But can one imagine a step better calculated to alienate the support of the admittedly largely middle-class, intellectual, reading and book-loving world than the revival of taxes on knowledge? That class in society is really the middle and professional class. It is in any case going to be hit very hard by the latest changes in student grants —something which will affect them and their children most adversely if they go through in their present form.
We are not debating that subject today. I mention it only to suggest to the Government that there are limits to the degree to which they can safely alienate their own natural supporters, if I may use the phrase. If, on top of these heavy charges, and on top of all the cuts that have been imposed on institutions of higher education, books and knowledge are to be taxed, I think that alienation will be very greatly enhanced.
I hope that the Government will be convinced of the merits of the case by the cultural and economic arguments which have been used with such eloquence and so convincingly in your Lordships' House this evening. But, in case they are not convinced by reason and sense, they might possibly be influenced by expediency. The imposition of such a tax will rightly and justifiably incense some of their most loyal supporters.
Perhaps I might conclude by venturing to remind my right honourable friend the Prime Minister of the observation of one of her greatest predecessors, the third Marquess of Salisbury. He was faced with the prospect of legislation which would be bound to annoy, if it went through, some of the traditional elements in his party. One of his colleagues argued that politically such people had nowhere else to go, so it would not matter. Lord Salisbury replied:
"It is all very well to say that they must vote for you, but they will not work for you and you will find it out in the polls."
7.39 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, certainly it is a very important and wise thing to scream very loudly before you are hurt, and it seems to me that on the occasion of this, on the whole, infinitely enjoyable debate, where there has not been a whisper of difference from the view of the opener, we are certainly making a very loud noise indeed, which I hope the Government will be able to hear.
It seems to me that the reply we are entitled to expect from the noble Lord on the Front Bench whose task it is to reply to this very enjoyable debate will be along the lines of: "This has been an interesting

967
debate: I have thoroughly enjoyed it. I do not know quite what the reason for it was because there is nobody in Her Majesty's Government who has the slightest intention of doing away with the zero rating of VAT". If he says that, then we can go home earlier than we can if he gives other explanations. That is what I look forward to—and look forward to confidently.
All that needed to be said, except for our pleasure, was said by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. It was, I thought, a powerful, eloquent and irresistible opening, and extremely short. We could have left it at that, and then had the answer I have given, and by now we should have all been elsewhere.
But there are one or two points that I want to add. First, it is wonderful to have both a publisher and a bookseller as our two maiden speakers. This shows, to some extent, the cultural level of this House, particularly on the hereditary side, and we are very glad to welcome them both. I noted a couple of points—I always try to notice a particular point in a maiden speech—and I especially liked a couple of the adjectives of the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge. He said that books were both different and indispensable. I do not think that you could describe books better. I think that it was a very good concatenation of adjectives. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, asked: Can any Government afford to tax the knowledge of the future?—and went on to include the future child's book, Peter Rabbit, which was exactly right.
The point about the whole debate is that we are concerned with scientific and educational works, but we are also concerned with reading for pleasure. I want to say very little about the first, because I made a long speech 20 months ago in asking an Unstarred Question about the Government's intentions. I pointed out, in particular, the severe reduction in purchases for scientific institutions, for colleges, for polytechnics, for universities and for libraries. The noble Lord who replied agreed that it was a very serious situation and agreed that there was a distinct downward trend. He produced some figures, which were not quite as ominous as mine, but which were still down all right. I was perfectly certain that nothing whatever would be done by the Government, and nothing has.
But now there is a threat, coming, I hope, not from the Government but from some unnecessary and false rumour that they are going to take some action, but in the wrong direction. They are going deliberately to increase the fall in purchases in these various categories of books; in the scientific books and in the scientific papers, purchases of which are, I gather, falling rapidly in some of the universities, and, of course, in the libraries, too. I am told that the library in Somerset is to purchase no new fiction at all this year. This is a very serious situation. I do not believe that any Government will make it worse and I am confident that we shall have the reply which I have already outlined.
I want to say one word about the books in my life. For the first five years of my life I do not think I used them much, but for the next 72 I have never been without two books "on the go' and this has made the
968
background quality of my life one of general contenment. I admit that it has been a very agreeable life and not a very effective one but at least I have enjoyed myself. Very largely this is because I have always been reading books—some good books, some bad books, some long books and some short books, but always books.
I remember Monty James, that great scholar, coming to tea in the country when I was about seven. My mother, who was a widow, asked in despair, "What am I to do? He will not read anything but Buffalo Bill." Monty said, "As long as he reads, that is all he need do" and he was perfectly right, because althought I have acquired no scholarship, I have acquired great contentment.
Is it not the business of Government to secure the contentment of their people and is not one of the most obvious ways of diminishing that contentment to do what has been suggested today? We have had enough of this. I think I am right in saying that, without exception, we all agree, and I am absolutely convinced that the noble Lord on the Front Bench will give the reply that I have anticipated.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I, too, should declare an interest, though not a financial one, as chairman of the National Book Committee. I succeeded the noble Lord. Lord Roll, in that job. There could not be a more opportune moment to be discussing books and education. It was very lucky that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was pulled out of the hat in the ballot for short debates. We have had a debate of very high quality and great interest, brilliantly opened by him. and with two excellent maiden speeches as well.
The debate has been very effective and I sincerely hope that the Government spokesman will think so too. I had a feeling that, in a way, this debate might be rather a re-run of the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in March last year when, as he said, he put an Unstarred Question, asking for an assurance that the fall in the purchase of library books for universities, polytechnics, colleges and public libraries would be halted. Today we have a similar but a wider theme, and we have had a wider cast to take part, with a different prologue and epilogue.
I must confess, I am disappointed that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is not responding to this debate, as his position of Minister for the Arts and Libraries and spokesman on tax matters in this House would appear to make him the obvious choice. This is absolutely no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is responding, and I hope that he has found the debate educative.
But having first thought that there would be a lot of similarities, when I considered the situation a little more I realised that there have been quite a lot of differences between March 1983, when we had that last debate, and November 1984. I saw three reasons for the difference, the first of which is the students and their new situation. I would say that their ability to buy books is likely to be seriously curtailed as a result of the recent announcement on grants. Many more students will depend on a parental contribution, which may or may not be paid. In 1982–83, 47 per cent. of students

969
did not get the contribution that was expected. The grant is being increased by less than the rate of inflation—and this after it has declined in real terms by 10 per cent. since this Government came to power.
If there is a shortage of cash, book purchase will inevitably be affected and reliance on university and college libraries will be greater. And what has happened to the libraries? The National Book League survey on library book spending in universities, polytechnics and colleges from 1978 to 1982 showed that in universities there was an effective reduction in real expenditure on books and periodicals of over 19 per cent. per student. In the polys the story is even worse; there was a 29 per cent. reduction. The importance of journals to scientists need not be stressed here and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has mentioned this. It is significant that university libraries cancelled, on average, 350 subscriptions to periodicals and journals between 1980 and 1983. How do the Government think that our scientists, on whom we depend for inventions, can keep up?
My second point is on new Government legislation and local authority expenditure. In 1983 school books had "a disastrous year", so the Education Publishers Council reported last August. Already, in the first half of this year, school book purchases have fallen by at least 16 per cent. in real terms. The Secretary of State is doing a grave disservice to education when he says that additional cash for teachers' salaries will have to come from school book funds. The 1944 Act makes it clear that the provision of books and equipment is an entirely different responsibility from that of providing teaching staff.
The effect in the schools is all too apparent from HMI reports. I quote from that published in May on primary education, which states:
"There was a need for many pupils to be provided with more demanding reading and to use books more regularly as a source of information and pleasure".
On secondary education it reads:
"In most lessons the teaching methods did not encourage individual learning and the poor supply of text books and inadequate library provision militated against independent study".
The latest HMI report on Norfolk was damning:
"Each of the schools visited was short of textbooks…There were instances of the inappropriate sharing of books…The book shortage restricted teaching methods, resulted in too much reliance on school-produced reprographic material and reduced the opportunities for pupils in their secondary years to learn to use books".
In the three lines on education in the gracious Speech, we heard that educational standards were to be raised. How does the Secretary of State think that that can happen if the basic tool of knowledge and learning, the book, cannot be supplied to the pupil?
I understand that the analysis of expenditure on books by shire county libraries in 1983–84 will show that the shrinkage of book funds will mean that it will now take from six years at best to over 20 at worst before current stocks are wholly replaced. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, mentioned that Somerset is buying no fiction books next year. The sad situation in local authorities which I have outlined can only be made worse when the Rates Act brings in rate capping, penalties, claw-back and so on.
970
My third point, and most alarming, is the threat of VAT. It is as yet, mercifully only a threat. I hope our debate can help to influence the Government against imposing it. Many noble Lords have given very good accounts of what the consequences would be. I need not repeat them. However, I would add two observations: one about the unemployed which has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). Research at Sheffield University shows that when people become unemployed, 48 per cent. read more newspapers, 31 per cent. more books, 13 per cent. more books for study. This compares with only 2 per cent. who say they have started going to classes or courses.
The evidence shows that the unemployed turn to reading as a major means of occupying their enforced leisure to some purpose and that books provide their major source of self-help and retraining. For a Government which profess to believe in self-help and retraining and which deplore the "nanny" state, a tax on the books of the unemployed seems curiously inconsistent.
My second observation concerns the publishers and booksellers, the channel by which all books reach the public. Publishers are already facing a good many difficulties arising from the shrinking of their markets as a result of the factors to which I have referred. In addition, the copyright laws are out of date and are constantly being infringed. Photocopying is widespread and books are widely pirated in many countries abroad. For all these reasons, publishers' margins are being reduced. They could not possibly absorb the cost of VAT in their prices, and increased prices must inevitably further damage sales in a vicious spiral. Some publishers must go under. Those who remain will be less innovative and experimental, just at the time when new examinations and a change in emphasis are to be introduced into our educational system.
Booksellers, especially the small booksellers, who provide advice and an exellent service to their local communities—something which is not available, as the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said from supermarkets—must suffer in the same way. I shall quote from a letter from a Cornish bookseller:
"If the Chancellor imposes VAT on books he will be directly responsible for forcing me out of business. My turnover is too small to make me eligible for registration, so any VAT I pay is unreclaimable, as is probably true of most booksellers in Cornwall and other outlying parts of the country where we endeavour to serve the small communities. Trade terms are between 25 and 35 per cent. discount, already breadline stuff. Any further erosion would be the last straw and make me part of the unemployed statistics, though I would then be better off".
I am not here to plead for the book trade. There is a good economic case to be made out against VAT on books and it has been made by many other noble Lords. But it is the educational case that I would emphasise. If this tax were to be imposed, a tax which could only be passed on to the customer, it would increase to alarming proportions the damage to the education and culture of our country, already inflicted by the other factors I have mentioned.
Twenty-two years ago my husband was giving evidence for the publishers in the Restrictive Practices Court, pleading—successfully—for the retention of the

971
net book agreement on the grounds that "books are different". I did not think that all this time on I should be making the same plea; but I am, because without books, or with fewer and less adventurous books, the whole intelligence and intellectual drive of this country would be impoverished. Books are different.
7.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, first I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for putting his finger, in a very exciting and racy eight-minute speech, exactly on the point which he failed to make in the Motion on the Order Paper. With one notable exception, all noble Lords who have taken part, in a most interesting and sometimes amusing way, in the debate have concentrated on one element: tax. I shall deal in a moment with tax. Believing that this might be the case, I decided to take the opportunity to look at the latter part of the Motion; namely, those books which are read in schools and institutions of higher education. Therefore, I shall use most of the time allotted to me, perhaps to the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, to examine what is happening and what is being done in that connection before I turn to the narrower but undoubtedly important tax issue.
Before doing so, I wish to endorse the warmth of the congratulations to my two noble friends, Lord Arran and Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, on their maiden speeches. Is it not odd that both maiden speakers come from the world of book publishing and that, with the exception of two speakers, all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate are directly concerned with book writing, book publishing, book selling, book making and other related activities? It is that which makes your Lordships' House so unique. Tonight we have heard from the experts.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, regretted the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, would not be replying to the debate, since he is the Minister responsible for the Arts. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Gowrie might have answered the questions relating to tax on books. However, I take comfort from the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and I are the two engineers who have taken part in the debate. We are not ashamed of that, are we?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord is going to agree with me.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Government fully appreciate the unique contribution made by books to the social, educational, cultural and even the political life of this country. Several noble Lords referred to this aspect. This point has been made on numerous occasions. When my noble friend Lord Swinton replied in March of last year to a debate in your Lordships' House, he spoke of the importance for the wellbeing of this country of an adequate level of provision of books in universities, colleges, polytechnics and public libraries being maintained.
The Government have consistently made it clear that they would like the overall spending per pupil on
972
new books in schools to be increased. I am aware that there was a decline in the expenditure on books in 1980–81. However, the Government responded immediately by making allowances in successive rate support grant settlements for increased expenditure per pupil on books. This indicates how important we believe it to be that there should be adequate book provision in our schools. That probably answers in a nutshell the specific if perhaps rhetorical question which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, addressed to me at the beginning of his speech.
In fact, in 1982–83 there was a significant increase in local education authorities' provision for new books per pupil in England. That was nearly 13 per cent. more in primary schools and 10 per cent. more in secondary schools. Overall, expenditure per pupil returned to its 1978–79 level. The Government are not complacent. The annual report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools on the effects of local authority expenditure policies on education provision in England in 1983, which was published in May this year, confirms an improving situation but states that current levels of expenditure need to be maintained or improved to get provision to an acceptable level generally. I hope that all local education authorities, whose responsibility this is, will take heed of that message.
We do not have the expenditure figures on books for 1983–84. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady David, can tell me where she obtained her figures; we do not have any, and so I am not able—
Baroness David: My Lords, I obtained the figures from the Educational Publishers Council.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for that information. The council will have to send me a copy of those figures because, I can assure her, I do not have them. We are quite optimistic about continuing improvements, and the Government's plans for the current financial year made allowance for further improvements in provision of books—provided of course that local education authorities contain their costs. Looking ahead, if they can contain costs and make savings in certain areas—caretaking and cleaning are two that quickly come to mind—then there is scope within the Government's plans for local authority expenditure on education in 1985–86 for more to be spent on books per pupil compared with even the 1982–83 levels.
It is of course up to local authorities to determine their own priorities for expenditure within the limits of total expenditure set by the Government. We do not dictate how they should spend the sums available to them.
I will deal briefly with the question of universities. Government funds for universities are made available, as noble Lords will recall, on an annual basis in the form of a block grant. In 1982–83, university expenditure exceeded more than £1·8 billion, of which more than 80 per cent. was provided from public funds. That money goes to the University Grants Committee. The Government have consistently made clear that universities must expect to operate with a high degree of economy and efficiency in their public expenditure plans. Nevertheless, when particular

973
needs have been identified—for example, new blood lectureship, information technology and equipment— additional resources have been found. It is a matter for the University Grants Committee to decide how the grant available should be distributed.
The Government endorse the importance attached to book purchase by the University Grants Committee as recorded in the chairman's grant allocation letter of February 1984, in which he states:
"The committee consider it important that all universities should seek to maintain expenditure on departmental consumables and on book purchases at levels which maintain the health of both the research and the teaching function.".
I am pleased to note that with the objective of making better use of what resources are available, the Standing Conference of National and University Libraries is working well to improve co-operation and collaboration between those libraries and to ensure that their policies are matched. I know that there are many other formal and informal arrangements between library services.
Before I leave the subject of book provision, I will touch on the public library service, which is still the envy of the world. In the financial year of 1982–83, total expenditure by public libraries on books was nearly £60 million. That was 12 per cent. more than in the year before. That represents about one-third of this country's total public institutional spending on books —a proportion which has been steady now for some eight years or so. That has to be seen against a background of increasing expenditure by libraries on other essential items such as sound and video recordings and the staff needed to support the services.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to intervene, does not the figure he has given of a 12 per cent. increase fail to take account of the fact that the price of books has, I would say, gone up a good deal more than that?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I shall come to the price of books and I believe that I shall be able to contain the question asked by the noble Lord in my comments then. I was going on to say that it had to be seen also against a background of the libraries' purchasing power due to the relatively high level of inflation in book prices compared with the general retail price index. This has been particularly noticeable in the case of some very specialised material.
We have heard from my noble friend Lord Hardinge, in his maiden speech, about some elements of cost. He expressed some disappointment that costs had risen so high. Quite fortuitously, I was talking a couple of days ago with a publisher of technical publications. I was surprised to learn from him the breakdown of the retail cost of a book and how, in his particular sphere, so little of the retail price actually goes to the author and how much goes in distribution and wholesale margins. Perhaps the industry there might take note of the concern your Lordships have expressed with regard to the price of books.
Certainly, publishers' input prices—paper, wages, and so on—have risen recently, but there is no doubt that publishers appear to have achieved some enhanced margins in 1983 and in the first half of this
974
year. One has heard this evening figures ranging from 1.9 per cent. to 4.9 per cent. and 8 per cent., and I have heard a figure as high as 10 per cent. mentioned as the gross margin. There seems to be some divergence of opinion within the industry as to the level of profitability it has enjoyed. I do not quarrel with that at all because in a free enterprise system, with free competition, such is to be expected. But I would not want the industry to cry in aid poor profit records against what they have been doing throughout the course of your Lordships' debate.
In respect of public libraries, we should not forget that one other way the Government encourage the wider availability of books and stimulate the reading habit is the public lending right system established in 1979. Parliament allocates a sum—currently £2 million—which is distributed to authors proportionately to the number of times their books were lent out. The first payments were made in February this year. The sum involved was £1.5 million, and that was distributed to more than 6,000 registered authors.
Before answering specific questions, I come to the note I have about taxation. Much has been said—everything has been said, I should think—about the damage that might be caused if VAT were to be imposed on books and on learned journals. I know that there is much concern in the media and elsewhere about the speculation that VAT will be imposed on reading matter. In all seriousness, I have to say that that is all there is to it; it is speculation. It is fed from a variety of sources and is worked up by those who foresee the dangers and the implications of VAT.
All your Lordships will appreciate that Treasury and other Ministers are receiving many representations at this time on this very topic, and your Lordships will be aware that a number of campaigns are being organised. In response, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making it quite clear that the Government are committed to a shift in the burden of taxation from taxes on earnings to taxes on spending. This does mean that the indirect tax base may have to be further extended so that income tax can be further reduced. The Government have no set views at present on how this might best be done and all representations are being carefully considered.
Since all bar one noble Lord has spoken on this VAT issue, I cannot deny my noble friend Lord Beloff his appeal. Yes, I will ensure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is made aware of the content and feeling of the speeches made in the debate this evening.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it was to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that I asked my noble friend the Minister to convey this message. It seems to me that in the Cabinet he, above all, is responsible for books.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, let me give my noble friend a double assurance. Both my right honourable friends will be made aware of the noble Lord's feelings in this matter.
Turning briefly to one or two of the major points that have been made to which I think I should

975
respond, my noble friend Lord Hardinge spoke of the publishing industry's contribution to the economy. I cannot, of course, deny that. He mentioned some figures and I would not deny those. Certainly my figures indicate that the publishing industry employs around 40,000 people, producing around 400 million books a year. I sometimes think that 53,000 new titles a year is perhaps a rather extravagant usage of its resources when one compares that to the level of 40,000 titles barely five years ago. Certainly of the turnover of £1.3 billion last year there was a considerable contribution to our exports.
The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, spoke briefly and mentioned subsidies in other countries. I suggest to him that there are many United Kingdom publishers who would not perhaps welcome government subsidy because they would probably feel that government subsidy would bring unwelcome controls, investigation and the like. So perhaps it is best that they restrain themselves in calling for subsidies which might have an effect adverse to what they would like.
The noble Lord, Lord Roll, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady David, spoke about parental contributions. I do not want to get too deeply into that tonight but it has long been a tradition in this country that parents have voluntarily raised funds for schools and have supported their children in various and different ways. The Government welcome the way in which parents so generously demonstrate their support in children's schools, always provided that such support is given on a genuinely voluntary basis.
My noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to expenditure in schools. My noble friend spoke particularly, as did other noble Lords, about the importance of getting young people (I think they were talking about the very young) to start reading at an early age and emphasised its importance in those early school years. I remind the House, to put the matter in perspective, that in 1978–79 primary school purchases of books in pounds per pupil—I take these figures from the Publishers' Association—was £6.2. The following year it was £6 and the next year £6.2. In 1981–82 it was £6.2 and in 1982–83 it was £7 per pupil. All those figures have been adjusted to 1982–83 prices. Therefore, there has been, particularly in that area, a fairly sharp increase.
I do not think there are other outstanding points on which I should comment. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said she was amazed that there should be any contemplation of a tax on books. I do not know where the contemplation comes from, but I think I have answered that point in my earlier remarks.
In conclusion, if I had to say any one final thing to encapsulate what I have been trying to say tonight, it might well be this. Books do, and we acknowledge it, occupy a special place in the life of the country and in the daily lives of individuals. In an ideal world there would be no limit on what we as a country could spend on providing books for our children, students and those who choose to use libraries, wherever they are. But we do not live in a perfect world. Books have to be paid for along with all the other things that society also deems essential. Despite resource levels and limits,
976
those making the purchasing decisions have to assess priorities for expenditure. Nothing the Government are doing requires those decisions to affect book provision adversely—quite the reverse. The Government have repeatedly stressed the importance of adequate book provision across the whole educational spectrum and I hope that that message is not only being received but, more important, is being acted upon.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I rise simply and solely to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate tonight and particularly our two maiden speakers. I am afraid that I have to convict the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, of an inaccuracy. He was certainly brief but he was far from dull and I very much hope that we shall hear his expert knowledge and that it will be at the disposal of the House in future.
As for the noble Earl, Lord Arran, I cannot help remembering that it was 19 years ago that I made my maiden speech on one of the Bills which his father introduced into this House and which led to the reform of the law on sexual offences. It is a measure which will always be associated with the name of Arran. I am greatly honoured therefore that the noble Earl made his maiden speech tonight. Our names sound so alike that I can now look forward to receiving his mail as indeed I did in times gone by when I received many letters on the subject of badgers which were very near also to the heart of his father, who did his best to protect them.
May I also conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for winding up for the Government and simply say that I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Famine: Preventive Steps
8.18 p.m.
Lord Walston Lord Walston rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they were proposing to take to help to prevent a recurrence in any part of the world of the present Ethiopian famine.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are proposing to take to help to prevent a recurrence in any part of the world of the present Ethiopian famine. The response to the Ethiopian famine has been one of the most heartening things that has occurred for many months, if not years. As soon as it was brought to the attention of the great mass of people in this country there was no hesitation about what should be done, and while I might convict the Government of not giving a lead in this matter I give them full credit for following the lead of the people, following it wholeheartedly and with a great deal of efficiency.
I am not proposing to talk about the Ethopian famine. What I want to do is to draw your Lordships' attention to the dangers of such a famine occurring; the fact that it is already taking place in other parts of Africa and indeed in other continents also; and that without any doubt in the months and years ahead it will, alas, spread its tentacles very much wider than at present.
What can we do in order to minimise the effects of that impending disaster and to prevent it in the long term, in so far as it lies within our power, continuing as it has done for countless generations? It is nothing new. What is new is to a certain extent the scale of it but it is the fact that it is brought into our living rooms by the medium of television which really has made us aware of it. But do not let that awareness evaporate as soon as the immediate crisis appears to be over, as soon as people have sent their generous contributions and as soon as the television no longer shows us pictures of those dying babies and the other horrors that we have seen. We must not forget that when that stops the famine in many places is still going on.
The first thing that we must realise is that the famine is not confined to Ethiopia. It is taking place on a somewhat smaller scale, but still entailing an appalling amount of human suffering, in neighbouring Sudan, in Chad and even in relatively prosperous Kenya to the south. What is more, all the indications are, and all the experts are telling us—and there are many of them, and they are very wise people—that it will spread over the next 18 months to two years into many other parts of Africa. If I concentrate on Africa it is not because I forget the starvation, hunger and malnutrition which is an everyday event in such places as Bangladesh, in parts of Asia and in parts of Latin America also.
As I say, what can we do about this? What should we be doing? We the rich countries of the West, the model of how government should be organised and how economies should be organised, priding ourselves on our Christian tradition and on our charity and love for our neighbours, what should we be doing? I would divide the solutions into two parts—the medium-term solution and the long-term. The medium term I take as meaning from the next six months, perhaps over the next two. three, four or five years, when famine will still be rife.
There I suggest the following. We have in this country at the present time a surplus of grain of the order of 10 million tonnes. In the Community as a whole the surplus is infinitely larger. Until this famine took place, we concerned ourselves with the surplus purely because it was an embarrassment—purely because it was costing a lot of money to store and even more to dispose of. It is an obscenity to look on surplus food in that light when there are millions who are starving for lack of it.
I think that I can best illustrate that and perhaps bring it home to those who are not aware of it—and I do not include any of your Lordships in that category—by asking such people how they would feel if they themselves were living in a small community (possibly as a farmer who had had a good harvest) and they had a surplus of 10 tonnes in their barn that they did not want; and outside in the community there were 20 or 30 people who were dying in the village street because they did not have enough to eat. They would not for a moment hesitate. They would not lock their gates and bar them, and say, "We will keep this until we can sell it to some rich person". They would hand it out to those starving people.
We are in precisely that situation in this country today, when we have not 10 tonnes but 10 million
978
tonnes; when the people are not 50 but 5 million or more; when they are not a few hundred yards away but a few thousand miles away. Therefore we must be prepared to make at least some of that surplus grain available.
My suggestion is that we should pledge for international famine relief at least 1 million tonnes of our surplus grain on a continuing basis over the years so that it is known that that is available for the relief of famine and that when it is gone it will be replenished from subsequent harvests. We should do all that we can—and I do not believe we would find it all that difficult—to persuade our partners in the Community to do exactly the same, either as individual countries or acting as a community.
But it is not enough, as we know full well from the experience of Ethiopia if we have not known it before, simply to make grain available. It must get to the place where it is needed. It is not enough simply to put it on board a ship and deliver it to Port Sudan or wherever it may be. There are not normally facilities for unloading these large quantities coming in suddenly. There are certainly not facilities, as we see so well in Ethiopia, for distributing it along the very poor tracks—hardly roads; many hundreds of miles of them—with very little in the way of vehicles to transport the grain.
At the same time as pledging our 1 million tonnes of grain we must also pledge from our military resources a very small amount of the equipment needed for unloading vessels, for handling the grain and for transporting it. It needs light trucks. The big heavy ones would get stuck on the roads. But if we make them available so that they are always there in case of need, we shall have taken the first steps towards dealing with this recurring famine.
But again that is not enough. We must not wait until the famine has gained a hold on these people—until we see the pictures of the hundreds dying every day. We must be prepared to listen to those who know—and in the past we have not done so sufficiently—and to take action ourselves so that we are informed in good time. Here I would suggest that we instruct our missions overseas in all the countries where malnutrition and famine are a potential danger, even if not an actual one, that they should have one of their officers—the agricultural attaché, if there is one; otherwise, one of the secretaries at the embassy—whose job, among other things, would be to keep himself informed of the state of affairs in that particular country in order to give prior warning, through his embassy, to Her Majesty's Government of the state of affairs as it is developing; and, of course, to keep in close touch with the voluntary organisations that do such magnificent work in all those countries. So that there will be a complete line of information, it being carried back to us here in this country so that action can be taken in good time to prevent in future the sort of thing that is happening at the present time. Once again here, if we can do this through the Community, through the officers of Brussels who are stationed in the Lomé countries, so much the better. But do not let us postpone action on the grounds that we cannot get agreement there. We can always act on our own and hope that they will come in after that.
But that is dealing only with what I call the medium term, though the medium term will go on for many years indeed. In the longer term the task must be to enable all these countries now under the threat of famine to increase their own agricultural production, to grow their own food, so that they can provide their own people with proper nourishment. That is far more important but far more difficult and a very slow operation indeed.
That great man, John Boyd-Orr, foresaw all this during the latter years of the war, or immediately after the war. As a result, the Food and Agriculture Organisation was set up. We must not minimise the work that they have done. They have done admirable work. They can be criticised. I do not want to criticise them unduly but they are very large, they are pretty top heavy and they have enormous costs of administration. I have studied these matters very closely and been concerned with them directly and indirectly for nearly 40 years. My own view is that the best result comes from relatively small organisations. When you have the huge international organisation it is very hard indeed to get the results.
Here, I commend to your Lordships two particular organisations. Before doing that, I do not want to give the impression that there is no need for large-scale works: of course there is. It is important to have certain irrigation schemes which can only be carried out on a pretty substantial scale. It is essential to have good communications, infrastructure, schools, roads, power supplies and so on. Of course, all those things are necessary, but they can be provided and maintained only by government or such organisations. They must continue as they have done at present, and I hope to an increasing effect. However, I believe that we should concentrate our views increasingly on the smaller organisations.
I shall only mention two of these organisations with which I am happy to say I have been associated for quite a long time, though with One of them I am no longer. Those are the Commonwealth Development Corporation and Voluntary Service Overseas. Voluntary Service Overseas, as I am sure your Lordships know, send young and sometimes not so young people (sometimes 60-year-olds), with skills, graduates in some form or another, from this country to live in the developing countries. They send them to live largely in the rural areas among the people themselves, to work with them and impart the knowledge which they themselves have been able to acquire, leaving the local population better fitted to make better use of whatever their natural environment enables them to. That is not only in agriculture, though that is very important, but in matters like health, education and so on.
VSO at the moment have something like 1,100 volunteers posted overseas and about 20 per cent. of these are in agriculture. They are supported to a modest extent by a voluntary contribution and to a large extent by the ODA. That is one of the best investments that the ODA make and they treat VSO generously. The actual cost per volunteer averaged out to the ODA is something of the order of £4,000 a year for each person. That is a very small sum indeed—is it not?—considering the value that the receiving country gets from the work these fine people put in.
There should be more of these people. It would be good if the scheme could be doubled. The people are there; the organisation is there; but the money is not there. I would urge the Government to think very seriously about consulting with the VSO about means for increasing the amount of money they have. It must be on a continuing basis—it cannot be a sudden increase for one year and then a dropping off, because new staff have been taken on and so on—so that they can over the years, as rapidly as possible, move up to doubling the number of volunteers they have. As I say, the people are here in this country, anxious to go, and the receiving countries are crying out for them. The gain in terms of cost benefit is enormous.
The CDC is a very different kettle of fish. It does not directly receive any grants from the Government. It receives its finance from the Government, largely soft loans but some at commercial rates. It pays its interest on all that it receives and it repays the capital sums on the due date without any fail. It has already invested £500 million, half a billion pounds, in the third world in various development projects. A good half of that money is invested in agriculture and in forestry. Last year there was fresh investment amounting to £100 million of which half was in agriculture.
It is worth mentioning that these are not only, or, indeed now, primarily, vast great plantation schemes but nearly half a million small farmers are included in the CDC schemes. The experience that has been gained over the years of how to deal with small cultivators in remote areas, how to deal with the local officials, how to deal with governments, is vast. Again, if more money were made available on loan—and, I repeat, not as grants but as loans to be repaid and carrying interest—the work of the CDC could be extended in a very significant manner with, over a 10-or 20-year period, very significant results so far as increasing food production in the third world is concerned. I believe that in this sort of manner we can get a far better return on our money—and the people in the third world will get far more benefit from such money as we are able to make available to them—than by going in for the grandiose schemes which in the past have attracted too large a proportion of our aid efforts.
There is another point here which I shall just touch on very briefly. That is development education—small but very important indeed. I am afraid that here the United Kingdom is lagging behind. In 1984–85 we provided for development education £106,000, compared with what we did in 1979–80, only five years ago, £560,000. We have reduced our amount there to one-fifth of what it was. Our £106,000 compares with France, which gives £425,000; Norway, £1½ million; and the Netherlands, nearly £5 million. That is not a record of which we should be proud. I think it is something which I would urge the Minister to look at and I hope we shall increase what we are doing there.
I have hitherto been very modest, not in the length of time I have taken—because this is a vast subject—but in my demands on the Government's purse. I intend to continue in that way because I realise the constraints. But, for all that, I do believe that our aid effort is one of which we must—can only—be ashamed. Our aid fell from 0·52 per cent. of GNP in 1979 to 0·35 per cent. in 1983, which is only half of

981
the United Nations' target, to which we agreed, of 0·7 per cent. France, Germany and Japan give nearly twice what we give in total volume. Norway gives over 1 per cent. of GNP, Netherlands 0·91 per cent. and Sweden just under 0·9 per cent. That is not a record in which we can take any pride at all.
Ethiopia has shown that the people of Britain are caring and generous. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to spend money on certain things. They are prepared to spend billions to safeguard the way of life of 2,000 people on the Falkland Islands. We paid £4,500 per head in the Falkland Islands. In the Sudan we give £1.67 and Bangladesh £0.28. Is that the sort of proportion that we really think is right? I ask the noble Lord when he replies to tell me whether he supports that type of proportion; or does he think that it should be looked at again? Surely we cannot grudge, and I am certain that the people of this country would not grudge, that we should give a few more millions—I am not talking about billions—to save hundreds of thousands from death by starvation.
8.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has already concentrated on Africa. I intend to do the same as that is the part of the third world with which I am most familiar. The noble Lord has also referred to the response of the British public to the famine in Ethopia. It has been quite remarkable. By the end of last week the latest agency appeals for Ethiopia had raised in the region of £8.8 million. The British public itself has given £20 million since July. For the last five months it has been giving £4 million a month over and above normal aid donations for famine in Africa. There is a growing public response to the Famine in Africa petition launched by seven development agencies.
Your Lordships will rember that there was a public outcry over rumoured cuts in the overseas aid budget. Her Majesty's Government finally acknowledged that this budget should remain at its planned 1985–86 level which, although representing a 3 per cent. cash increase, after allowing for 5 per cent. inflation, represents a cut of 2 per cent. in real terms. Although it is the appalling plight of Ethiopia that has hit the headlines, there are in fact 24 African countries affected, and most of sub-Saharan Africa faces disaster.
Famine is of two kinds, both of them avoidable. Where a country has a real food deficit only adequate emergency food aid in the short term and help to grow enough of its own food in the longer term can prevent famine. And several African countries are now in this position. But famines also occur sometimes when there is enough food in the country. It may be in the wrong places, and the landless, the jobless, the urban and rural poor are just too poor to buy it. Hunger is a problem of food access more than food production. And famine is more a product of poverty than of drought.
British foreign policy therefore needs to tackle with vigour not just aid, but also the wider issue of poverty in the third world. It needs to look at our share of responsibility for keeping the third world poor. It can help the poorest countries out of their economic crisis by easing their international debt burden and by
982
pressing our European partners for greater concessions in the terms of our trade with the poorest countries. Above all, we must work to ensure that poorer countries can become self-reliant in their food supply.
A much greater proportion of our aid budget should go towards stimulating domestic agricultural production in developing countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has already said. A much greater proportion of our aid budget should go towards stimulating this area—and production not of more cash crops for export, but of subsistence crops for local food. The current overseas aid budget is over £1 billion. Of this, £236 million is given as bilateral aid to Africa, but of this figure, only £27 million is given as project aid to the agricultural sector.
Many of the schemes that could have a greater impact on domestic food production are the small, grassroots schemes designed to help peasant farmers. They often need only subsidised seeds, tools, livestock and fertilisers or help with irrigation and water supply. Small conservation and afforestation projects could also achieve much. We should give every encouragement to domestic economies to favour small rural producers, rather than the urban consumers and food importers. Better prices and marketing facilities would help them.
Too much British aid has been for large, high technology, capital intensive projects, often tied to the interests of British firms. Such projects do nothing to improve local food supply, but take large slices of the aid budget. The pressure to give priority to cash crops over subsistence crops is maintained not only by foreign economic interests but also by governments anxious to attract foreign exchange to compensate for unfavourable trade terms. Peasant farmers, as I say, need a simple supply of tools and oxen, rather than Western style technology. Too often, our help to them is not only too little and too late, but of the wrong kind. Non-governmental organisations can make a great contribution to the local agricultural projects that are needed. They are in the best position to organise peasant farmers and to promote community participation in decision making. They are also more sensitive to the experience which women, with their great understanding of domestic life, can bring to food projects.
More British aid should therefore be channelled to the multilateral agencies which do most to promote small agricultural projects. We should support with extra funds the World Bank's special programme of action on sub-Sahara Africa and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. When emergency food aid is needed, it is often not available. Only 10 per cent. of the European Community's food aid is normally reserved for emergencies. The rest is allocated as long-term, programmed food aid which rarely goes to help the starving. The European Community food aid should be reformed so that it concentrates on emergency needs and can be speedily and flexibly available in a crisis.
The whole international emergency aid system needs to be better co-ordinated. Warnings such as those from the Food and Agricultural Organisation and the World Food Programme need to be listened to in time. Warning was given of the famine in Ethiopia as long ago as 1982, when it was said that if the next

983
harvest failed, there would be the disaster that at present that country is experiencing. There need to be accessible reserve food stocks already located in a region like Africa, so that transport difficulties can be minimised in a crisis. If we are to have grain mountains at all, would we not do better to station them within the food deficit countries?
The aid budget has been maintained at roughly its present level, and for that I give two cheers. But the aid budget covers a multitude of virtues, some more virtuous than others. There are ways in which we can use the aid budget to prevent future famines, above all by concentrating aid on small rural producers of food, as the noble Lord. Lord Walston. has said.
Do we channel our aid to the poorest countries, to the poorest people in the poorest countries to enable them to escape their poverty and dependency? The answer to that is: not yet. After safeguarding the quantity of our aid, we must now urgently look at the quality of our aid and make it first and foremost a support to food security.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House, will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for having initiated this very timely debate. The Motion is very relevant, and indeed, the most relevant words are, "any part of the world". I have never been to either Africa or India, which are undoubtedly the continents which suffer by far the most so far as these problems are concerned. But like all of your Lordships and most of the general public, I have seen the horrific and very distressing pictures on television from Ethiopia, Chad and other parts of Africa, India and Latin America where real starvation is taking place.
I noticed on the tape this evening that my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has now returned from Ethiopia and made mention at a press conference at London Airport of the communication difficulties which exist in that country. One has only to see from the television pictures the geographical problems and the trucks which have to travel over narrow mountain roads which make any kind of communication extremely difficult. I read about the suggested provision of dumper trucks. That is vital. In my view, it is the provision of vehicles and agricultural equipment which is so vital to these countries, notwithstanding the communication problems.
There is one organisation which deserves special praise for what it has done, and that is the Save the Children Fund. It has done some marvellous work through its dedicated people. I would certainly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said about the Voluntary Service Organisation. I believe that it comprises very dedicated people of all ages who have the expertise to help in these areas.
There is one part of the world which has not been mentioned and that is the Caribbean. I visited Jamaica some seven years ago for the annual conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of which I, like many of your Lordships, am a member. There are certain areas not far from Kingston where there is a real poverty problem: bad housing, bad drainage and
984
a shortage of good agricultural facilities. Although at the moment there may be no real starvation problem on anything like the scale which Ethiopia and Chad are suffering, one must appreciate that if one looks to the future there is a real danger that such a situation could arise. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take on board the problem, because Jamaica is a Commonwealth country, and their are also other countries which are independent members of the Commonwealth where this problem could arise. Indeed, I note in particular Dominica, which soon after independence suffered a most fearful hurricane which did enormous damage to roads and to the hospital at Roseau, the capital. Such a problem could lead to the type of situation which we are seeing in some of the African countries.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister the following question—and clearly he may not be able to answer it this evening because I have not given him notice of it. What is being done to provide assistance for agriculture, particularly in countries such as Jamaica and other independent Commonwealth countries where, if these problems are not investigated, they could result in years to come in a situation similar to that which we are seeing in Africa now?
There is also the problem of airport facilities. One noticed from the television pictures of Ethiopia, for example, a shortage of airport space. Have we the resources or the troops to send to some of these countries to build airstrips or to enlarge existing airstrips? In fact, I do not necessarily mean troops; I am thinking of our own firms which could usefully do this work. Obviously, the more airstrips there are, the more chance there is of getting the grain and other foodstuffs quickly to the areas where they are most needed.
As regards the amount we spend on aid to these countries and what we have spent on aid to Ethiopia and elsewhere, I cannot help feeling that the figures quoted do not always tell the full story. As a nation, we have a great many home problems to support. We have housing problems. There are people of many nationalities living in this country, including some from countries where there is real poverty among children. I am not for one moment suggesting that we should cut aid or that we should not increase aid wherever possible. But I believe that aid in the form of equipment, in the provision of trucks and expertise, is sometimes more relevant and helpful than money. However, a real service has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in raising this problem this evening, and as my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has been on the spot in Ethiopia one now hopes that real action will take place.
9 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I too should like to say that we are grateful for this opportunity, coming at such an opportune moment, to debate this particular subject. I do not want to speak at very great length as it is rather late, but I should like to speak on two different areas. First, I should like to make a few general points about the vital need for long-term development projects in third world countries, and I should like to make these comments

985
from the new vantage point that I acquired a few weeks ago as president of the United Kingdom committee of UNICEF. Then I should like to give one example of a particularly valuable afforestation project for which I and a small group of associates have been trying to raise funds and support in order to put it into effect in the Sudan.
Therefore, first, there can be little doubt that the voice of UNICEF was one of the most insistent among those issuing the warnings of a deteriorating situation not only in Ethiopia but also in other African countries. Following these warnings, UNICEF's executive director appealed to his board for no less than £50 million for special programmes for mothers and children in 13 African countries, and the estimate for the current programme of emergency activities by the United Nations children's fund between now and the end of 1985 in Africa alone comes to a total of £65 million.
Her Majesty's Government have so far contributed £1 million towards its total; but unfortunately in all up till now less than one quarter of that £65 million has been either pledged or given from member countries. So there seems a terrible irony that in the first place UNICEF warned the world what would happen in Ethiopia and was not heeded and now, through setting up an emergency programme, it is trying to prevent the same thing happening in other African counties and there has been only a minimal response to its appeal for funds.
So one can but conclude that overseas aid is not only too little but often it comes too late. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, that the general public's response to the Ethiopian tragedy proves that people will respond generously when disasters occur, but the effect of those disasters and the levels of emergency relief needed for them would be very much reduced if both more attention and the wherewithal were given by governments everywhere to long-term development plans, and in particular to community and social development needs.
Here I am convinced that the press and media have an importat role to play. Quite rightly, they alerted us to the plight of the Ethiopians, but at the same time they could perhaps do more to focus attention on work going on in the development field and educate the public as to the long-term advantage of that less emotive but crucially important kind of assistance. This is where most of UNICEF's work lies—in water projects, health, agricultural and reforestation projects of every kind. But like other organisations, such as Save the Children, Oxfam and many others, it is entirely dependent on voluntary contributions from governments and people. It possesses the ideas and expertise to teach the people of the developing world to help themselves and in this way to try to rule out and reduce the effects of future disasters. But in spite of this we are all aware that, as again the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, the Sudan, Chad, Mali, Mauretania, Angola and Mozambique are, as every day passes, nearing a similar crisis. Surely it is impossible to envisage that this further catastrophe be permitted to happen after the example of the Ethiopian tragedy. If famine does strike those countries too, it will be only through the lack of will and political commitment by governments of both
986
developing and industrial countries to devote more resources to long-term objectives. At this point I was going to quote the figures of Britain's record in her aid. My figures were exactly the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and I fear that they did not look quite good enough beside the examples of other countries.
Secondly and lastly, I should like to give one example of a development project which will give the deserved long-term effect which food aid and emergency aid does not. This is a project rather on the lines mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. It has been set up by a small non-governmental organisation called SOS Sahel, which has its headquarters in Dakar which was set up for the great drought in Sahel countries in the early 1970s. This particular project, which has been funded by the British committee, is an afforestation project in the Nile province of the Sudan where the plight of the farmers is getting even more desperate, coming as a result of the Nile no longer overflowing its banks, and diesel pumps for irrigation being needed together with the steady advance of the Sahara covering vast areas of what was once the most productive soil in the world.
The aim of our scheme is very simple. It is to plant fast-growing seedlings to provide wind breaks and reduce the sand drift round the farmers' fields. The project would be carried out over four years covering 48 local villages with a total population of 200,000 people. It would then be hoped that at the end the local farmers, having profited from these nurseries, and having recognised the benefits of the shade, the fuel, the fodder, the fruit and of the building materials of these nurseries, would then continue the work themselves.
For those of your Lordships who are interested in trees, may I explain that nine different species of trees will be planted. They will mainly be eucalyptus and acacia but the species most appropriate for the purpose is a very fast growing tree called the ipil ipil, which can reach 18 ft. after one year, which seems a remarkable rate of growth, and which has a property of fixing nitrogen in the soil which improves its fertility. I am told on good authority that 18 ft. is the truth.
One of the great virtues of this project is that of simplicity. There is no machinery for the Sudanese to maintain; no on-going expenditure for them to support; the women will be included in the project; and the project will include the hand-out of seeds as they go around the villages. In conjunction with the tree-planting scheme the project will use an educational puppet show using characters drawn from local folklore archetypes to try to demonstrate to the villagers the importance of trees and the different ways of safeguarding and respecting their environment. This particular method has been used with great success in various developing countries where the message of looking after your environment is put in a way which they best understand, which is not on a cinema screen but done through puppet shows.
May I end by saying that surely one way the Government can help to prevent further tragedy such as the one which occurred in Ethiopia, (referred to in the words of the noble Lord's Motion) is by channelling more aid through, for one, UNICEF,

987
whose whole focus is on long-term development projects rather than immediate emergency aid. They have proved their complete commitment and ability to carry out themselves these long-term projects. It can also be done through small, non-governmental organisations, such as the one I have described, SOS Sahel.
I have gone around myself, cap in hand, for about two years to try to raise funds for this long-term development project. It is an irony that the money quite rightly comes in for an emergency and a disaster so heartrending as that in Ethiopia but it is difficult to raise money for a long-term project because there is much less that is sensational about it.
I would suggest—it has been tried before—that the Government should try the matching pound-for-pound system with some of these small NGOs which really do not have the time to go on and on trying to raise the money, but are able to carry out these innovative plans which go to the heart of the problems in these communities. It would also prove that the Government really have a concern for the future wellbeing of the poorer people of this world and do not believe in dealing with the problem only by providing emergency aid, primarily in the form of surplus grain, which in so many cases arrives too late.
9.11 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I cannot help feeling some measure of sympathy for the Government. I had not planned to express sympathy for the Government, but they have been under a considerable barrage of attack in the press, the rest of the media and elsewhere, and even in your Lordships' House, for the seemingly tight-fisted and parsimonious approach to their future aid contributions. But of course a number of your Lordships have used the phrase, "long-term", and our Government, as are other Governments, are locked into conventional wisdom which is based on short- or medium-term thinking in this regard. So long as this continues—and I shall go into it in more detail in a moment—we shall not be able to plan to counteract future disasters which will inevitably arise.
The Ethiopian disaster was forecast many years ago, but no measures were taken to prepare for it. I am pessimistic enough at the moment to feel that unless there is a radical rethinking by donor countries, there will not be any measurable improvement in these preparations. We are in a slightly better position than some of the other European countries because we have been guilty of short-term thinking not only in terms of our foreign aid and the philosophy behind foreign aid, but also in terms of our own development.
It would be unfair to criticise the Government for having a meaner-minded approach than some of our European neighbours, because the motivation of some of our European neighbours in terms of overseas aid is much stronger. For example, perhaps many of your Lordships travelled in France 15 years ago and can recall the difficulty in making a telephone call. In that country today there is a modern and efficient telephone service, not only in the private home but in the street, too. It compares with the best in the world, and I am afraid that ours compares badly with it. This development required a huge expense on research and
988
development over a number of years. The domestic market having been satisfied, France, being a modern country in terms of telephone communications, now has no option but to seek outside markets. The third world is an excellent market even if France has had to go to the extent of helping the customer to buy the equipment.
This pattern one sees in other European countries where there has been similar development of sophisticated industrial equipment. I can think of railways and road transport equipment and types of more sophisticated radar and so on. We have lost out in this particular field, so the general feeling among the public is that we are more tightfisted than our neighbours. But in fact we just do not have the impulse to go out because we do not have to. The French and the Germans have to be a lot more helpful to countries who buy their equipment because, unless they do so, their research and development will have gone for nothing and they will have to put numbers of highly skilled people out of work. The cost of that is too horrible to contemplate.
The current thinking in terms of aid—and we are not alone in this—is devoted to developing and marketing goods which we can pass on to third world countries. As a result of this we sometimes lag behind in our energies in developing the basic infrastructure in those countries.
To illustrate my point, it may be interesting to your Lordships to learn that I have some experience of this in African countries and know exactly how aid is administered. The average African country which has, as it were, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, in that it is the good books of the IMF and the World Bank, produces development plans. The plans may be for three, five or seven years. They are generally short or medium term. These plans are based on improving the infrastructure, improving roads, harbours and anything which will facilitate the country's endeavour to earn more foreign exchange. The foreign exchange which they earn in such countries, which are agricultural economies, comes from cash crops. We have heard other noble Lords speaking of that. The whole system in developing Africa is geared towards the earnings of foreign exchange from cash crops with which to purchase further goods and so on. I have seen the development plans of two countries in recent months and in neither of those plans have I seen any mention of any action to be taken which would effectively counteract the kind of disaster which we have seen in Ethiopia. As many noble Lords have said—and I have mentioned before in your Lordships' House—the possibility of famine and future misery stretches right down the eastern central side of Africa. It is not just a passing disaster which will be solved by the generous efforts which are continuing to feed the starving millions—efforts which people can now see are really sadly and hopelessly inadequate.
The possibility of future disaster is very real indeed, particularly because it seems unlikely that within the present thinking in the West there will be any breaking of this terrible deadlock. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Walston in all the measures that he puts forward, and indeed those which other noble Lords have mentioned: in an ideal world that would be possible. Indeed, in an ideal world I should not

989
disagree with the thinking behind the Government's rather glib phrase which has been bandied about, "aid with trade". It is totally inappropriate and totally unrealistic today to talk about aid with trade; because most of the countries which require aid do not have the ability to trade. They will only have the ability to trade in the way suggested in that particular slogan if we develop the long-term thinking and the long-term strategy which will enable them to build up their infrastructures, to improve the lot of ordinary people —and this requires a basic and very patient and concerted effort on behalf of the whole of the Western world.
I do not think that we can do it and I do not think that we in Europe can solve the problem of developing Africa, which is quite enormous. At the moment, the short-term and medium-term thinking is much more concerned with balances of power, with any deterrent that one can produce against infiltration of Russian interests into central Africa and so on. Not until we can all get together and see that this problem is one which cannot be dealt with by short-term and medium-term financial and economic solutions will there be any real inroad into the really terrible prospects which face Southern Africa.
9.22 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for initiating this debate, which seems to me to be both timely and of real importance. The public support for Ethiopia is amazing. Indeed, it is so amazing that some of the recipients are concerned that there may be so much tied aid to Ethiopia that the other countries which are emerging on the horizon in equal trouble will find difficulty in obtaining the support needed. I do not share that view. I think it will be there. But I should like to address my few remarks to the longer-term problem. The need is surely to overcome the cause of the famines, and to do that, to increase the food production of the countries where these dangers arise.
This is very much easier said than done. There are the natural causes—the problem of water, of which one is so well aware—and also the administrative problems. I should like to illustrate the administrative problems from Angola, of which I have some
990
knowledge. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am a director of the Benguela Railway, which is the main thoroughfare and line of communication through the country going from the coast, 1,300 kilometres right through the country, to the Zaire border.
In the days before independence and the civil war which followed so closely upon it, the custom was for a Portuguese, commercial organisation, to go up the line village by village every year. Basically, they asked two questions: "How much food can you grow?" and, secondly, "How much food do you need for your own consumption?" This worked well because the company would then contract for the surplus, carry it and market it.
With the troubles which have come to that country, the railway is now disrupted and the organisation which in effect supported the agriculture has vanished. They need to be replaced. These requirements lead to two fundamentals. One is peace and the other is an incentive to produce food. These have got to be reproduced. It is impossible, obviously, to revert to the form of government which existed before. It is necessary to find a way of achieving the same requirements in another way, because what I see in Angola is all too evident in other parts of Africa. Funds, assistance, money is one thing, but it also requires aid in other forms—advice, persuasion, and maybe also conditions, without which perhaps the essential results will not be achieved.
Those in turn are going to be achieved only if there is proper co-ordination—and I follow what the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has just said—of this tremendous effort which exists. We see it in Ethiopia. The Government are helping; other governments are helping. The European Commission is in the act, together with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, in their various ways. But the coordination to make it one effective effort does not seem to be there and, while entirely supporting the view that there should be more aid, I should like to put the plea to Her Majesty's Government that they take a part—a lead perhaps—in achieving such co-ordination. It has been done before. The memory of the Marshall Plan is not entirely irrelevant. There it came from one source, but it was distributed, and effectively distributed, over a very wide area. So aid is needed, but co-ordination is needed, too.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, go well beyond the usual courtesies on these occasions, because I admire very much the drafting of his Unstarred Question. It is rare, in my experience, to have a Question such as this, which in the compass of two lines of print gets right to the heart of a very complicated problem. I would invite your Lordships just briefly to look in turn at the main elements of the noble Lord's Question.
In the first place, he puts the responsibility for action to help prevent famine where it undoubtedly and overwhelmingly belongs: on the Government and on their partner governments in the Community. Of course there are many other agencies involved, which have been referred to during the course of the debate—some voluntary agencies and some official, multilateral organisations—but what we are primarily concerned with this evening is what our own Government are doing and propose to do about the drought and famine situation.
Of course, the noble Lord draws attention to the famine in Ethiopia, as almost every other speaker in the debate has done. Indeed, I suggest that no debate ' today about famine in the world could fail to take the Ethiopian situation as the starting point. But the noble Lord's Question does not make the mistake, as many commentators do, of focusing almost exclusively on Ethiopia. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has explained—and others have also made this point—there are many other countries, particularly in the continent of Africa, where widespread destitution and death on a massive scale are threatening to reach proportions just as critical as those which we have witnessed in Ethiopia.
Then the noble Lord's Question refers to the need to prevent the recurrence of famine conditions; and that I believe to be the most important aspect of the problem we are examining this evening. Nothing I should say or that anyone else should say in these discussions ought in any way to detract from the immediacy of the present crisis and the need to mobilise all possible resources to rescue those who are dying. That of course must engage our immediate attention.
But also we cannot avoid the long-term aspects of the problem, and the Question that we are considering does not avoid those long-term aspects. We should not fail to ask—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Walston. in his Question does ask—how can we stop this tragedy from happening again? I suggest that we should not avoid looking back and asking ourselves: what has gone wrong? As one speaker in the debate said, there have been warnings for years and we should ask what warnings went unheeded. There were many such.
But in the case of Ethiopia perhaps the most tragic failure, to my mind, was the failure by the Ethiopian government themselves to implement, even to publish, the notable United Nations report by a team headed by Dr. Keith Griffin, the president of Magdalen College, Oxford, and I invite your Lordships to read the extract from that report which appeared in the Guardian on 9th November. If you read that extract, you will find there spelled out a
992
strategy for rural development in Ethiopia, based on mobilising the seasonally surplus labour which is Ethiopia's main resource.
The report advocates the widespread use of voluntary co-operatives as the means of accumulating savings for capital investment in the rural community. That is the method, as I have seen on two recent occasions, that is currently being used with notable success in the vast country of China. I am convinced that before long the world will wake up to the fact that very important development changes are taking place in China, and that many third world countries will need soon to learn from that country the way in which they can regenerate their countryside and avoid the threat of widespread famine, as, in fact, the most populous country in the world is succeeding in doing at the present time.
But these other third world countries will not be able to mobilise their rural resources without massive support from outside. President Nyerere of Tanzania, when he attended the recent meeting of the OAU conference, said that his country could produce much more food than it is producing, but to get the process started his country needs resources from outside.
That brings me back to the first element of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Walston: what do the Government propose to do? What, I wonder, will be the Minister's answer to that question this evening? I have no doubt—and this we will welcome—that he will bring us up to date about the emergency aid for Ethiopia; and we can all commend what the Government have done, even though we might wish it were more. But what about long-term policy?—a question which a number of noble Lords have asked. Here, again, I think I can forecast something that the Minister will say, because I believe that the essence of his speech is contained in this document—the annual report of the Overseas Development Administration.
Lord Trefgarne: Not at all!
Lord Oram: That will be unusual! I do not doubt that on previous occasions the noble Lord has called our attention, and that on future occasions he will call our attention, to what the Overseas Development Administration is doing in the poorest countries—in particular, what the ODA is doing for the agricultural sector of developing countries and what it is doing to develop various natural resources. If one reads the report one cannot but welcome the splendid work which is being carried on by the ODA.
While welcoming that work, we can welcome it only up to the point at which one begins to make comparisons and ask some of the questions which have been asked in our debate. When, for example, we compare the size of our aid programme with what it was when this Government took office, or compare expenditure on aid with other public expenditure and take note of the fact that it is less than one penny of every £1 spent by the Government, when we take note of the fact that it is misleading—as the Foreign Secretary has misled the country—to claim that the aid budget is being maintained, and when we know, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out in his speech, that inflation, both at home and even more overseas, is diminishing our aid in real terms, just as it has been

993
diminished year after year since 1979, we realise that the Government's record, admirable though it is in detail, is open to serious question and is found to be seriously at fault.
I began by commending the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for asking a succinct, relevant and meaningful Question in a very few words. I would suggest to the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government that he could make an even more succinct reply to that Question. He could make the shortest and best speech of his career. The true answer to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has asked: "What are the Government doing?" is, "My Lords, we are not doing enough; we could afford to do much more and we ought to do much more".
9.38 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall not immediately rise to the bait offered by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, but will begin by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter and, hence, an opportunity for me to give a response to it.
The scourge of famine has been with man for centuries. Very real and sincere efforts have been made by the international community to stamp out this scourge, particularly following the World Food Conference in 1974. It is a cruel irony that that conference was called largely as a result of a dreadful famine in Ethiopia, which now, 10 years on, has returned. There are lessons we can all learn from the Ethiopian experience. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in another place last week, since 1982 we have given more emergency relief aid to Ethiopia than to any other country. This amounted to about £ 15 million, even before the further measures which I recounted to your Lordships on 30th October.
To ensure that everything possible is being done, my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has just made a visit to Ethiopia to see Britain's famine relief effort in operation. In a Written Answer this afternoon in another place, my right honourable friend reported that he had met representatives of the Ethiopian Government, voluntan' agencies and international organisations and had had a long talk with Chairman Mengistu. He also met members of the Royal Air Force detachment engaged in ferrying food and supplies within Ethiopia to famine areas, and he went by RAF Hercules to relief camps at Korem and Mekele and to the Port of Assab. He was impressed by the splendid work of the voluntary agencies and the superb operation of the Royal Air Force, which has won it an enviable reputation in Ethiopia. He has decided to send a substantial quantity of further supplies and is now considering what additional steps to take.
I believe your Lordships will agree that the British Government have responded to the urgent need to help the victims of famine in Ethiopia, but a much more important question is how to prevent famine from occurring in the first place. That is the question we are considering this evening. The major need is for the governments of the affected countries to pursue appropriate policies and programmes—but there is also a role for aid to play. Some years ago, we were
994
actively involved in the type of long-term development projects in Ethiopia that would have helped to avert the present tragedy.
In the early 1970's, when my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel was Foreign Secretary, we were developing in the very heart of the present famine area a long-term agricultural strategy for Tigre Province. Its major components were soil and water conservation, small-scale irrigation development and crop and livestock improvements. But the programme had to be abandoned in 1976 because of a serious breakdown of law. In fact, one of our people was shot and 14 were temporarily kidnapped. This demonstrates very clearly that, with the best will in the world, there is little that external agencies can do to help prevent famine if the basic conditions within the country are hostile to such assistance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said in his opening remarks—and other noble Lords referred to this point as well—famine is occurring in countries other than Ethiopia. Although there is a need for constant vigilance throughout the world, it is clear that the most pressing need is in Africa. To get to the roots of the problem, one needs to understand the clear distinction between drought and famine. Drought is endemic in semi-arid areas but local people can farm and store food in ways which provide a good measure of insurance. Famine arises when the shocks of occasional droughts are compounded by other factors.
There can be successive seasons of low rainfall, civil war, population pressures, and poor governmental food and agricultural policies. In many countries, the rate of growth of food is not keeping pace with the growth in levels of population, and desperate attempts to try to wring more production out of marginal land degrade and erode the soil. It is estimated that each year millions of hectares are irretrievably lost to deserts or are temporarily taken out of useful production.
Increased food production is vital but it is not the only answer. Famine can exist in the midst of plenty. Systems are needed to get the food where it is needed. That means proper national and local food distribution arrangements. Action to tackle famine must therefore mean both increased food production and improved access to food. In many countries—notably in Africa—there has been a widening gap between food production and population. During the 1970s, the population in Africa increased at a rate of 3 per cent. per annum, and is still accelerating, while food production grew at less than 2 per cent. Until this fatal arithmetic can be corrected, famine will be a persistent threat.
But the outlook is not all bleak. Other countries—mainly in Asia—have been highly successful in increasing food production, and the so-called green revolution of the 1960s and 1970s has removed the spectre of widespread famine from most of Asia—at least for the present.
Turning first to production, many countries have areas of good quality land. But in the last 15 to 20 years the potential of these areas has not been fully realised. First, governments often spread their budgets widely over their countries for understandable political reasons. Secondly, populations have grown and

995
have increased pressure on arable land generally. Thirdly, governments have pursued policies, for instance on over-valued exchange rates and low agricultural prices, which many of them are now beginning to see as misguided. Added to this has been the decline and virtual collapse of many national agricultural research organisations.
But the solution is easier to set out than to secure. Good quality land could yield more if these policies were changed and if proper attention was paid to adaptive research. Some success has already been achieved. In many African countries, incentives to farmers have been improved, exchange rates have been altered, and the emphasis has been shifted from state to small farms.
It is also important that the marginal areas should be developed in a sensible way. Irrigation is not likely to be a major solution, but wherever practicable it should be developed. These marginal areas vary widely. In some, good yields might be expected in the fairly near future. In others which are virtual deserts, there can be no agricultural answer.
As well as increased production, access to food through national and local food strategies is very important. This needs properly managed systems of food storage and distribution. Developing countries need seasonal storage for their domestic surpluses and need especially the improvement of local, communal or village stores. More effort must also be put into reducing storage losses from pests or disease. Strategic reserves of imported food, on the other hand, have been abandoned in many countries on grounds of cost and wastage.
Admittedly, it makes more sense for food surpluses to be stored in their countries of origin, where modern technology and a temperate climate cut down losses. This is not to say that having surpluses in the European Community means that we should give vastly increased quantities of food in the form of aid. Quite apart from the fact that the very large sums involved in buying and transporting food can often be put to better use, long-term food aid can sometimes do more harm than good. Its real value is in emergencies, and we are urging the European Community to make more of its food aid available to meet urgent needs.
As my noble friend Lord Hood made clear, the marketing and distribution of food within countries is also important. Improvements are needed both in the performance of the organisations involved and in the physical infrastructure. Better cargo handling at ports, programmes to construct rural access roads, rehabilitation of railway networks; all have their part to play in enabling available food to get where it is most needed.
One further element in the search to avoid or mitigate the worst effects of famine would be to improve the forecasting of food import needs. But these needs are not necessarily a reliable measure of human distress. First, food plenty can exist with famine if people in the countryside are too far away and too poor to be able to buy what is available. Second, import needs can be grossly exaggerated by wrong policies, overvalued currencies, subsidies to urban consumers, or poor official marketing which
996
leads to unofficial parallel markets springing up. And third, even where food has to be imported it may not be right to provide it as aid, especially if the country concerned is thereby encouraged to spend its own foreign exchange on items or projects of a less essential nature.
In drought-prone areas most people depend heavily on their live-stock. At one extreme they can be an asset; a source of revenue in the good years and an insurance against famine in the bad. At the other extreme they can be a burden, particularly if their numbers rise to the point where they destroy the vegetation. The surplus stock from these pastoral areas could be moved for fattening in the agricultural areas; this was a common practice in our own country in the past.
Finally, in this survey I must underline the importance of conservation and especially the need for improved forestry, which was much in the mind of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. We really need an imaginative approach to forestry—and we shall need one if we are going to countenance those 18 ft trees that the noble Baroness was talking about—in all its guises, from firewood to timber. It is certainly not difficult to establish its importance: deforestation in Africa is taking place at 10 times the rate of new plantings.
May I turn now to some of the other points that have been raised during the course of our debate this evening? The noble Lord, Lord Walston, for example, in his opening remarks asked me about the possibility of more involvement of the Government in Voluntary Service Overseas. ODA's financial support for VSO and other British volunteer programme agencies is helping them to make that contribution. ODA grant support for VSO has increased from £1.65 million in 1979–80 to £4.8 million this year. A special supplement to the VSO grant this year has been agreed to enable it to commence a new programme in Ethiopia. A VSO representative is in Ethiopia this week discussing possible volunteer placements and the establishment of a permanent VSO field office in that country. Indeed, in 1984–85 we are granting nearly £6 million for volunteer programmes generally—17 per cent. more than the year before.
The noble Lord also referred to the CDC and his own distinguished role in that corporation. I recall that my own family has a connection with that enterprise, too. I agreed with almost everything that he said about the splendid work that it is doing and continuing to do.
The noble Lord also referred to food surpluses, particularly referring of course to the European Community. The Community and its member states have a combined food aid programme of around 2 million tonnes of cereals, as well as other products, annually. That is enough to make a substantial impact on urgent needs if sufficient priority is given to them. The noble Lord was right I think to refer to distribution. In fact we estimate that it costs about £250 per tonne to get grain to the needy in Ethiopia. I note his suggestion about military aid for those purposes, but I wonder how acceptable that would be at least to some governments. Surely the main aim must be to build up their own capacity to distribute these products.
I shall not be drawn down the avenue of our aid budget generally. I have a good many notes in front of

997
me that I could draw on for that purpose if I felt so inclined, but your Lordships may think that at this time of night that is best left for another occasion.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to the project aid to agriculture in Africa. I think that he felt that the sum was insufficient. I believe that he understates what we are doing. Increasingly our financial aid is for spares, fertilisers and small machinery to keep things going. Taking that into account, and our manpower aid, our aid to agriculture and similar sectors is nearly one-third of our total aid to Africa.
The right reverend Prelate also referred to the possibility of prepositioning of emergency stocks, but I have to tell him that that is a very expensive way of getting grain to famine affected areas quickly, for we in Britain can deliver grain by ship within about eight weeks of deciding to do so. It is quite likely to take that long to get the same quantities by road and rail from one country in Africa to another. In addition, such stocks can quickly deteriorate in hot and humid climates, and they need good management, which is sometimes in shorter supply overseas than it is here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, in addition to her trees, asked me about UNICEF. I should like to congratulate her, if I may, on her new role on the United Kingdom Committee for UNICEF. We contributed over £6 million to UNICEF last year and are fairly high on the list of debtors—of donors, rather, though we are probably a debtor, too, I have no doubt. We are expecting now a further special appeal from UNICEF for Ethiopia and undertake to consider urgently what we can do.
The noble Baroness also emphasised the role of the voluntary agencies. I referred just now, in replying to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to what we are doing in that direction. If the risk of further famine is to be lessened, it needs a joint approach by all donors with the countries concerned.
Britain can play its part on the following lines. First, our aid to agriculture and other natural resources can be used to encourage the sorts of policies, backed up by all donors, which will raise production in the good quality areas.
Secondly, we can promote the fundamental research effort required before marginal land can be exploited in a way that is environmentally sound. That will take a long time. There is something of a precedent in the co-operative effort organised by the World Bank in relation to the control of river blindness in West Africa. Over 10 or more years this has achieved much success. A most important element would be the work of the institutions of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. We should encourage them to take a much more active role in nurturing national research organisations, primarily in Africa.
The third main element in our strategy must be aid provided through the European Community. We shall urge the Community to play a full part in the international operation, combining both long-term development projects, including forestry, with the short-term needs for emergency and food aid. In this case we shall seek to associate British manpower with the international efforts.
998
My Lords, these measures are aimed directly at preventing famine by increasing the availability of food. But the other side of the equation—the number of mouths to feed—is also an important factor. The contribution that our aid programme makes to family planning activities, particularly through international organisations, will rise considerably over the next few years. We hope that this, too, will have an impact.
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.

  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: STATE AND PRIVATE CONTROL
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: STATE AND PRIVATE CONTROL
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: CONTROL
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: CONTROL
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND TERRORISTS
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND TERRORISTS
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS FREE ZONE PROPOSAL
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS FREE ZONE PROPOSAL
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: CURRENT USE
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS: CURRENT USE
  POLISH "SOLIDARITY" AND HELSINKI FINAL ACT
  POLISH "SOLIDARITY" AND HELSINKI FINAL ACT
  RACIAL INCIDENT PANELS
  RACIAL INCIDENT PANELS
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVY BASIS
  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVY BASIS
  THE £1 COIN: FORGERY RISK
  THE £1 COIN: FORGERY RISK
  REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
  REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
  SUB-POST OFFICES: CLOSURES
  SUB-POST OFFICES: CLOSURES
  DOG LICENCES
  DOG LICENCES
  DEFENCE EXPENDITURE BY EAST AND WEST BLOCS
  DEFENCE EXPENDITURE BY EAST AND WEST BLOCS