Sitting of 25 October 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Financial Management
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans he has for controlling resources in his Department following the report, "Financial Management in Government Departments".
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): The White Paper mentioned by my hon. Friend includes a summary of the Ministry's plans for improving the management and control of resources. Much detailed planning work is going on to put these systems into practice; in particular, volume trials of our new management accounting information system will start next week.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend say how the new systems are helping him to manage the resources of his Ministry more efficiently?
    Mr. Jopling: My ministerial colleagues and I have benefited greatly from the returns made to us under the management information in MAFF system, known as MINIM. We have also benefited from discussions with officials on those returns. We have identified various areas where follow-up work needs to be done, and we shall be publishing the 1984 MINIM returns very shortly.

    Farming Statistics
    Mr. Gouldasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers now farm fewer than 500 acres; and how this compares with 1973.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The information is not available in the form requested. However, in June 1983 some 219,000 holdings in England and Wales of fewer than 200 hectares—494·2 acres—were recorded in the agricultural census. Comparable figures for 1973 are not available because of changes since then in the coverage of the annual census.
    Mr. Gould: Have not the vast sums of taxpayers' money which have been pumped into agriculture through
    792
    the common agricultural policy driven up the price of agricultural land so much that small farmers have been squeezed out, and increasingly only wealthy individuals and institutions can afford to buy? Should not this factor feature prominently in any review of agricultural policy which might be carried out by the Ministry?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are obviously many factors involved in the rise in the price of agricultural land. It is certainly not the case that increasinly only institutions and wealthy farmers can afford to farm. The amount of land in institutional hands is still, relatively speaking, very small.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the increasing costs of the common agricultural policy, and the Government's efforts have been very much directed towards getting that into better shape.
    Sir Paul Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that there has been a large reduction in the number of small farmers? Will he take note of the welcome statement, at long last, by the National Farmers Union that it supports smaller family farms? What will the Minister do about the problem?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that we have examined several proposals in the past, some of which he has advocated, such as control over farm size and the impact of the institutional farmers. He and I have had many exchanges on the subject. The fact that we have been concentrating our dairy farm outgoers scheme on the small farmers is a clear indication of our determination to help them and to continue to help the family farmers.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the dairy quotas are being implemented properly in other European Economic Community countries.
    Mr. Jopling: I have raised this question in the Agriculture Council, and it is clear that most member states are making strenuous efforts to ensure that the supplementary levy is properly applied. I have pressed the Commission to take the necessary action to ensure that any failures to apply the levy are dealt with.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: is my right hon. Friend aware that the milk levy system is not being implemented by most other Common Market countries? Will he press for penalties against those countries? What relief can he offer the British farmer who has cut back fully and is now seen as the fall guy of Europe?
    Mr. Jopling: The Agriculture Commissioner has made it clear that most member states have the necessary national legislation in force. Considerable progress has been made in establishing the administrative procedures. I remind my hon. Friend that there is no ban on production outside quotas. Provided that member states collect the appropriate amount of levy from those responsible for the surplus, they will be complying with the supplementary levy regulations.
    Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Agriculture is going to Brussels next week to try to find out whether other member states are implementing the levy? If the Select Committee discovers that they are not implementing the levy, or not

    793
    implementing it correctly, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to abolish the implementation of the levy in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Jopling: I wish the hon. Gentleman a pleasant trip to Brussels next week. I welcome the efforts of the Select Committee in persuading the Commission to make sure that every member state implements the rules properly. With the exception of Italy, which in fact has a particular derogation until the end of the quota year, my own feeling is a good deal more optimistic than it was that other member states are implementing the rules.
    Sir Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the stand that he has already taken in Europe on penalties, but will he bear in mind that the fear of those in British agriculture is justified and that there must be the most rigorous inspection and checking to see that people do not cheat, and particularly to see that next time the Irish do not get away with it?
    Mr. Jopling: I thank my hon. Friend for his initial remarks, but I remind him that I have raised that issue at the last three meetings of the Council of Ministers. As I said earlier, there is no ban on production outside quotas. With a levy of up to 100 per cent. of the target price, we expect most producers to make a strenuous effort to comply with their quotas over the year as a whole. Frankly, it is an expensive business if one does not comply with one's quota.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the fact that the milk quotas have had a disastrous effect on the Welsh economy. Will he now consider establishing a proposal for Wales to have an extra quota at next year's price review and negotiations?
    Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Gentleman were to look at the outgoers scheme, bearing in mind that there is a large preponderence of small farmers in his part of Wales,. I think he will agree that my intention to give preference through the scheme, to redistribute the quota particularly to smaller farmers, will be of particular benefit to farmers in both Wales and the south-west of England.
    Mr. Hunter: Despite all that my right hon. Friend has just said, is he aware that dairy farmers in this country have presided over a 9 per cent. reduction in production and witnessed a £1,875 loss of income? How can we justify a policy of milk quotas to our dairy farmers if it is continually disregarded by our Common Market friends?
    Mr. Jopling: The cut that British dairy farmers have to make is not 9 per cent., as my hon. Friend said, but 6·5 per cent. Within the Community I see evidence that member states are moving towards their levy quantity. The latest information that I understand the Commission has about the French dairy industry is that the French authorities expect that the current trend in milk production in France and the response from their outgoers scheme will mean that no levy will become due at the end of the year.
    Miss Maynard: Can the Minister tell us how many farm workers have lost their jobs because of the imposition of quotas? Will he give further consideration to the payment of compensation to any farm worker who loses his job because of quotas?
    Mr. Jopling: I have answered that question before. I have no knowledge of the number of farm workers who
    794
    may or may not have lost their jobs, but I have told the House before about the arrangements to compensate those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to small dairy farmers producing 200,000 litres and less that their quotas will be brought back to 1983 production levels?
    Mr. Jopling: Our outgoers scheme has been oversubscribed in terms of applicants. We have already issued invitations to a sufficient number of applicants to reach the 2·25 per cent. of quota which will take up the £50 million that I have provided. So long as that amount of quota is made available for redistribution, I hope that the smaller dairy farmers will enjoy most of the benefits by having their quotas brought back to 1983 production patterns.
    Mr. Nicholson: We all know that the quotas are not being properly implemented in other European countries, whereas in the United Kingdom they are being properly implemented. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Northern Ireland, where 5,000 dairy farmers stand to pay a levy of £5·2 million. Is the Minister aware of the serious damage that this will do to Northern Ireland, agriculture and does he regard it as fair in view of the absolute failure of the buy-out scheme in Northern Ireland which has not come up to his expectations?
    Mr. Jopling: I am aware that a smaller proportion of Northern Ireland dairy farmers than we expected have applied for the outgoers scheme. Many dairy farmers throughout the Community will be liable to pay a levy, but for Northern Ireland producers who have overshot their quota the Commission recently agreed that 50 per cent. of the levy should be collected as planned at the end of the present quarter, but that the remainder would be due at the end of the 1984–85 marketing year.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What protection has our domestic market against over quota production of butter in the Republic of Ireland being dumped here?
    Mr. Jopling: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a free market for dairy produce of certain types within the Community and there is a relatively free market in butter between member states.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister publish a comprehensive review of the legislative and adminstrative arrangements which other EEC countries intend to make to collect the levy so that we all know exactly what is happening? Is he aware that in almost every EEC country but our own production this year has already reached such a level that the balance of quota remaining is far less than the expected production between now and March? How can he be so sure that the levy will indeed be collected?
    Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a question on this I shall do my best to answer it in the detail that he might prefer. I should point out, however, that many Community countries were reducing their milk production towards quota levels in the first months of the scheme. For instance, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg made reductions in the April to July period. As the hon. Gentleman and I well know, however, the United Kingdom reduction has been greatly accelerated due to the exceptionally dry weather which our dairy industry had to put up with in the summer.

    Diary Herds
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size of the dairy herd; how this compares with the number two years ago; and what decline has been noted in each of the other member states of the Community.
    Mr. MacGregor: The provisional results of the 1984 June census show that there were 3,265,000 dairy cows in the United Kingdom herd—0·5 per cent. more than in June 1982.
    The most recent statistics for the rest of the Community are for December 1983. They show that between 1981 and 1983 the United Kingdom herd, with an increase of 4·1 per cent., grew faster than the herds in France, Italy, Belgium, Denmark and Greece. Only the herds in Germany, the Netherlands. Luxembourg and Ireland expanded more than the United Kingdom. With permission, I shall publish the information in full in the Official Report.
    Mr. Hardy: In the light of that and previous answers, have the Minister and his colleagues begun to have any misgivings at all about the wretched failure of the Government's dairy farming policy? The figures that he has just given may well be accurate, but does he accept that the fact remains that we are much nearer to reaching the position that the Government pledged than any other member state within the Community?
    Mr. MacGregor: Like my right hon. Friend, in the past few months I have been spending a great deal of time in many parts of the country with dairy farmers. There is increasing acceptance that it was necessary to curb the ever-spiralling costs of the dairy surplus throughout the Community. We have been devoting much effort in Brussels to ensuring that the Commission's regulations are applied fairly and uniformly throughout the Community. There is increasing evidence that they are and that milk supplies are coming down in other countries.
    Mr. Budgen: As the number of dairy cows is crucially decided by milk quotas, will my hon. Friend confirm that within the EEC there is no machinery for the enforcement of those quotas if a member state decides to defy the EEC?
    Mr. MacGregor: If a member state decides to defy the EEC by not implementing the regulations, as distinct from the individual producer going above his quota, there is the stiff penalty of disallowance on Community expenditure in that country in the dairy sector.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the national milk production trends quoted by his right hon. Friend a couple of minutes ago are highly selective? Is it not deeply disturbing that in France, Italy and Ireland milk production between April and September increased? Whatever views the hon. Gentleman is attributing to farmers, let me make it clear that no one in the dairy industry wants thousands of jobs destroyed in order to pave the way for increased production on the continent.
    Mr. MacGregor: We have already made it clear, and I underline it, that we are determined that the system is applied fairly throughout the Community. It is true that the pace of decline differs from country to country. The speed with which the system has come in in different countries has varied, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the drought has had an effect here; but there is evidence of a decline, and we shall continue to watch it carefully.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: When does my hon. Friend expect to see the first quota payments into the Commission from those countries which are in excess of their quota? That is when the money will be on the line and when we shall know whether people are playing fair.
    Mr. MacGregor: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. The answer is mid-November.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister not recall having gone down this road once before when he came to the Dispatch Box as a Minister in the Department of Industry to assure us that the Europeans would cut the steel industry down to size? They did not do so on that occasion and they will not do so on this occasion. Will the Minister finally learn a lesson?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I came to the Dispatch Box and made that particular comment, but I repeat that at every Council meeting we raise the point that the system must apply fairly throughout the Community. We fully understand and share the United Kingdom dairy industry's interests and we are determined to see that that is done.
    Following is the information:

    Dairy Herd Size in the European Community

    December 1981

    December 1983

    Change

    '000 head

    '000 head

    per cent.

    Germany

    5,438

    5,735

    5·5

    France

    7,054

    7,195

    2·0

    Italy

    3,016

    3,068

    1·7

    Netherlands

    2,407

    2,521

    4·7

    Belgium

    965

    995

    3·1

    Luxembourg

    63

    73

    7·4

    Ireland

    1,453

    1,535

    5·3

    Denmark

    1,020

    988

    -3·1

    Greece

    242

    237

    -2·1

    United Kingdom

    3,293

    3,429

    4·1

    Source Eurostat.

    Straw and Stubble Burning
    Mr. Proctorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with present procedures governing the burning of straw and stubble; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the new guidelines on straw burning have operated satisfactorily.
    Mr. Jopling: The new stricter model byelaws have been adopted by most district councils in the cereal growing areas, and the National Farmers Union has issued a revised code of practice. Together they have brought about a considerable improvement in straw and stubble burning practices this year. The number of incidents has been much reduced. I shall be studying reports on the season as a whole, and considering whether any further action is necessary.
    Mr. Proctor: The vast majority of farmers take a responsible attitude to straw burning, but will my right hon. Friend accept that some problems continue to occur? Will his Ministry continue to evaluate new machinery and techniques for the incorporation of straw and to spread that practice throughout the industry?
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that the majority of farmers are responsible people.

    797
    I am sure that that is true and that the number of farmers who have been irresponsible has never been less in recent years in regard to straw burning. The whole arrangement still needs careful attention. I am conscious of the difficulties that still sometimes occur, perhaps in windy conditions, with smoke and smut. I shall look into those difficulties.
    Mr. Bennett: How many prosecutions have there been under the byelaws, and what sort of penalties have been imposed as a result of the introduction of those byelaws? Does the Minister accept that neither the byelaws nor the code of practice has made any difference? The majority of farmers were already carrying out good practice, and the irresponsible ones do not appear to have taken any notice of either the code of practice or the byelaws. They have continued to cause a nuisance to their neighbours, to put lives at risk on motorways, and to put a large number of wild animals at risk when the burning gets out of control and hedgerows and other areas are damaged.
    Mr. Jopling: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that there has been a great deal less trouble this year than last year. That is reflected in the number of complaints received by my Ministry, which is about a quarter of the number received last year.
    I have no information about the number of prosecutions. That is not information that we would normally collect. However, like the hon. Gentleman, I have recently seen a newspaper report about prosecutions being brought. If local authorities wish to prosecute irresponsible farmers, I believe that that is the right thing to do.
    Sir Anthony Grant: I wholly condemn the infernal nuisance caused by irresponsible straw burning, but will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the vast majority of farmers—especially in Cambridgeshire—who have not only scrupulously observed the code, but are pressing the authorities to prosecute the irresponsible and reckless minority?
    Mr. Jopling: I endorse what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that what he has said about Cambridgeshire could be said of many other counties too. I know that farmers have tried hard to stick to the code of practice and the byelaws, and that many of them have suffered considerable inconvenience because, in order to avoid causing a public nuisance, they have not burnt straw at weekends, even though that might have been the best time to do so.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I have burnt some straw this year, in accordance with the code of practice, but I assure the Minister that most farmers would far rather use this material for a productive purpose. Will the Minister answer the supplementary question of his hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), and tell us more about what his Department is doing to assist with research into alternative uses for straw?
    Mr. Jopling: As one who—having burnt straw for many years—did not burn any at all this year, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department spends nearly £2 million a year on research units and development of these matters. Projects which we are financing include the incorporation of chopped straw into the soil, treatment of the straw to improve its value for animal feed, and its use as a fuel. We urge farmers to burn only when there are no alternative uses for the straw.

    Agricultural Prices
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there are now adequate funds in the European Economic Community agriculture budget to guarantee the requirements of the 1984 price fixing agreed in the Brussels price review 1984.
    Mr. Jopling: The draft 1984 supplementary budget, which is now under consultation in the European Parliament, is based on estimates of expenditure requirements to the end of the year which take account of the effects of the price-fixing settlement.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister assure us that in any event adequate financial resources will be available for British agriculture for the rest of the calendar year and that there will be no recurrence of the arbitrary measures taken last year to try to save money, which had the effect of destabilising markets and withdrawing support from agriculture in Britain?
    Mr. Jopling: My belief at the moment is that there is not likely to be a significant shortfall, provided that the draft supplementary budget is adopted.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: If there is a carry-over of spending for the 1984 budget, how does my right hon. Friend think the Common Market will be able to afford the huge budget provided for 1985, which includes provision of £120 million a week for storing, dumping or destroying surplus production?
    Mr. Jopling: I remind my hon. Friend that, at the end of 1984, funds ran out. Many colleagues who represent agricultural constituencies will remember that many grants and aids in the last months of 1984 were deferred until the money came in in 1985. If the draft supplementary budget is adopted, I hope that we will not have serious difficulties.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is there not a 700 million ecu deficit in this year's budget which is to be carried over into next year's budget? How will that money be found and how can the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly say that agricultural spending is under control?
    Mr. Jopling: I have said repeatedly that we have made a giant first step in getting common agricultural policy spending under control. The steps that we took earlier this year to reduce the amount of milk going into intervention throughout the Community was a major step. The prices of most agricultural products were reduced and we imposed guarantee thresholds across a broad spectrum of agricultural produce. We have made giant steps towards putting spending in order, although I readily acknowledge that there is much left to do.

    Vessel Owners (Decommissioning Grants)
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many decommissioning grants have been paid to vessel owners since the inception of the scheme.
    Mr. MacGregor: Fifty one.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister expect the rate of applications for the grant to increase during the next six months in view of the Government's sell-out to the European Community by increasing the percentage by-catch in the Norwegian pout fishery, which has been

    799
    universally condemned by fishermen's associations throughout the country as threatening the health and wellbeing of the fishing industry?
    Mr. MacGregor: I should be surprised if the effect of decommissioning grants was as the hon. Gentleman outlined. I shall write to him about the Norway pout by-catch issue. I do not believe that the grants will have the effect that he described, as the stock that will be most increased in the by-catch is whiting and we are well short of our quota for whiting. That will remain the case, so there is plenty of opportunity to catch the fish.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Minister agree that more decommissioning grants will be called for in the light of the report which appeared in The Scotsman, which said that, by September, the Dutch had already fished three times their quota of mackerel for 1985? In view of the long delay in mackerel fisheries around the west coast of Scotland, does the Minister agree that the continual breaking of the rules will result in disaster for our fishermen?
    Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the British Government insisted on the setting up of the Inspectorate of Inspectors. There is already clear evidence from several fishery closures that the inspectorate is working. We are awaiting Commission reports on one matter relating to the Dutch Government. We must wait and see what it says. We shall look to the Commission to take vigorous action if any irregularities are uncovered. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the inspectorate is beginning to have the impact that we desired.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Perhaps I might make the rhetorical point that hardly any Danish vessels have been decommissioned under schemes such as this. Does the Minister agree that the English industry's real need is not decommissioning grants, which go to the owners rather than to the fishermen and simply reduce our ability to catch fish that are rightfully ours, but operating help to keep the industry going. whether in the form of a fuel subsidy such as the French enjoy or measures to keep ports such as Grimsby open? Grimsby has been threatened with closure recently and may be again unless the entire industry becomes more profitable.
    Mr. MacGregor: My rhetorical answer to the hon. Gentleman's rhetorical point is that the Danes have had to close fisheries this year as a result of the inspectorate's action. I saw that for myself when I went to Denmark last week. The hon. Gentleman is tenacious on the second matter that he raised and I shall have to give him an equally tenacious answer. We see no prospect of operating subsidies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the impact of the decommissioning grant—£7 million has already been paid, some of which has gone to Grimsby. By December 1986, £15 million will have been paid. That helps to bring our fleet's capacity more into line with fishing opportunities in pressure stocks. That is bound to help fishermen.
    Dr. Godman: Given that vessels need crews to sail them, what is the likelihood of EC decommissioning grants being awarded to redundant fishermen?
    Mr. MacGregor: That would not be permitted under the regulations governing the decommissioning grants.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister face his responsibilities for the men who have lost their jobs after years in the industry? It is not good enough for the buck to be passed backwards and forwards between this country and Brussels. The Minister has a responsibility to those who work in the industry as well as to the boat owners.
    Mr. MacGregor: I was not passing the buck back to Brussels; I was asked a question about decommissioning grants, which come from Brussels. The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is primarily the responsibility of the Department of Employment. When the main impact occurred, successive Governments, including the previous Labour Government, decided not to take action on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It would be wrong to make payments going back many years and covering events that occurred under the Labour Government.

    Conservation
    Mr. John Huntasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the farming and wildlife advisory groups provide regular advice to farmers on all matters relating to conservation.
    Mr. Jopling: Farming and wildlife advisory groups are independent voluntary bodies, to which my Department gives substantial practical assistance. It is for the groups themselves to decide how best to pursue their aims.
    Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact, that in spite of the commendable work of these groups, some farmers still seem unaware of the ecological and landscape importance of their land? Will my right hon. Friend and his Ministry do all that they can to encourage the advisory groups to be more vigilant and vigorous against the farming cowboys, who are only a minority, but who do great damage to our environment and to the cause of conservation?
    Mr. Jopling: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I hope he will agree with me that we might all do well to remember that farmers have largely created the diverse and beautiful countryside that we know today. Generally, they are showing an increasing awareness of the need to manage their land in ways that are sympathetic to the interests of conservation.
    Mr. Dalyell: With regard to Halvergate, why cannot the Ministry use article 3(5) of the European land development legislation to do what the Dutch have successfully done in northern Holland? Will the right hon. Gentleman take a giant step in that direction along the lines advocated by the Council for the Protection of Rural England?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I do not believe that article 3(5) is appropriate, because it relates to areas suffering physical handicap from farming. Some conservationally sensitive areas, such as Halvergate, are profitable and could not by any definition be described as physically handicapped farming areas. I doubt whether article 3(5) could legitimately be used in connection with the less-favoured areas directive 75/268 in areas such as Halvergate.

    Wine Production
    Mr. Yeoaskedthe Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of wine production in England.
    Mr. MacGregor: It is a little early yet to assess the size of this year's harvest, as many of the grapes have not yet been picked, but it appears that production of English wine might slightly exceed last year's level of 3 million bottles.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend consider stimulating the demand for English wine, which is produced from grapes grown in this country, by making it clear on the labels of bottles of so-called British wine that it is produced from grapes grown outside this country?
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am keen to encourage the increased consumption of English wine by United Kingdom consumers. One way in which that could be done would be to draw greater attention to the results of a "What Wine?" competition for white wines, in which two of the top three and five of the top 12 European wines were English. The winner was from a village in my constituency. I think that that is a tribute to the successful development of this young industry.
    Mr. Alexander: Would it not provide a welcome boost to our wine industry if we had a more sensible relaxation of this country's licensing laws? Will my hon. Friend have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find out why decent English wine, not least in the House of Commons restaurant, costs more than comparable French wine?
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall refer my hon. Friend's comments to my respective right hon. Friends. However, it is not just the impact of taxation that makes English wine slightly more expensive. It is increasingly becoming a better quality wine, and therefore comparable with the more expensive ones.

    Pesticides
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about the control of pesticides.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Since my right hon. Friend's announcement on 10 May we have carried out a wide-ranging consultation exercise and we have made a number of public statements of our intentions. The comments received from the consultation have been taken into account in preparing primary legislation to ensure the safe and efficient use of pesticides. This will be introduced to Parliament at an early opportunity.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: With regard to the concern about side effects, are the Government resolved that the use of pesticides should be kept to a minimum, as recommended in the seventh report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, Sir. The proposals that we are outlining—about which some fanners were clearly concerned—quote only maximum uses, and we are always concerned to have the minimum uses.

    Sheds and Warehouses (Bird Proofing)
    Mr. Parryasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help his Ministry has given with the bird-proofing of sheds and warehouses in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Fenner: The Ministry's local professional staff have provided advice to the owners of those stores in Liverpool, which were put under restriction because of the danger of disseminating disease. More generally, a code of practice for storekeepers is being drawn up in consultation with the industry.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Minister satisfied that warehouse owners will comply with the recent change in regulations and that there will be no more outbreaks in the sheds?
    Mrs. Fenner: Yes, indeed. The Ministry veterinary officers derestricted the stores only after inspecting them. We have been giving advice about how to keep them free of birds. We have also inspected 70 other port areas to ensure that there is no spread of the disease by feral pigeons.

    Farmland (Subsidence)
    Mr. Heddleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of farming land were lost in 1983–84 due to coalmining subsidence.
    Mr. MacGregor: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend accept that many small farmers in coal mining counties such as Staffordshire have their livelihoods threatened because they are unable to obtain compensation from the NCB for consequential losses due to coal mining subsidence? Will he urge our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to implement the recommendations and proposals of the Waddilove report at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend implies, the Waddilove report is most useful. As he knows, it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is considering it most carefully and that the Ministry is fully involved in the considerations on issues that affect agriculture. We shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments in that regard, but I cannot at this stage make any further comment as to the date.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that the problem could be resolved by treating the coal mining industry in the same way as the farming industry is treated? Does he further accept that in the Government's Think Tank report issued in November 1983 the subsidy figure for the year 1984–85 is equivalent to £1,000 million, plus all the money that comes from the Common Market? According to that report, it is equivalent to £20,000 per farmer. If the coal mining industry got that, it would solve all those problems.
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has read, but his figures are quite wrong.

    Animals (Transit)
    Mr. Nichollsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stage he has reached in his continuing review of safeguards to protect live animals in transit.
    Mrs. Fenner: Existing legislation provides substantial safeguards. We shall continue to keep these under review and will present proposals for improvements to Parliament where a real need has been identified.
    Mr. Nicholls: As the regulations governing the transit of animals by air and sea have been under discussion for review since 1980, will my hon. Friend ensure that they are brought to a speedy conclusion, given that many people are very concerned about the way in which animals are treated during transit?
    Mrs. Fenner: Transit legislation is under constant review. We are ready to make proposals whenever the need arises. We shall be making an order on the transport of animals by sea when we have finalised our views in the light of the many comments that we have received. If my hon Friend is nagging me to get on with it, I respond.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Williamsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a dinner given by President and Madame Mitterrand.
    Mr. Williams: In this no doubt welcome interlude in the Prime Minister's other engagements, will she take the opportunity to confide in the House and tell us whether she is proud of the fact that within the last month her policies have achieved the worst unemployment levels ever recorded, the worst manufacturing trade figures ever recorded and the lowest level for sterling ever recorded? Which part of the economy does she intend to destroy next month?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the policies needed to create greater industrial and commercial wealth. The policies needed are those being pursued by this Government. With regard to the manufacturing figures, it is only sense that if we have a big oil industry and a big balance of trade in our favour that has to be balanced out either by increasing imports or by increasing capital investment overseas. The Labour party is against both.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I appreciate the moves already made by the Government to bring emergency food and medical aid to the famine-stricken areas of Ethiopia. May we have an assurance that, subject to co-operation from the Ethiopian authorities, nothing—but nothing—will be spared to ensure that effective aid is brought to the afflicted as speedily as possible, not excluding the use of air transport?
    The Prime Minister: We are very concerned about the situation and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made certain that increased food aid is available from Britain. About 6,000 tonnes of additional food aid and about £5 million in drought-related assistance is available to Ethiopia. I am in touch with the President of the European Community and I am urging him to encourage the other countries in the European Community to follow our example.
    The problem is not in getting food to Ethiopia, but, as my hon. Friend indicated in his question, in food distribution. We shall do everything possible to ensure that
    804
    the right transport is available. We have tried to distribute most of our aid through the International Red Cross and the Save the Children Fund. We are anxious to do everything that we can. In view of the lead that we have taken, we hope that other countries in Europe will follow.
    Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer and follow the question by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). The whole House will share the deep public anxiety about the famine in Ethiopia. The Opposition want to welcome the steps already taken by the Government to make some additional emergency relief available.
    Does the right hon. Lady agree that resources should be mobilised in defence of laves with the same skill and speed as they were mobilised not long ago by Britain in defence of liberty?
    May I try to strengthen the Prime Minister's voice by saying that the European Commission and our European partners should be left in absolutely no doubt that Britain and the British people want the red tape to be cut? There must be no bureaucratic inhibition to the proper provision of the necessary resources. I am sure that the whole country is united behind the right hon. Lady on this matter. Resources and personnel should be provided to ensure that sufficient food is given and effectively delivered to the needy in Ethiopia.
    The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. British food aid shipments are already arriving regularly. The main problem is the internal distribution. We cannot choke existing port facilities that are under heavy strain. The additional 6,000 tonnes of food aid allocated yesterday will arrive in Ethiopia before the end of the year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Year?"] We are urgently consulting our ambassador in Addis Ababa on how the £5 million can be put to the best possible use. We shall have to ship food and pay for its internal transport We are providing lorries to facilitate unloading and are considering other equipment needed by the port. We are also considering the provision of drilling rigs to secure water supplies for relief camps. We shall continue to provide other forms of direct disaster relief, including medical supplies. Everything that can be done will be done.
    Mr. Penhaligonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Penhaligon: As the Prime Minister so magnificently organised the commandeering of enough ships to carry our Navy, Army and Air Force to the Falklands, will she explain why the famine relief in Ethiopia presents such a problem?
    The Prime Minister: I have already explained the reasons. We do not wish to choke existing port facilities that are already under heavy strain. The analogy which the hon. Gentleman attempted to draw was wholly false.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, much as we deplore the ludicrous incident with the French security man, many of us would be distressed were that regrettable incident to mar the visit of the French President? Is she further aware that we would also regret it if that incident had any effect on the French ambassador, who is a very good friend of this country?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. It was a most regrettable incident. The French authorities are aware of our view that it was wholly wrong for the individual to act in the way that he did. They regret the misunderstanding.
    It is of great concern that explosive materials were brought into Britain. Urgent discussions have begun, and will continue, with the French Government about the incident. I agree with my hon. Friend that it should not be allowed to mar the success of the French visit. President Mitterrand is a welcome and honoured guest in our country.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Prime Minister feel it to be preposterous that a body calling itself the European Parliament should presume to debate and vote upon a matter internal to the United Kingdom—the dispute in the mining industry?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. If the European Parliament attempts to debate a British internal matter, that will diminish that Parliament.

    Poverty
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister what new steps the Government are taking to reduce poverty in the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: A better standard of living depends upon our success in creating more wealth in the country as a whole. This year's gross domestic product is now at its highest ever level, and income is higher than at any time under the last Labour Government. Resources have also been provided for a real increase in social security benefit rates of £2·75 billion since 1979. The retirement pension is at its highest ever level; so is the child benefit; so is spending on benefits for the sick and disabled; so are heating allowances. The Government intend to continue with the policies which have achieved these results.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the right hon. Lady realise that that answer will be of little comfort to the poor in Britain? Is it not true that under her Government the number of people living in poverty has increased and that the length of time that they have to live in poverty has also steadily increased? Will she consult her handbag to find out whether she has any unpaid bills for major items such as clothing, and reflect on the fact that for a large number of people living in poverty the unpaid bill is a nightmare and that many of them have less to spend in their annual budget for clothing than people in this House spend on one such item?
    The Prime Minister: There are certainly more people on supplementary benefits than there were. There is an increase in the number of pensioners, but the main increase has been in the number of unemployed who have resort to supplementary benefits. The benefits which those on supplementary benefit receive are, in real terms, greater than they ever were under the previous Government.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that because there is such a close and obvious connection between poverty and unemployment, the most useful thing that the trade unions could do would be to abate their wage demands?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct in making the connection between wage demands and unemployment. Those countries with the lowest unemployment rate are those with the lowest unit wage costs. The essential thing is to have a connection between wage demands and increased output. If we are to get unemployment down, it is also essential not to have the number of strikes that we now have.

    Engagements
    Mr. Heddleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Heddle: Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to study the remarks made by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers when arriving at talks with the National Coal Board today, when he said that he had nothing to offer in these talks? Is this not the clearest possible sign that, although he may talk of wanting a negotiated settlement, he has neither the wish nor the will to negotiate or settle?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will agree that the settlement reached with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers yesterday was a fair one. It was a settlement reached between a union which was anxious to settle but had certain points to put to the NCB, and it was a settlement which suited NACODS and the NCB because it enabled the latter to run the coal industry efficiently and in accordance with its statutory obligations. I hope that any other people on strike will agree that that was a good settlement and join NACODS in accepting it and ending the strike.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Prime Minister not understand that there will be no return to work in the coal mining industry—[Interruption.]—until there is a settlement that is acceptable to the NUM and its membership? What action or initiative does the Prime Minister have to bring about such a settlement?
    The Prime Minister: The NCB has already negotiated within the limit of its statutory obligations, which are to run the industry efficiently, in accordance with the nationalised industries Acts and the objectives that it has been given. There is no longer any industrial reason for this dispute to continue.
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Baker: Is it not the case that those miners who are working are those who have had a local ballot, and that the members of NACODS are working after having a ballot? Therefore, would it not be appropriate if those who are on strike were allowed the opportunity to have a ballot? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had a conversation this morning with the family of a miner on strike, which revealed that many who are on strike would like to have a ballot and would like to work?
    The Prime Minister: There are some 70,000 people at work in the collieries under the NCB. Most of those people exercised their right to have a ballot and voted to

    807
    continue to work under the rules of the NUM. They are at work, and so are the members of NACODS—which also had a ballot—as are those who work for the other union. Of the people on strike, I believe that most would like to have a ballot so that they can express their wish to return to work. They are being prevented only by the leadership of the NUM, supported by the Labour party and mob violence.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister have regard to the serious incident at the Stanley Royd hospital in my constituency during the summer recess, in which it is alleged that 21 people died through food poisoning? Is she
    808
    aware of the concern over the incident and the allegations that have been made about shortages of materials and staff? Will she impress upon her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the need to speed up the public inquiry so that evidence can be taken while events are fresh in the minds of those who want to give it, and the matter resolved?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the incident and I shall make a point of bringing it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. I shall draw his attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Budget and Excel Holidays
3.30 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the collapse of Budget and Excel Holidays.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) for giving me this opportunity to make a brief statement on the collapse of Budget and Excel Holidays.
The Budget group of companies went into receivership yesterday, triggered it seems by the refusal by Brittania Airways, owed money by the group, to carry any more passengers booked with it. The consequences of this failure are inevitably upsetting for those who have paid in advance for holidays with Budget and Excel but who have yet to take those holidays. Those currently abroad on holiday must be very worried about getting home. I am pleased to be able to give the House total reassurance on both these points.
Those who have paid for but not yet taken holidays will get their money back in full. The Budget group's financial bonds should be enough to meet all refunds. If not, the air travel reserve fund stands in reserve and has ample funds. Subject to availability, travel agents should be able to offer immediate alternative holidays to those affected at no extra cost.
The Civil Aviation Authority and the Association of British Travel Agents already have arrangements in hand to repatriate those overseas. Last night's flights left on time, bringing home those due to return yesterday. Aircraft have been chartered through to 11 o'clock tonight to return those finishing their holidays today. Further flights are being arranged and both the CAA and ABTA are doing their best to ensure that everyone overseas gets their full holiday. Everyone will be repatriated at no cost to themselves.
It may be helpful if I explain briefly to the House the position of the CAA's monitoring of this group of companies. The CAA began to have serious concerns about these companies a few weeks ago. The authority has also put its own auditors into the group. It was, of course, always faced with the fact that many of the holidays were booked well in advance. In the absence of the group satisfying the CAA, it seems likely that its air travel organiser's licence would shortly have been revoked in any case. It is a matter of judgment whether the CAA should have moved to revoke the air traffic organiser's licence earlier in the season and thus have left stranded even more holidaymakers.
The holiday industry has been going through a difficult period. There have been a number of recent failures brought about by price cutting and a switch to late booking, which has dried up cash flows. The signs are, however, that brochure prices next year will be substantially higher. Despite the recent problems, the financial arrangements of the industry coupled with the air travel reserve fund are such that, as in the Budget and Excel cases, holidaymakers need not fear for their money.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also considering an independent report by Sir Peter Lane which suggest ways in which the present arrangements might be
810
further strengthened. We are giving this the closest consideration and the CAA is currently consulting the industry on higher bonding levels. I hope shortly to make a further statement about this.
Mr. Douglas: I thank the Minister for that reply, but his last remarks involve considerable disquite. Sir Peter Lane reported in July and one of the recommendations was that the CAA should tighten up the procedures. Has this not been done? What is the total cost of repatriation procedures involving holidaymakers? Will there be any recourse to the funds of the air travel reserve fund? What is the morality of a position whereby holidaymakers pay well in advance—sometimes eight weeks—for holidays, which means that the funds are with the travel company? If such companies collapse, the holidaymakers have to pay again, through an increased levy or by other means. Are those the ethics of capitalism today?
Mr. Spicer: Obviously, it is difficult to get a definite cost, but we think that at the moment it is about £2 million, which would be fully covered by the £3·8 million bonding arrangements. The answer to the question whether there will be any need to draw from the air travel reserve fund is no. That is how we see the position at the moment. The answer to the question whether one can give any total guarantee to holidaymakers that the companies with which they book will not run into financial difficulties must clearly be no. The present guarantees that holidaymakers obtain through the various arrangements must be far higher than those obtained by any other customers who obtain any other form of service.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Although I regret the inconvenience to which holiday-makers will be subjected, is it not wise to underline the fact that the state of consumer protection for package holidaymakers is such a combination of CAA bonding and the air travel reserve fund means that, unlike the position a decade ago, when considerable financial loss was incurred, the people who are affected now will suffer no more than inconvenience? In the event of further tour company failures, which are being predicted, will my hon. Friend examine the efficiency of the operation of the combined system of bonding and the ATRF and decide whether Sir Peter Lane was not unduly dismissive of the possible alternative of insurance arrangements?
Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said in the first part of his question. We believe that holidaymakers are well covered at the moment. We are not, however, complacent about that, as is implied in the second part of my hon. Friend's question. Clearly, there is always room for improvement. If one of the biggest operators went under in the middle of the peak season, there would be pressure on the combined funds. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked Sir Peter Lane to ascertain whether there were ways in which we could strengthen the funding arrangements. That is why we are looking at his report and why we have every intention of doing what we can to strengthen the funding further.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: No doubt the House is glad that it has been confirmed that no money will be lost on these occasions, but a great number of holidays for members of the public will be spoilt. The Under-Secretary of State will realise, of course, that Budget Holidays is the

811
leading direct-sell firm in this area and that the collapse involves the failure of not one but four firms—Excel Holidays, Budget America, Bargain Travel and Airsave Travel. The hon. Gentleman will realise also that this year there were two earlier failures—of Ventura Holidays and Vantage Holidays. In the light of those facts, does not the hon. Gentleman believe that there is a need for greater safeguarding of the public? Does he realise that many have thought that his earlier statement did not convey the kind of urgency that is required in these matters?
Mr. Spicer: This is not, of course, a happy event for holidaymakers. It is a matter not just of their being threatened with losing money—they have not—but of having their holidays disrupted. As I said in my statement, we are doing everything that we can to ensure that those who wish to continue their holidays can do so for the next few days of those holidays. We accept that there may be a case for strengthening the arrangements. There will always be a case for strengthening the arrangements. We are certainly doing everything that we can in that respect. We shall shortly publish a statement about that matter.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that, short of nationalising all the people involved in the travel business, there is no way in which one can guarantee that companies will not go bust? I should not have thought that that would appeal to my hon. Friend, and I do not think that it would appeal to the people as a whole to have nationalised holidays. This industry gives better cover to its consumers through the two plans that are available than is available to any consumer of any other industry.
Mr. Spicer: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The fact is, of course, that this is a dynamic industry which during the past few years has grown from 600 to 700 operators. In those circumstances, from time to time there will doubtless be some companies that are not financially prudent. Bar the kind of ghastly alternative that my hon. Friend has suggested, there is no way that one can give a complete guarantee; it does, however, give the best possible customer protection of any industry.
Mr. David Young: Are not the Government now becoming over-complacent? The Opposition are not asking for the nationalising of the industry; we are asking that the operators be responsible to the consumers who pay their wages. Will the Government tighten the requirements and ensure that operators provide resources to cover their commitments before they soak customers?
Mr. Spicer: There is no question of complacency. That is why my right hon. Friend initiated the strengthening of this protection in the summer by asking Sir Peter Lane to make a report. We shall be making an announcement about that soon.
Mr. Bill Walker: While accepting that there is always need to strengthen requirements and protection, this industry has substantial protection. Does my hon. Friend agree that many hundreds of thousands of people in the United Kingdom have enjoyed what can only be described as bargain holidays over the past 18 months because of the price cutting that has been going on? That is the plus side for all those people who had bargain holidays. It is an industry that employs a great many people and provides work for our airline operators as well as the tour operators. We must therefore always look carefully at the plus as well as the down side.
Mr. Spicer: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. People certainly would not obtain bargain holidays from a nationalised industry.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Minister accept that it is disturbing that there should have been a further major failure in the travel industry, which inevitably causes great inconvenience and disappointment, particularly when it follows a number of other failures in the industry in recent weeks? We accept, of course, that when the Government's economic policies are doing such enormous damage to the economy and producing so many record insolvencies, it would be unrealistic to expect the travel industry to be immune. We are worried about the fate of those who are disadvantaged by these failures. In that context, I wonder whether the Minister could say a further word about the estimated 2,000 holidaymakers who booked their holidays with Excel Holidays after 16 October. Given that the Association of British Travel Agents' protection offered by that firm expired on that date, can he say what steps were taken to draw to the attention of holidaymakers who bought holidays after that date the fact that the protection no longer existed? Finally, will he say whether he is satisfied that adequate consular protection will be available to those holidaymakers already abroad whose holidays have been disrupted?
Mr. Spicer: On the second point about consuls, I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is made fully aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The position is that funds are fully available for protecting all those who have any money at stake.

Business of the House
3.45 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir.

MONDAY 29 OCTOBER—Further consideration of Lords amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Motion relating to the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations. Lords amendments to the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill. Completion of remaining stages of the Rents (Scotland) Bill [Lords] which is a consolidation measure.

TUESDAY 30 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the unemployment situation on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

WEDNESDAY 31 OCTOBER—Motions on the General Consumer Council (Northern Ireland) Order. Ratification of treaty amending the status of Greenland within the EC order. Motion on salary of Data Protection Registrar. Debate on motions to approve the first report from the Select Committee on Procedure 1983–84 No. 570 on short speeches. Debate on motion to approve the report of the. Services Committee on all-party groups.

The House may also be asked to consider other business as necessary. Prorogation will be on Wednesday 31 October and the new Session will be opened on Tuesday 6 November.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
I am glad that the Government are providing an opportunity on Tuesday for a debate on the deteriorating unemployment position, but I am rather surprised and sorry that apparently the Prime Minister will not be contributing to that debate. Given the Lord Privy Seal's relationship with the right hon. Lady, could he prevail upon her to change her mind about speaking in Tuesday's debate?
Before the summer recess, the right hon. Gentleman assured me that we could have a debate in Government time in the autumn on the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. The report shows that the increase in National Health Service expenditure has been not 17 per cent. as the Government claimed but 7 per cent. May I press the right hon. Gentleman again to ensure that the House has an early opportunity for a debate to show that the Health Service really is safe in the Government's hands?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman asks for a debate on the report of the Social Services Committee. I suggest that that is a matter that we should pursue through the usual channels.
As for Tuesday's debate on unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman asks why the Prime Minister decided not to contribute. I think that it was out of a sense of anxiety about the right hon. Gentleman's own reckless masochism.
Mr. John Stokes: On Monday we shall continue to debate the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Can my right hon. Friend now say whether the Government intend to oppose Lord Scarman's amendment, as they did in the other place? Has my right
814
hon. Friend had a chance since this morning to read Ronald Butt's excellent article on the subject in The Times?
Mr. Biffen: The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is no. The answer to his first question is also no, in the sense that that information will be imparted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government arrange time for a ministerial statement about what representations the Government have made to ensure that the gentleman who committed the outrageous crime of bringing explosives into the country from France is prosecuted in an English court for that offence? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that in that statement we are told why that person was treated by the Metropolitan police with a degree of favour which would not be vouchsafed to a British subject, who by now would probably be in Brixton prison?
Mr. Biffen: I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a very dignified manner, expressed the disquiet felt in the House about that episode. What is more, she had the good sense to put it in the context of a balance. I do not think that I can helpfully add to what she said.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will give early priority to a full debate on the report of the Public Accounts Committee and the Government's reply on the scandal of the De Lorean company?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point very much in mind.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Leader of the House explain why there cannot now be a debate on the dispute in the mining industry for nearly three weeks, until the Queen's Speech and the Humble Address are disposed of, particularly as the courts have today decided to sequestrate the entire assets of the National Union of Mineworkers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Conservative Members may applaud, but the consequences of that action are bound to be very grave. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that it is not a matter that in your judgment should take precedence over the business, and my right hon. Friends have no power in the matter as all the Supply days have been exhausted. Will the Leader of the House explain why he is prepared to allow the dispute to continue without any parliamentary discussion for a period of three weeks?
Mr. Biffen: Because I judge that the business announced for next week is what is necessary for the fulfilment of our commitments for the current Session and because I am sufficiently realistic to know that the topic will feature considerably in the debate on the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend consider making time available for a debate on the effects of the strike among social security officials? That would give us all a valuable chance to see whether the Labour party is keener to support the strikers or the elderly pensioners who are the defenceless victims of the strike.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend indicates why such a debate would certainly have a lively character, but there is no possibility of its taking place next week.
Mr. Frank Field: If there were a famine in Britain rather than Ethiopia, many of us would be claiming that the response of the international community was inadequate. Will the Leader of the House find time next week for us to debate the Government's response?
Mr. Biffen: Obviously, the programme for next week is as I have announced, but I say at once that I am fully conscious of the deep anxiety about the famine in Ethiopia, and I hope that we shall soon have a chance to debate it.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1005, in my name and the names of 50 other hon. Members?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to provide Parliamentary time for an early debate on the question of the death penalty being made available for acts of terrorism.]
Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of finding time, either in this Session or early next Session, to enable a debate to take place? Will he also bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary? I think that the House is very concerned that 91 people have been killed and over 1,000 injured as a result of terrorism.
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend informed me, via the letter columns of The Times newspaper, that it is his intention to introduce a Bill in the next parliamentary Session, so I realise that he will be turning his energies in that direction. As the question of Private Members' Bills will be resolved very early in the next Session of Parliament, perhaps we can wait and see what happens then.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the Leader of the House aware that defence Ministers will meet in Brussels in December to consider, as recommended by their officials, the adoption of the airland battle strategy? If that strategy is adopted, it will take us another giant step towards total nuclear annihilation. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that hon. Members should have an opportunity to speak to the Secretary of State for Defence before he goes to Brussels? Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to make a statement to this House?
Mr. Biffen: In view of the timing of the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, it is clear that it is a topic which can feature in the debate on the Queen's Speech.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1016:
[That this House calls for an early debate of the Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology.]
It has been signed by 66 hon. Members, and that is an indication of the importance that many hon. Members attach to an early debate. Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that we shall be able to discuss the report in the very near future?
Mr. Biffen: In the words of all those who have stood at this Dispatch Box down the ages, I can hold out sympathy and it might stretch to hope, but I would not like to push it much further.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: I refer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for
816
Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) concerning the news on the tape that the funds of the NUM have been sequestrated. It is a very serious matter, despite the howls of approval that we heard from the Conservative Benches. Am Ito take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question on this very serious action—it will be regarded as provocative—that he does not intend to make arrangements for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box, either today or next week, to make a statement?
Mr. Biffen: If my remarks about a debate on the coal industry are to be regarded as provocative, there must be an army of people looking feverishly for provocation. Of course, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the possibility of a statement to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I remind the House that energy questions are first for answer on Monday 29 October. Hon. Members should try to exploit that opportunity as well.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: As the House will be sitting rather late on Monday night, would my right hon. Friend like to spend some time on Monday night reflecting on the advantages of the special procedure by which Standing Committees can take evidence, and would he like to think of applying that procedure next Session to the Bill which is designed to give legislative effect to the White Paper on buses?
Mr. Biffen: I am certainly not prepared to accept the premise about the House sitting late on Monday. As I do not accept the premise, I am immediately excused from considering any consequences.
Mr. Greville Janner: May the House have an early opportunity to debate sentencing policy in the light of the derisory sentences that are so often imposed on those who kill on our roads, and particularly in the light of the case during the recess when a hit-and-run driver who had been drinking and who was untaxed and uninsured, ran down and killed a child whose body was thrown over a fence, and was then sentenced to a mere £500 fine and three years' disqualification? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House should discuss the public outrage at such cases and the fact that the courts and the law are being brought into disrepute by such cases?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a serious point, but in the first instance it might be suitable for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any statement on the dreadful famine in Ethiopia should deal not only with the important matter of immediate food relief but the equally important long-term question of helping the people of Ethiopia to grow food with which to feed themselves?
Mr. Biffen: I accept that at once. It reinforces my anxiety that the House should have an early opportunity to debate that topic.
Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the great concern in many fishing areas following the decision of the Community Council of Fisheries Ministers in September about the increase in percentage by-catch by the Norwegian pout fishery. It is disappointing not to have the

817
opportunity to discuss the matter on our return from the recess, but will there be an opportunity for a debate near the beginning of the new Session?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman may find that the debate on the Queen's Speech is as good an opportunity as he will have to discuss the matter.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend say when Her Majesty's Government will make a statement to the House about British citizens incarcerated in Libya without charge or trial and how much longer we shall be silent on that subject?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has come back to the House after our break showing a proper regard for that subject. I shall refer his question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. As this is the last opportunity for business questions before this Session ends, I shall call those Members who have been standing in their places, but I ask them to be brief.
Mr. Allan Roberts: When will the Government produce a response to the report by the Select Committee on the Environment on acid rain which was published during the recess, and when will the Leader of the House ensure that the House can debate that report?
Mr. Biffen: I am aware of the interest in the Government's response and I also aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), the Chairman of the Select Committee, has been given an indication that time will be found for that matter to be debated.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we have a debate on the two-faced hypocrisy of the Government towards law and order, taking into account the following facts? Yesterday someone came across from the Common Market threatening to plant bombs and got away with it, but the bail conditions for two miners aged 18 and 26 from Whitwell, Derbyshire mean that they have to move 400 miles away to Caithness in Scotland in internal exile. We should also bear in mind the fact that today the funds of the miners' union were seized, yet on 30 September the same Government, instead of allowing Johnson Matthey, the gold bullion dealers whose reserves were exhausted, to collapse, used the Bank of England and all their friends and allies in the casino economy to bail them out. Is not that an example of double standards and hypocrisy?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman's question shows that for him politics is a many-splendoured thing. I suggest that a speech as wide ranging as that question can most adroitly be inserted in the debate on the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attended two international conferences since the beginning of the
818
summer recess—the IMF conference and the Toronto conference on the world debt crisis—is it not time that he made a statement to the House explaining his part in the disgraceful and inadequate decisions taken to deal with poverty in the world today?
Mr. Biffen: Without accepting all or indeed much of the hon. Gentleman's elaboration, I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is apprised of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety that a statement should be made.
Mr. Robert Parry: Following the recent excellent campaign by the Liverpool Echo about the massive increase in drug addiction and especially heroin addiction on Merseyside, when will there be a debate in the House on this very important matter?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot say when there will be a debate on that specific subject, but I will cetainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: As leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman represents all Members in all parts of the House. He will be aware of the strong attachment of all Members to Westminster hospital in view of the services that it renders and has rendered to us for a number of years. Is there any chance of the House as a whole being involved in the consultations now taking place which may well dismember important parts of that hospital and eventually lead to its closure? Will the right hon. Gentleman take some initiative on a non-party basis so that the House as a whole may be drawn into the consultations?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into that.
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Leader of the House has already acknowledged that there should be an early debate on Ethiopia. He will recall that the Government published their aid programme in July, but the House has not yet had an opportunity to debate it. Does he agree that we might be in a better position to deal with problems such as those in Ethiopia if we were to adopt a more realistic approach to aid and development?
Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that any debate on the famine in Ethiopia could probably best be prosecuted in a somewhat wider framework. In that sense, I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. David Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Manchester and Liverpool airports are keyed to the economic development of the north-west? In view of Government policy on airlines and so forth, may we expect an early debate on those airports before the Government make any final decision about a third London airport?
Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. Indeed, a voice behind me reminds me that concern is not confined to one side of the House. I shall certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Hong Kong
4.3 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I will, with permission, make a statement on developments during the recess in the negotiations between the British and Chinese Governments on the future of Hong Kong.
During my discussions in Peking with Chinese leaders in late July I was able to resolve most of the major issues outstanding in the negotiations. I gave a progress report in a statement in Hong Kong on 1 August. Copies of that statement were placed in the Library of the House on the same day.
Negotiations continued on the remaining unresolved issues and were brought to a successful conclusion on 22 September. As a result, a draft agreement consisting of a joint declaration and three annexes was initialled on 26 September by the British ambassador in Peking and the Chinese Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Zhou Nan. It was published on the same day in a White Paper in London and Hong Kong and laid before the House.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the following important features of the draft agreement. It constitutes a formal international agreement, legally binding in all its parts. This is the highest form of commitment that can be given by one sovereign state to another. It deals in considerable detail with Chinese policies towards Hong Kong after 1997 and thus provides a framework in which the people of Hong Kong can plan and work for a secure and prosperous future. It thus provides for Hong Kong's distinctive economic and social systems, freedoms and lifestyle to continue unchanged. It makes it clear that the policies which it spells out for Hong Kong will be stipulated in a basic law to be passed by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China and will remain unchanged for 50 years after 1997.
It is now for the people of Hong Kong to give their views on the draft agreement. The House has already been informed of the arrangements which have been made to enable them to do so. More than 2 million copies of the White Paper have been distributed in the territory.
I am very glad to be able to tell the House that the Executive Council of Hong Kong has felt able to recommend the draft agreement to the people of Hong Kong—in the words of the senior unofficial member—"in good conscience." The House will also wish to know that at the conclusion of its debate last week the Hong Kong Legislative Council gave the draft agreement its overwhelming support and similarly commended it to the people of Hong Kong. Beyond that, I have been encouraged by the favourable reactions which have come from many other public bodies and individuals in Hong Kong and by the wide international welcome which the draft agreement has received.
The House will in due course wish to know the extent to which the draft agreement as a whole is acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. It was made quite clear in the White Paper that the draft agreement itself cannot be amended, but the views expressed in Hong Kong on all parts of it will be of value in our continuing discussions with the Chinese, particularly in the joint liaison group. I am sure that the House would wish me to urge everyone in Hong Kong to submit their views on all these aspects to the assessment office.
820
The report of the assessment office, together with that of the monitoring team, will be published at about the end of November. The House will, of course, attach great importance to these reports when it debates the draft agreement and I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be seeking to give the House an early opportunity to debate the matter after the publication of the reports.
It would not be right to anticipate that debate, but the Government have made quite clear their own view that the draft agreement provides the assurances which are necessary if the people of Hong Kong are to face the future with confidence. In the words of the White Paper:
"Her Majesty's Government believe that the Agreement is a good one. They strongly recommend it to the people of Hong Kong and to Parliament."
Mr. Denis Healey: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the skill, patience and flexibility that he has shown in conducting an exceptionally delicate negotiation, which may set important precedents in other areas. The agreement must be regarded as the most outstanding achievement of British diplomacy since Lord Carrington concluded the Rhodesian negotiations and the state of Zimbabwe was born. In Hong Kong, as in Zimbabwe, the role of the Foreign Secretary was critical, because the Prime Minister's intemperate intervention at an earlier stage had threatened to torpedo the negotiations before they had even begun.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree that the Opposition have given him every assistance when it would have been all too easy for an irresponsible Opposition to seek to exploit some of the difficulties, to party advantage.
I am glad to hear that the House is to debate the agreement before the end of the year when the consultations are complete. If, as I expect, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House receives representations from both sides, I hope he will agree to a two-day debate so that the matter can be fully explored and all points of view fully expressed.
In the light of that impending debate, I shall not raise any points of detail now. I would say only that in my view it is the best possible agreement and very much better than many believed possible even six months ago.
However, let me make two points at this stage which arise out of the agreement or which are not included in it. First, I gather that there is some concern in Hong Kong that the assessment office, which is responsible for gauging public opinion, is insisting that all comment should be given in writing, properly signed, with the full name and address of the writer. I understand why that is so, but there is some anxiety in the colony that information about the views of individuals might later become available to persons and used for victimisation. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can assure the House that such letters will remain strictly confidential and that he will ensure that there is no risk that they could ever be used at a later stage to victimise the writers.
The second point is much more general. Inevitably, a change of status in a territory of this magnitude has disturbed some of the older citizens of the territory and led them to consider packing up sticks and going somewhere else. Knowing a little the character of the Chinese in Hong Kong, I am certain that two new millionaires will spring up where every one old millionaire has left.
I am more concerned about the conduct of British business men in Hong Kong. It has been noticeable that

821
the American business community has taken a far more optimistic view of the future in Hong Kong than have some of the more self-regarding and old-established British firms, perhaps because they expect to be able to compete on more equal terms for business from now on. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it would be a pity if in Hong Kong, as in so many other ex-British colonies, constitutional change led to foreign firms taking business from British firms which were incapable of adjusting to the new status.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not endorse his observations about the Prime Minister's part at the outset of negotiations. Subject to that, I want to express to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Opposition Benches my appreciation of the congratulations that he has tendered today, and, rightly, for the support that I have received in the course of the many discussions and consultations which we have all had to have about this. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will certainly take note of what was said about the length of the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the desirability of allowing the assessment office to obtain evidence as widely as it can. It is an impressive feature that in a territory with not many more than 5 million people 2 million copies of the agreement have been taken up. That shows the intensity of interest there. For those who are unable to submit written evidence when arrangements can be made they will be able to do so orally through local offices, although it is obviously preferable for such evidence to be in writing wherever possible. The Government of Hong Kong and I are aware of the right hon. Gentleman's point about the need for confidentiality to be preserved in order to avoid any threat of subsequent victimisation. We shall be taking steps to deal with that.
It would be regrettable if the confidence expressed were affected by decisions hereafter of an investment or other nature which were differentiated by reference to nationality. The key point which I sought to emphasise many times in my discussions with the Chinese is that confidence depends on the way in which the system is established and will behave. It is confidence that will command the decisions of a multitude of individual investors. I am sure the House will hope that British investors will continue to play an active part.
Mr. Russell Johnston: I also congratulate the Secretary of State and his officials warmly not only on the agreement achieved, but on the co-operative atmosphere that has been created.
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any discussions with the Chinese about involving Hong Kong Chinese with both sides of the liaison? Has he encountered any objection from the People's Republic to the development by the United Kingdom over the next 13 years of directly elected institutions in Hong Kong?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that the agreement cannot be amended, but could it be flexibly evolved to take account of views?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's last point in my statement. I said that while the agreement cannot be amended representations made about it in the years that lie ahead are appropriate to be taken into account by the joint liaison group.
822
The agreement provides for the Legislature of Hong Kong in the future to be on an elective basis and for the Executive to be accountable to that Legislature. The Hong Kong Government have published a Green Paper foreshadowing the certain changes in the representative arrangements in Hong Kong. They are now considering public comment on those proposals. The comment that has been made generally gives support to the principle of gradual development of representative institutions, perhaps along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It is hoped that a White Paper setting out the reaction of the Hong Kong Government will be published shortly.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point on the joint liaison group. It is clear from the text of the second annex to the agreement that each side will determine the composition of its delegation. We shall ensure that Hong Kong is appropriately represented.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he had to say about the negotiation of the agreement and I endorse specifically what he said about the part played by the officials, who gave sustained and dedicated service through many long months of negotiation which became increasingly intense as the months went by. No Government could have wished for more devoted service from the civil servants taking part from Britain and Hong Kong.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Conservative Members will endorse the judgment of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he said that this was the best possible agreement that could be obtained in the circumstances? I say that because of the detail that it contains and the grounds that it gives for believing that it is likely to last.
In endorsing what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the role that officials played in securing the agreement, will he accept my congratulations on his role, not least in July, when it is pretty clear that he played a big role in unblocking the log-jam which existed, at which time I understand that he earned the admiration of the Chinese negotiators for his inscrutable diplomacy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has had to say. I should also like to take the opportunity of saying how large a part was played in the management and conduct of the negotiations by my opposite number, Mr. Wu Xueqian, the Chinese Foreign Minister. It was crucial to our capacity to succeed that we were able to establish a cordial, friendly and practical relationship with each other.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the agreement is most welcome, but that its effectiveness will depend not only on events in China but on the readiness of the people of Hong Kong to develop a form of government that can continue after 1997? Can he confirm that the White Paper on constitutional developments in Hong Kong will be published before the debate in the House so that we can debate it? Is he aware that it is most important that that White Paper should provide at least as much as is already in the agreement—the election of the Legislative Council and the election for appointment of the chief executive after consultations within Hong Kong?
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that while the emphasis in Hong Kong is on the maintenance

823
of stability and gradualism in the development of representative institutions, there is very little time and the people of Hong Kong look to the House to set the pace for what is already an ambitious time scale?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of the point made about the date of publication of the White Paper by the Hong Kong Government. I cannot give an absolute assurance as to the date, but I shall certainly draw that point to their attention. Clearly, it would be helpful if it could be published before the debate took place.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has thought carefully about the pace of development of representative institutions, because he has taken a close interest in the matter. It must be borne in mind that the general position supported by those who have commented in Hong Kong is one of support for the gradual development of representative institutions. The position stated in the agreement is that we start from where we are now. The precise pace of development will be a matter for consideration in the White Paper and after its publication.
Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): I was in Hong Kong when the agreement was signed and remained there for a week afterwards, and therefore was able to form some impression of its reception there. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there was general admiration for the achievement of himself, the governor and the team of diplomats in arriving at such a detailed, comprehensive and understanding agreement? However, the agreement will not come into operation for 14 years.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the maintenance of confidence over that period will depend very much on the conduct of the signatory powers? For instance, the Chinese Government should produce a basic law which is a faithful reflection of the agreement, and it is equally important that Britain should appear genuinely to be committed to Hong Kong right up to 1997 and should retain a great interest in the area long after that.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and, in particular, for his reminder of the important part played throughout the process not only by the Executive Council members and the members of the Legislative Council, to whom I have already referred, but also by the governor of Hong Kong. The governor bore a double burden, being a continuous member of the negotiating team as well as governor of the territory. I am sure that the House will wish to pay tribute to him.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the maintenance of confidence depends upon the continuous pattern of behaviour of both the signatory powers. The agreement provides for the text to be reflected in the basic law to be introduced by the People's Republic of China. That is an important feature of the agreement. Continued participatory confidence by the United Kingdom is equally important.
Mr. Tom Clarke: In our last debate on this matter great concern was expressed on both sides of the House about the Vietnamese refugees who were living in appalling conditions in apparently permanent camps. After his visit, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman now better able to assure the House that something positive is being done about that matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is not something that arises on this statement, although it is a matter about which the
824
hon. Gentleman is right to be continuously concerned. I can give him no specific assurance today, but if he will put down a question or write to me I shall tell him what I can.
Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly been praised by hon. Members in all parts of the House for his achievement. I hope that he will also be encouraged by the fact that the only overt opposition to the agreement has come from Moscow and T'ai-pei. If both the political extremes are opposed to what is being done, should not the vast majority of people in the middle take pleasure in the fact that the two parties have probably got it right?
In view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to take careful note of what is being said in Hong Kong about the need for the White Paper to be rather more forthcoming than the Green Paper. Can he give us a general assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not allow ultra-conservative elements in Hong Kong to prevent the development of democratic institutions in due course?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I note my hon. Friend's advice about the way in which to judge the quality of opposition in this as in other matters.
My hon. Friend asked about the extent to which the White Paper will go beyond the Green Paper. He knows from his long experience of Hong Kong that there is a wide spread of opinion on this matter. The Government of Hong Kong have taken account of that and will bear the point in mind.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the developments in the economic zone of Shensen province in south China, where about US $450 million has been invested from Hong Kong sources as part of a total of US $2,000 million that has been promised from the same sources? Is he aware that the Chinese Government have every intention of expanding the prosperity of Hong Kong northwards to south China, to the benefit of the people of Hong Kong and of China?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is indeed the case—I am glad to hear this tribute from a Labour Member—that China is applying within its own economy measures which recognise the importance of liberalising markets and encouraging private investment from overseas. That is happening in the Shensen economic zone, and it will be interesting to see it happening alongside Hong Kong.
Mr. Roger Sims: I add my congratulations to those offered to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the much-travelled and hard-worked negotiating team, and I extend the congratulations to the Chinese team. Between them, the two teams have achieved an agreement which represents a remarkable step forward In British-Chinese relations.
I am not clear about the composition of the joint liaison group, whose head is to be a senior diplomat. Is it intended that other interests such as business and commerce will be represented? If not, can my right hon. and learned Friend say how such outside interests will be able to have some sort of input?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The composition of the liaison group has not yet been decided, but among its methods of working will be the use of sub-groups designed to deal

825
with particular topics. I think that the intention will be to make sure that it has available to it the people most appropriate to deal with topics under discussion.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Foreign Secretary recollect the moving statement by our ambassador in the Great Hall of the People in Peking about the legacies of the past being solved by peaceful negotiation? If we can reach agreement with the Chinese on Hong Kong, and if Argentina can reach agreement with Chile about the Beagle channel, is it beyond the wit of the two of us to reach an agreement on that other problem?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman should take careful note of the fact that the circumstances surrounding these negotiations and those surrounding the question which takes up so much of his waking time are entirely different. There are massive geographical and historical differences. The case of Hong Kong is entirely sui generis.
Mr. Hal Miller: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on both the achievement and the scope of a legally binding agreement. Does he not agree that the scope of such an agreement focuses attention on points not covered? Can he tell us whether any attention was paid during the negotiations to the position of the Eurasian population of Hong Kong, which has made such a contribution to the middle management and infrastructure of the colony, or to civil rights as they relate to such matters as conscription and family size? If so, will discussions be continued by the joint liaison group?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises three points. I hesitate to answer in the House in any general form questions about different citizenship positions, because there are so many different permutations. There is, of course, a distinction between those who are British dependent territory citizens and those who are not. Non-Chinese British dependent territory citizens will be eligible to retain appropriate status under the British Nationality Act after 1 July 1997 if they obtain a British passport or are included in one before then.
There is specific, express and extended provision for civil rights in section XIII of annex I to the agreement, including the provisions of the international covenant on civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights.
The agreement provides that defence and foreign affairs are the concern of the Chinese Government. The question of conscription is not mentioned in the agreement, but that does not mean that there will be conscription. The Chinese Government have certainly not suggested that there will be.
Public order is explicitly the responsibility of the government of the Hong Kong special administrative region.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the Foreign Secretary regard the establishment of a directly elected democratic Government as a potentially valuable safeguard of Hong Kong's continuing autonomy? If so, does he agree that it is important that that safeguard should be well established and therefore put in place as soon as possible?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is one of the factors that was borne in mind and which resulted in the inclusion of the
826
provision in the first annex for the Legislature to be constituted by elections. The hon. Gentleman makes the same type of point as that made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). If the Legislature is to be well established to secure the type of foundation that he has in mind, it must be developed and established, after proper consideration, on a due time scale.
Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my warmest congratulations on this brilliant piece of diplomacy and on the assurance that it gives Hong Kong for its long-term economic future? Does he agree that the agreement could herald a new era of a close relationship and understanding with China?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It is right that the agreement and the way in which it has been arrived at, by sensible and sustained consultation, is seen in China—it is by the Government—as something that could and should pave the way to increasing close and practically useful relations between our two countries.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I should like to join in the broad welcome that the agreement has been given. Although the Foreign Secretary described the support in the Legislative Council as overwhelming, will he note that two of the unofficial members found themselves unable completely to support it and therefore obliged to abstain? Bearing that in mind, is the Foreign Secretary aware that one of the areas of serious and continuing anxiety is who will draw up the basic law and what it will be? He has suggested direct Hong Kong representation in the British delegation to the joint liaison group. Will it ensure that the Hong Kong view on the content of the basic law is safeguarded, especially to allow a form of judicial review should there be conflict between the basic law and the constitution of China?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of the basic law. The agreeement provides that policies which are set out in the joint declaration and the annex will be stipulated in the basic law. I cannot give the assurance that he invites me to give as the drafting of the basic law is a matter for the Chinese Government. However, they have made it clear that the people of Hong Kong will be consulted in that process.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: May I add my voice to those who have said that this is not merely the best agreement that could have been obtained but an extremely good agreement which will enable Hong Kong to go forward with confidence on the basis of pledges from the Chinese and British Governments? That reflects great credit on my right hon. and learned Friend and his team. Perhaps I might add my voice to that of my hon. Friend who used to represent Howden——
Sir Paul Bryan: It is now Boothferry.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: He said that it is essential that we should not appear to lose interest in Hong Kong between now and 1997. It is also important that the British Council, the expansion of which is determined by the availability of money, should be given a fair hearing in decisions that are taken.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the negotiations. My hon. Friend who

827
used to represent and still represents Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) rightly echoed what my hon. Friend who used to represent Howden but now represents Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) said. It is important that British investors and traders should continue to have confidence in the territory. The agreement is designed to make that possible and sensible. As a result of my hon. Friend's distinguished position in the British Council, he will be aware of its activities in the territory. I appreciate the importance of its work but cannot give a pledge about Hong Kong.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: May I convey my congratulations to the Foreign Secretary and his Chinese counterpart on the brilliant achievement of the British and Chinese negotiating teams in forging this agreement? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some of us find the contents of the Hong Kong Government's Green Paper less satisfactory and hope that when it is transformed into a White Paper it will be a good deal more realistic about the move to truly representative government in Hong Kong? The Foreign Secretary spoke as though the assessment exercise is still under way. Am I not right in thinking that the time for representations has ended and that it is the exercise of the officer examining the papers which is currently under way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, especially about my Chinese opposite number. I shall convey to the Chinese Foreign Minister the sentiments that have been expressed generally in the House about his part in the negotiations. The assessment office is continuing its work until 15 November.
Mr. Faulds: Are representations still coming in?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes. The closing date is 15 November—seven and a half weeks after 26 September. It is due to report after 15 November. There is still time for representations to be received. The hon. Gentleman echoed what others have said about the democratic pattern of government. That is not the only point of view. The Hong Kong Government will note views that are expressed here as well as in Hong Kong.
Sir John Page: Although I do not wish completely to submerge my right hon. and learned Friend
828
under bouquets, may I also congratulate him on the calm, careful and often secret negotiations that he has been able to conduct with his Chinese counterparts? Will there be any difficulty associated with Hong Kong remaining a member of GATT?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. One of the most important things that we wanted to achieve was the prospect of Hong Kong's continued participation in GATT and other comparable international arrangements. That is provided for in the agreement.
Mr. Robert Parry: Have the Government had any discussions with the Government of Nepal about the future of the Gurkha troops based in Hong Kong? The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the effect on the economy of Nepal of the withdrawal of the troops. Has a date for their withdrawal been set?
Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that hon. Members' questions on Hong Kong will be answered fully and openly? In response to a written question yesterday, I was refused information about the size and distribution of assets in Hong Kong. Why is there a veil of secrecy? May I have a reply to that question?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer was given after due consideration of what should or should not sensibly be disclosed about matters of that type. There are matters that ought not normally to be set out in that way.
As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, consideration has not yet been given to that matter as one of those which affect the future of the Gurkha regiment. There is still a substantial amount of time before the agreement starts to operate in 1997. Nevertheless. I note the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Healey: May I conclude this unfamiliar feast of love by saying that, although I hope that this agreement sets a precedent in other areas, the unanimous congratulations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly received from both sides of the House might not quite so easily be repeated?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of that affectionate warning.

National Union of Mineworkers (Seizure of Assets)
4.39 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I told you a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, that I would beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation created by the decision of the court to seize the assets of the National Union of Mineworkers."
I was not able to give you notice before noon, Mr. Speaker, because the news only reached the Press Association at 2.30 pm and came on the tape during Question Time. It was therefore too late for notice to be given, but the Standing Order provides that when it is too late, provided that Mr. Speaker is told at once, it is open to him to rule or announce that he will rule later.
In support of my application, I point out that the court's decision is an unprecedented act which will be seen by those who have contributed to the NUM funds as theft. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said in a different context earlier, it will bring the law into disrepute and greatly worsen the crisis in the industry where an official strike has been in progress for seven months. It will put at risk the headquarters of the NUM in Sheffield, which I understand is subject to the sequestration order.
One hon. Member is a member of the executive of the NUM, in accordance with the practice relating to the miners parliamentary group. The European Assembly has found time to discuss the matter, but this House has not. I must repeat as clearly as I can that, as I said two days ago, there is a relationship between the tension on the
830
picket lines and the readiness of Parliament to discuss the greatest industrial dispute of the century. If Parliament will not discuss matters of manifest concern to people in the coal industry and in other industries and to those who cannot get coal, that will certainly bring the House into disrepute.
I strongly urge you, Mr. Speaker, to follow your judgment and to allow us to debate the matter before the new Session.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the situation created by the decision of the court to seize the assets of the National Union of Mineworkers."
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member said. I am bound by Standing Orders and I regret that I do not consider that the matters that he has raised fall within the Standing Orders as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) mentioned that an hon. Member is a member of the national executive committee of the NUM. Can you advise the House and, through us, the courts whether the hon. Member concerned would enjoy the immunities normally enjoyed by hon. Members if the courts take action to further the sequestration order made today?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question relates to a decision of the courts. I will look into the matter and report to the House.

Orders of the Day
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
    Clause 1

      POWER OF CONSTABLE TO STOP AND SEARCH PERSONS, VEHICLES ETC
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after "constable" insert "in uniform".
      4.43 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The Bill as introduced into Parliament, and as passed by this House, gave effect to the Phillips Royal Commission's recommendation that powers of stop and search should not be restricted to police officers in uniform. It was decided in another place that the powers conferred by the Bill should be so restricted. That decision was taken against the Government's very strong advice, and we continue to believe that it would seriously and unnecessarily fetter the ability of the police to deal with street crime and burglary.
      The Phillips commission made its thoughts on this matter quite clear. Paragraph 3.22 of the report said:
      "We considered whether the power to stop and search persons should be available only to a constable in uniform, and one of us favours this. Clear identification as a police constable is necessary to avoid misunderstanding, friction, and, later, disputes. We accept this as a principle but do not believe the wearing of uniform essential to its attainment in practice. The police officer should take the necessary steps to ensure that the person whom he has stopped has his name and number."
      Exactly so; and that is why clause 2(2)(i) places a duty on a plain clothes officer, before he undertakes a search, to produce his warrant card to identify himself as a police officer. If he does not do so, the search will be unlawful, and may lawfully be resisted.
      It was suggested in another place, as it was when this issue was debated in Committee here, that plain clothes officers might be mistaken for muggers, and that the Bill would create the possibility of uncertainty and conflict on the streets. But this suggestion ignores the fact that powers of search, which are already on the statute book and which may be exercised by plain clothes as well as uniformed officers, have not given rise to this kind of problem. There is no evidence that either the results obtained or the effects on relations between police and public differ according to whether the officer concerned is in uniform. If there have been isolated cases of misunderstanding, the clause 2 safeguards recommended by the Royal Commission are more than sufficient to deal with them.
      The recent Policy Studies Institute report on the Metropolitan police found that 93 per cent. of stops were made by officers in uniform, 5 per cent. by officers in plain clothes and 2 per cent. by uniformed and plain clothes officers acting together. Those figures do not suggest that excessive use is made of their present powers by plain clothes officers. But the 5 per cent. in question is important in terms of the ability of the police to deal with the kinds of offence for which powers of stop and search
      832
      are particularly useful to them. This is, of course, because plain clothes officers can keep observation and patrol inconspicuously. It would make no sense if they then lacked powers that they were in a particularly good position to exercise.
      It is, for example, well known that shop theft and pickpocketing are major problems in the Oxford street area. One important part of the police strategy for controlling and detecting such crime is the deployment of plain clothes officers. A plain clothes officer who reasonably suspects someone of carrying stolen goods or articles intended for use in offences of theft or deception should surely be able to stop and search him, subject to the usual safeguards, in exactly the same way as a uniformed colleague. If he lacked this power, he would have either to let the person who had aroused his suspicions walk away, or fall back upon his powers of arrest. The former would be a breach of duty; and the trouble with the latter is that many arrests will be made which a quick negative search would have avoided. That would hardly be a result which was conducive to police effectiveness or good community relations.
      In short, we can see no case for agreeing to the amendment, which departs from the Royal Commission's express recommendations.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It has been suggested here and in another place that the powers of stop and search included in the Bill are those that existed previously in London, but were not needed in other parts of the country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill seeks to apply the London power throughout the whole country? That has been the basic argument against the provision.
      Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that much of the Bill and many of the powers are deliberately designed to provide properly co-ordinated arrangements throughout the country. Many aspects of stop and search are ludicrously different in various parts of the country.
      Surely the plain clothes officer has a crucial part to play in detecting and helping to prevent crime on the streets. It would be sensible that the power in the Bill should not be confined to officers in uniform.
      The Lords amendment introduces a strange anomaly because it applies only to the powers in the Bill. Yet there are already powers on the statute book, including those relating to drugs and firearms, that may continue to be exercised by uniformed and plain clothes officers alike. That anomaly is indefensible and I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary and harmful.
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I welcome the Minister to his duties at the Home Office, but I had better warn him that we get through Ministers of State at the Home Office at quite a rate, and the length of time that he will remain there cannot be guaranteed. The hon. Gentleman read very eloquently from his brief, but his knowledge to date seems about the same as his predecessor's when he left for the Northern Ireland Office.
      We are talking about a power that in the best of circumstances is open to abuse. Indeed, that is widely agreed upon. One strongly held view on the topic of stop and search states:
      "Statistics on the use to date of powers of stop and search indicate that in most cases no such article"—
      that is, an article of a particular kind being looked for—

      833
      "is found, and there is strong evidence that on many occasions these powers have been used where reasonable grounds to suspect the individual concerned of having the article in question on him did not in fact exist. There is also strong evidence that such misuse plays an important part in mistrust of the police among such sections of the community."
      That is the view of stop and search that is in the draft code of practice on the excercise of those powers, which has been issued by the Home Office in connection with the Bill. Therefore, everyone acknowledges that the power of stop and search is dangerous, and should be used only in a rational way.
      It has been pointed out that that power has existed in the Metropolitan and other police areas, but it should be remembered that the power as originally introduced into the Metropolitan police area was very specific and limited. It came under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and its aim was to deal with goods in transit at a time when London and other big cities were prey to rogues and vagabonds of various kinds. The whole purpose of the original Act, under which the stop and search power in London is being deployed, was, as the original Act says, that any person reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner any stolen or unlawfully obtained goods could be stopped and searched by a police officer.
      Over a century and a half that power has been expanded in London to the extent that it is now used for a wide range of purposes. As we know from the report of the Policy Studies Institute, to which reference has been made, there are now about 1 million stops in London alone. We are dealing with the exercise of those powers—which the Home Office itself says are misused—not by a constable in uniform who is clearly identifiable and who has a number that can be taken down by anybody who has a complaint that he wishes to put, but by someone in plain clothes.
      When people talk about a plain clothes policeman, I suspect that they imagine someone dressed in what one might call plain clothes police standard issue: double breasted suit, big black shoes and, if the weather is a bit cold, perhaps a white belted raincoat. But that is not the sort of plain clothes in which the police dress. Let us consider the sort of plain clothes that the police now wear: very tight blue jeans, an open-necked shirt, black jacket and training shoes, and a chain around the neck. That is how a plain clothes policeman who appeared in court last week described the clothes that he would wear any day. He described them as plain clothes, although they seem far from plain to me.
      It is clear that if someone young dressed like that accosted a person late at night in a street in my, or any other, constituency, that person might run away or anticipate a potential assault in a violent manner.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Kaufman: I do welcome the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Hogg: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point about plain clothes officers dressed in that way, but that objection would also apply to a plain clothes officer dressed in that way who was seeking to make an ordinary arrest. There is no real distinction between the two.
      Mr. Kaufman: There is a distinction between the two, and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, who did his
      834
      59 sittings with the rest of us, should have forgotten. Arrest is a different matter. Arrest is something undertaken only with a due sense of responsibility, because wrongful arrest is a dangerous thing to indulge in. We are talking about stop and search, and between 7 million and 8 million people will be subjected to it every year when the Bill is enacted. So there is a very great difference.
      If someone dressed in what one might call the customary casual dress of the mid-1980s accosted a man or woman late at night, that person might well believe that he was going to be attacked. He might well run away, or decide that the best thing to do is to get in first and thump the man. However, if the person accosted did either of those things he would then be liable to arrest. That arrest, of course, would then add to the threadbare statistics that are being quoted by the Government to justify stop and search.
      I shall cite an example that has been supplied to me. It involves the case of a Mr. Derik Donaldson. He was driving his car in Notting Hill, near his home, and was followed by plain clothes officers in an unmarked car. They shouted to him to stop. He thought that he was being pursued by people who may have wanted to attack him. In this violent era with, under this Government, record crime figures, that is not very surprising. However, he refused to stop, drove to his mother's house and jumped out of his car. The officers then got out of their car and attempted to apprehend him. There was a struggle in which it appears that the identity of the officers was mentioned. Mr. Donaldson was charged with assault. The police had made their arrest—the sort of arrest that we will find for the sort of offence that will be detected in order to justify stop and search. However, Mr. Donaldson was acquitted and the judge criticised the officers for making stops and searches without specific suspicion of a defined offence.
      Mr. David Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend have any statistics about the assaults on police officers that have occurred when stops and searches are carried out by them when they are not in unifirm? In the courts I have often found that is exactly the same sort of situation that has occurred.
      Mr. Kaufman: If it will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman, may I say that, judging by what he has said throughout the Bill's passage, I welcome him calling me his right hon. Friend. His approach to the Bill has been creditable to a degree. However, I do not have the statistics. In a moment I shall deal with the problem of statistics in relation to this power which is to be conferred on the police.
      The Minister, Lord Elton, said that under the Bill the person concerned must identify himself right away. But such identification might come too late. Split seconds are involved. If one is approached by a man late at night, one may well decide not to wait and see whether by any chance the man in tight blue jeans and necklace is a police officer trying to stop and search one. One may decide to react. It is not easy for a plain clothes police officer to establish his authority immediately. A warrant card is usually produced for a split second. It may or may not be believed or understood. Can any hon. Member guarantee that he would accept it? During the first vital seconds, all this causes fear and apprehension in the person stopped,

      835
      particularly in a secluded spot late at night. The constable might be viewed, reasonably, as an attacker or at least a person to be avoided.
      5 pm
      A procedure is set out in the code of practice, but who is to say that when such activities are taking place the procedure will be followed? The Minister of State quoted the Policy Studies Institute report, so he must accept the validity of that authoritative document. The report, which says that in the metropolitan area the procedure is often ignored, states:
      "It is clear from the way that police officers talk about stops that the question of what their legal powers may be does not enter into their decision-making except in the case of rare individuals."
      That is a serious criticism in a document commissioned by the Metropolitan police. The report continues:
      "They do, of course, consider the chance of getting a result, but factors that they associate with the chance of getting a result are often unconnected with any concept of reasonable suspicion."
      Recent cases confirm that.
      "One reason why the legal powers have little relevance is that most people do not know what they are. We never saw anyone openly challenge the right of the police to stop, search and question them, nor did anyone ever refuse to answer questions."
      That is important, because the contents of the 1984 Act will not be in the minds of my young West Indian constituents who may be subjected to stop and search. The PSI report makes it clear that two thirds of all stops in metropolitan London are of West Indian boys and young men between the ages of 15 and 24. They will not know their rights. They will not know that the person who stops them has to produce identification. They will either accept what takes place or resist. Either way they are likely to be in trouble.
      We are told that the safeguards are now different and that we have a code of practice. That code of practice is much to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). Without his amendment there would be no code of practice and without his constituency Labour party there would be no amendment. This is an excellent example of Labour party democracy in practice.
      Who is to say that the code of practice will be used? 'The PSI report says that the existing safeguards are not observed in many instances. One of the reasons that it gives is:
      "Consequences for individual police officers, where they were shown to have exceeded their powers in stopping and searching people or vehicles, would probably not be very serious. That being so, there is an incentive for police officers to exceed their powers."
      The PSI report says that the penalty for not observing the existing rule is not great enough to ensure the observance of it. The safeguards are not worth the paper on which they will be printed.
      What is it all for? The PSI report states that of the 1 million stops in London, which we can extrapolate to the rest of the country, only 3 per cent. result in arrests. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) asked me what statistics I had. We do not have statistics on this matter. Thanks to the PSI, we know that 3 per cent. of stops result in arrest, but we do not know how many arrests result in charges or how many charges result in convictions. By definition, 3 per cent. or less must be involved.
      Mr. Ashby: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many charges relate to the stop itself? I think of an assault rather than an offence which is discovered in the search.
      Mr. Kaufman: Because of the hon. Gentleman's experience he always asks the right questions. Sometimes charges result not in connection with the reason for the stop—which is usually to look for stolen goods or weapons to be used in a crime—but in connection with traffic offences which are discovered incidentally. The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the truth.
      The results in terms of apprehension and the punishment of crime from stop and search powers are minuscule. Although the outcome in terms of protecting the community is so minute as to be scarcely worth considering, we are introducing a power under which every year between 7 million and 8 million people will be stopped.
      The Minister told us how many stops were undertaken by plain clothes officers currently. We cannot extrapolate those statistics because we are talking about a power which is to be extended to areas which have never had it before. Once we give these men in their blue jeans and necklaces the right to stop and search, they may decide to take greater advantage of it because Parliament has given them extra power.
      The amendment is sensible and useful. It was supported in the House of Lords by many peers who are not members of the Labour or Liberal parties, who have no party allegiance or who are even Conservatives, such as Lady Macleod. The amendment would eliminate some of the worst abuses. It would do no more than that. We believe that it should be retained. We shall therefore vote against the Government.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the Home Office and to the Bill. I am sorry that the previous Minister of State has had to go elsewhere although I congratulate him on his elevation. We are fortunate to have my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) as one of the ministerial team at the Home Office to help us with our deliberations.
      In the presence of the Home Secretary I should also like to welcome the fact that the Government are sticking to their principles and standing on their policy in respect of this important amendment. With possibly one other hon. Member, I served on the Bill through all its painful progress. When this amendment was produced in the first Standing Committee, Ministers rightly demonstrated, as I shall, how absurd it would be to limit the power to search to officers in uniform. The Government, on a whipped vote, rejected it.
      During the second Standing Committee the Opposition again made the same proposition, and again on a whipped vote it was rejected. It must be right when precisely the same proposal comes from the other place for the Government to stand firm on their principles and on their policy and, on a whipped vote, carry what they believe to be right for the police service.
      I make that point at the outset because I think it right that a Government should stand by their policy and principles. I shall ask the Government to do so on all the amendments before the House. I am entitled to do that because I have not stood on my head at any time—[Interruption.] The Opposition might be wise to allow small internal matters on the Conservative Benches to be fully developed. I cannot understand why they should wish to interrupt a little local difficulty on this side of the House.

      837
      I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as I always do. He has been consistent in his arguments, as I have been in mine, throughout the passage of the Bill. One objection to preventing police officers not in uniform from doing their duty on stop and search is that that would put 25 per cent. of our police officers out of action in the stopping of suspects on the street. My advice is that officers on duty, but not in uniform, amount to a quarter of the force.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, bearing in mind the need to preserve good police-public relations, it is sufficient to allow the 25 per cent. of police officers in plain clothes to exercise their power to arrest only if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence is being committed? Does he further agree that to enable 75 per cent. of our police force to stop and search is more than adequate?
      Mr. Griffiths: No, I do not agree. Indeed, we need more rather than fewer policemen to deal with the tide of crime that we now face. To remove 25 per cent. of the effective police strength at any one time would be absurd. No police officer is ever technically off duty. Although police officers usually work seven or eight hours a day—unless they are in the CID, when they may work longer hours—when they go about their business off duty they still have a responsibility laid upon them by this House and the law, under that oath of office and under their discipline code, so that if an offence appears to be committed, or is likely to be committed, or the Queen's peace put at risk, they have a duty to seek to uphold the law, and must do so.
      Whether or not a police officer is in uniform is immaterial. For example, a police officer may not be in uniform because he has just come off duty and hung up his uniform on a peg in the police station. While he is going home he may see in the street someone who bears a very real resemblance to a wanted criminal who has committed a serious assault, rape, an act of terrorism or murder. He has a duty to stop that person and ascertain whether he is a wanted criminal. He may not wish to arrest him, but only to stop him.
      If such a police officer faced someone whom he felt it right to stop and question, or perhaps to stop and search, if he had to be in uniform he would be in the absurd position of having to say to that person, "Excuse me, Sir, do you mind if I go back to the police station to put on my uniform so that, under the Act, I can stop and question you?" That is an absurdity and everyone knows it, but a police officer could be placed in that position if the amendment were carried.
      5.15 pm
      Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is seriously misleading the House. If the amendment were carried it would not remove the right of a police officer in plain clothes to search for drugs, firearms and items connected with terrorism. Therefore, everything that the hon. Gentleman said has been misleading. The only powers that the amendment would affect are the extended powers of stop and search created by the Bill.
      Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would have heard me use the words murder and rape.
      Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman said "terrorism".
      Mr. Griffiths: I did not use the word terrorism; I used the words rape, murder and serious crime.
      A police officer cannot remove himself from the duty that this House has laid upon him simply because he is not wearing a uniform. He must carry out his duty. If the amendment were carried he could be disciplined for not carrying out a wide range of duties which he would be prevented by the Bill from carrying out.
      I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Gorton about police officers dressed in the fashion that he described, perhaps on a dark evening. That is why the Government have been wise to include in the Bill the safeguards proposed by the Royal Commission. It is essential to note that a police officer in plain clothes would have to do all the things set out in clause 2. I believe this to be the first time that it has been set out in a statute.
      The police officer would have to tell the person whom he wished to stop and search his name and the name of the police station to which he was attached. Before he performed any search, he would have to tell the person the object of the search and give his grounds for proposing to do so. He would have to have regard to the other safeguards in the clause, among them the important new safeguard that he must make a record, which must be available to the person who has been stopped and searched during the statutory period provided.
      Those are very real safeguards. Their effect is what the Royal Commission proposed and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has always maintained, namely, that wherever a new power is provided, it is balanced by a safeguard. In this case, there are a whole series of safeguards.
      The amount of paper work and additional operational problems that will be created by the safeguards—which mean that a police officer, often in difficult circumstances in the street, must provide all that information—will present some real difficulties. However, the Government have included the safeguards to maintain a balance. When the other place considered the matter, it simply did not recognise those safeguards.
      The right hon. Gentleman fairly said that there is always the danger that, although the police will seek—and I assure him that they will—to fulfill those safeguards, there will be times when that does not happen. For one reason or another, there may be a misunderstanding. It is important that the House should appreciate the documentary evidence which a police officer henceforth will have to present to anyone when he wishes to stop and search. I refer to the warrant card. I have one with me, and it is important that the House and the country should recognise that it is not simply a bit of paper that can be flashed. The warrant has on it a photograph of the police officer concerned, and if he does not look like his photograph——
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the police warrant card looks distinctly like a London Transport photocard or a Member of Parliament's photocard, or hundreds of other photocards with which one is provided?
      Mr. Griffiths: I could not agree to that. The Member of Parliament's card has a distinctive appearance.
      Mr. Kaufman: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Member of Parliament's photocard has a distinctive appearance only to those who know what its distinctive appearance is? Most of us have never seen a police officer's warrant card. The fact that the hon. Gentleman produces that card in the House means nothing. We take his word for it that it is a warrant card, but somebody stopped in the street might say, "Pull the other one." Why should that person believe the officer?
      Mr. Griffiths: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's scepticism, but he must look at the amendment in the context of the safeguards that are provided. One of the safeguards about which he was sceptical was the requirement on the police to provide documentary evidence of their status, as proof that they are police officers attached to a particular force or station. The warrant card has the advantage that it has a photograph, and it also has the signature of the officer in question.- It is open to anyone, if he wishes to throw doubt on the warrant card, to challenge the officer to sign his name. I realise that in the real world it is unlikely that that would take place, hut, nevertheless, that must be recognised.
      In addition, the warrant card contains the signature of a senior officer—I do not know whether it is the chief constable—of each force. The warrant card is as good a piece of documentary evidence to establish the identity of the officer as it is reasonable to expect. Therefore, for the reason that I gave at the beginning—that it is right that the Government should stick to their principles and their guns—I hope that the House will go along with my hon. Friend's——
      Mr. Bermingham: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if a mistake is made ab initio, regardless of what happens elsewhere, we should stick to the mistake ab initio? That seems to be the tenor of his argument.
      Mr. Griffiths: I wish the Government to stick, not to their mistakes, but to their proper and sensible conclusions, and the clause as it stands, without amendment, is one of them. The amendment proposed by their Lordships would make nonsense of effective operational policing and should not pass.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I welcome the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) to his new post in the Home Office. Like his predecessor, he is already showing the skill to stonewall skilfully, despite his late entry into the match.
      It is important to have a proper perspective of the powers contained in clause 1. Even without the stop and search powers in clause 1, plain clothes police officers in England and Wales have considerable powers, as has already been said. They have the power to stop and search for controlled drugs, for firearms, for items connected with terrorism and, incidentally, also for eggs of certain protected birds. Leaving the last category aside, because it comes in a special sector, those are extensive stop and search powers; and they are not anomalous, contrary to what the Minister said.
      Those powers were placed on the statute book for the specific reason of dealing with particular problems that were arising in the streets of the country. They were placed on the statute book as they were, not as anomalies, but as acts of good sense to counter those problems. It is wrong for the Government to seek to extend such a coercive
      840
      power, one that involves severe interference with the liberty of the individual to walk in our streets, by introducing it across the country.
      It is important to remind oneself that the stop and search powers in clause 1 are not the same as the power of arrest. That power will continue. In his arguments the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) reduced the issue to an absurdity. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who made a fine contribution in Committee, I suspect that an average custody officer could have made a better job of arguing the case than he did.
      Can one really believe, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that a police officer suspecting reasonably that someone had committed the crime of murder or rape would even think about using merely stop and search powers? He would not—he would arrest. The hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the requirements placed by the Bill on the officer stopping and searching. If the officer were seeking to use the stop and search powers, he would be required to go through all those requirements; and in any event he would not be permitted to stop and search on suspicion of murder under the power in the Bill unless he had reason for suspecting that the person being stopped and searched had prohibited articles or stolen goods in his possession.
      I suspect that one of the reasons for the extension of the stop and search power in the Bill, and in particular for the Government's desire to give the power throughout the country to plain clothes police officers, is to make up in some way for the continuing shortage not so much of police officers as of uniformed police officers on the beat in the community. It is now conventional wisdom, and right, that the best way to prevent the crimes mentioned in clauses 1 and 2 is by putting uniformed police officers known to the community on the beat. In particular, young people do not commit offences such as theft from motor cars or carrying offensive weapons when they know that there are policemen ever on the beat nearby.
      We have to bear in mind, too, that in most of the towns of England and Wales, and in all the country areas, the power being created by clause 1—that of stop and search—is an entirely new power. The people in those communities have not been accustomed to dealing with such a power. Its very introduction in those areas creates a considerable risk of tension between the community and the police.
      There is also the problem of the way in which the power is used. There is a great deal of evidence, though much of it discursive, about the use of the power. We have already heard some of the evidence from the PSI report. There is some evidence in Lord Scarman's report on the Brixton disorders, albeit mentioned in passing. There is also evidence from another and distinguished document, which has not yet been mentioned. That is a detailed survey, carried out earlier this year in the London borough of Hillingdon by Dr. Vorhaus.
      I shall summarise the way in which the powers are used where they have been available. The evidence points to their having been used almost exclusively, and certainly primarily, against young people, black people and oddly dressed people. In her study, Dr. Vorhaus said that the study of attitudes to stop and search among juveniles in Hillingdon showed that 52 per cent. of the juveniles questioned had been stopped and searched by the police. Although it is a surprisingly high figure, it is consistent with what has been reported by the PSI. She added that

      841
      "whereas a notable characteristic of the sample was their pro-police and pro-law and order outlook, the experience of being stopped seemed to have a strong negative influence. It appeared to make juveniles hostile towards the police and alienated them from the law."
      Among the 52 per cent. of the juveniles in Hillingdon who were stopped and searched, she found the feeling that it was a bad experience subjectively. She found, too, that it had the consequence, possibly for a long time to come, of setting those juveniles against the police and even the law itself.
      5.30 pm
      It is right, too, to remind the House that in paragraph 4.67 of his report on the Brixton disorders Lord Scarman observed that
      "stop and search operations in particular require courtesy and carefully controlled behaviour by the police to those stopped."
      We should be aiming to ensure that whatever stop and search powers are produced by the Bill meet Lord Scarman's recommendation that they should be courteously and carefully controlled.
      I suggest that we can be assured that such powers are carefully controlled and, we hope, courteously implemented only if they are limited to police officers in uniform. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) mentioned the case of Mr. Derik Donaldson. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said that he had come across many other such cases in his experience as a practising lawyer. There cannot be many practising lawyers in this place who have not come across a similar state of affairs.
      An even worse situation than that which faced Mr. Donaldson is often encountered by young and perhaps fancily dressed women in London who find themselves being accosted by quite fearsome looking plain clothes police officers who wish to stop and search them. We recognise and accept that police officers have to indulge in verisimilitude if they are to detect crime. We accept the need for criminal intelligence, and those of us who have seen many plain clothes police officers have recognised that they are bound to acquire extraordinary hairstyles, tight torn jeans, as has been mentioned in a case recently, and other similar clothing. They sometimes look extremely unpleasant.
      A young woman faced with a request, however polite, to be stopped and searched by a plain clothes police officer dressed in that way is entitled to be afraid and to take to her heels. If she is handled by a police officer in those circumstances, she is entitled to use violence to escape from him, even though he may be saying that he is a police officer. Young women often face risk in our city streets and it would be unreasonable to require of them a different standard in respect of plain clothes police officers from that which we would expect of them in respect of any other ordinarily dressed young man.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The arguments which the hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced are equally applicable to those cases in which plain clothes police officers can stop and search for drugs or firearms. He has already said that he applauds the introduction of those powers.
      Mr. Carlile: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that matter to my attention. Those of us who believe in a liberal society believe in a free society subject
      842
      to constraints. We must examine those constraints carefully before they are placed. Sometimes constraints have to be placed upon society in the public interest. The examples to which I referred with approval earlier are constraints which we accept as being required in the public interest. The constraint that is now required by the Government is, in my judgment, not in the public interest.
      Plain clothes officers' powers to arrest are not affected by the amendment that was accepted in another place. That amendment had the support of some distinguished and experienced lawyers, not least a former Lord Chancellor, who moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition, and my noble and learned predecessor, Lord Hooson, who has enormous experience of practising the criminal law throughout England and Wales. They are two examples of the experience that was brought to bear on the amendment when it was discussed in another place. With that in mind, I ask the House to accept that the balance of public and private interest achieved by the requirement that the police should be in uniform is a proper one, and that it should vote against the Government's proposal.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that this is a matter of balance. Reasonable arguments could be advanced from both sides on this issue. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who introduced the Opposition's view, rested his case primarily on the assertion that the informality of the clothes worn by plain clothes police officers might be such as to make the exercise of the powers either difficult or unreliable. That, in substance, is the argument that the Labour party has deployed on this issue.
      As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has said, this is a matter of balance. We have been reminded that there are many instances where plain clothes officers already possess the power to arrest or the power to stop and search—for example, terrorism, firearms or drugs. I have no doubt that, in theory at least, the informality of the dress of plain clothes police officers could cause problems. Yet in the past Parliament has decided to introduce legislative powers and I do not think that they have been the subject of substantial complaint thereafter.
      The power of the plain clothes police officer is set out by limitation in the Bill. He can exercise the power only if the circumstances that are prescribed in clause 1 arise. He can exercise the power lawfully only if he complies with the statutory requirements that are set out in clause 2. If he does not comply with those requirements, he commits an assault and he is, in theory at least, liable in damages.
      The issue is one of balance. I am not trying to say that what the right hon. Member for Gorton and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery have argued is absurd. However, there must be occasions when to deny a plain clothes police officer the right to exercise the power under clause 1 would be to prevent him either preventing crime or apprehending a criminal. As a matter of balance, the Government have it right and I support them.
      Mr. Bermingham: I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). Those of us who sat through the 59 sittings in Committee noted his silence in his then capacity as a Government Whip but suspected that that silence was the result of restraint. The hon. Gentleman makes the good point that we are discussing a

      843
      matter of balance. Surely no one would disagree that it is always a question of balance in these matters. However, perhaps the evidence should be tested dispassionately.
      When the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made what might be described as almost an impassioned contribution, he took the argument into the ridiculous and the absurd and missed the point. That is why I intervened in his speech to ask him whether, if it was thought that a mistake had been made ab initio, it would not be wiser to listen to the counsel of others before enshrining the mistake in tablets of stone, as it were, by incorporating it in an Act of Parliament.
      This is a matter of balance, and there is considerable evidence to show that the House should go along with the Lords amendment. That has been said by the Opposition on numerous occasions in the Chamber, in Committee and in many parts of the country. A number of police officers would not be averse to the arguments on this subject put during the past year by me and by many others. This is a matter of balance. At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves whether the power to stop and search given to officers not in uniform will enhance the police service and its powers of detection or whether it will detract from the service and increase the friction that regrettably exists so often between the general public and the police.
      The point that we are debating is perhaps best and crucially demonstrated in the Policy Studies Institute report. That report showed that, of the 1 million stops and searches in the capital in the year under review, 95 per cent. were carried out by officers in uniform and 5 per cent. by plain clothes officers. Of those 1 million stops and searches, only 3 per cent., or 30,000, led to the next stage, which might have been arrest. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) asked how many of those 30,000 arrests resulted from the findings of the stop and search, the fracas that occurred because of the stop and search or some trivial point that was later used to justify the stop and search. The answer is that none of us knows the facts accurately, but those who have had experience in metropolitan and other areas where those powers of stop and search exist know that often charges of threatening behaviour or assault on a police constable are laid or some nefarious traffic matter is cited. That is the way in which stop and search is thought to be carried out. The vast number of contacts between the police and the public under the provisions of stop and search powers result in no charges being laid.
      We must consider the other side of the coin. The powers of stop and search may be extended to the whole country, as they are being extended to constables in uniform. Parts of the country do not have the stop and search powers of London and the Metropolitan police force area. During the past 150 years the rest of the country has got on very well detecting crime without such powers. Those powers have not been needed in rural Derbyshire or Leicestershire, parts of South Yorkshire or other such places. On many occasions the stop and search powers are counterproductive, because in cases of serious crime—for example, drug trafficking, terrorism, murder and rape—a police officer has more than adequate powers in criminal law to carry out his duties.
      Suggestions have been made that if the provisions of clause 1 were extended to the country as a whole, approximately 7 million or 8 million stops and searches a year would occur. If stop and search is to continue in the same proportion as that found by the PSI in its
      844
      investigation—95 per cent. of stops and searches being carried out by officers in uniform and 5 per cent. by officers in plain clothes—we must ask why so many people are worried about that 5 per cent. The answer to that question is known to most practical and practising lawyers—that the 5 per cent. of stops and searches give rise to problems associated with the issue of assault. With the best will in the world, I cannot honestly say with my hand on my heart that I believe that the provisions of clause 2 will be followed meticulously if this power comes into force. The reality is that the man in blue jeans—plain clothes officers do not always wear blue jeans; I have seen them wearing many other things over the years—flashes his warrant card. We have already had a demonstration of how little that means. Most people do not know what a bank card is, let alone a warrant card. These days if someone flashes anything in front of anyone else he is likely to think that that person is up to no good.
      Even if all the pedantic steps of clause 2 were taken into account, a problem would still exist. The problem concerns the person in the street being approached by someone who asks questions and says, "You must do this". If approached by a person in uniform, the natural reaction of members of the public is to co-operate. That happens with the vast majority of requests made by police officers. If approached by someone not in uniform., the natural reaction is to be wary. We are all conditioned by what we read in the newspapers and watch on television day in, day out. We see members of the public approached by people who have no good intentions towards them. Frankly, if someone comes up to me in a street late at night, my first and natural reaction is to get out of the way. In the past few years, too many horrific things have happened late at night in the streets of our cities and in our rural areas. That is the point at which problems will begin to arise when this power is extended.
      5.45 pm
      If the police service is to succeed, it requires the public's co-operation and assistance. The PSI report clearly showed that an extensive power to stop and search, with 1 million people stopped every year and only 3 per cent. of the stops and searches justified at a later stage, resulted in 97 per cent. of people taking offence. ft is suggested that we should extend that power to the whole country, so that 7 million to 8 million people a year will be stopped and searched. That means that 97 per cent. of those people may take offence at being stopped and searched—never mind those within the 3 per cent. who take offence because they have been stopped by someone dressed up as a thug. I regret to say that my experience is that on occasions plain clothes officers have dressed in no better fashion than many of those they were supposed to be apprehending. It does the police service no good for its plain clothes officers to be dressed in the way that has been described and seen on a number of occasions.
      The more the public is upset, the more its co-operation decreases. Regrettably, that will be the increasing result of the Government's attempts to overturn the amendment. The amendment is sensible because it recognises the balance between the need to detect crime and to elicit the co-operation of the general public. I hope that at this last moment the Government will think again, if for no other reason than that policing needs the public's co-operation if it is to succeed.

      845
      Let us get out of our trenches of party politics. The Government should listen not only to the Opposition's arguments but to what was said by those in the other place and the commentators outside this place who have experience of these matters. Time and again, they have said that if a person is approached in the street by a man or woman in uniform, the public recognise that authority is requesting assistance. People do not object to being asked for assistance. If people are approached by someone who, in the first moment of contact, is not readily identified as a police officer, resentment begins to grow.
      The PSI report has shown that a considerable number of people have been offended by the way in which a stop and search has been conducted. When people feel offended by authority, their willingness on another occasion to co-operate with authority is diminished. Are the Government really asking that 7 million or 8 million stops and searches should take place in a year? If so, they are asking for a decrease in co-operation between the police and the public, and that can only be to the detriment of society.
      Mr. Ashby: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) that this is very much a matter of balance. The stop and search power is necessary for the police, but it must be used sparingly and, as Lord Scarman said, with a great deal of tact. The other place has tried hard to introduce that element of tact by saying that stops and searches must be carried out by a police officer in uniform.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that 25 per cent. of police officers may be out of uniform at any one time. If that is the figure, and I have no reason not to accept it, there must be occasions when a stop and search is necessary and the police officer is out of uniform. That gives rise immediately to the problems which have been so carefully explained to us by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who referred to the case of Derik Donaldson. I intervened because on many occasions I have represented people who have said that they thought that the people who had approached them were thugs. Invariably, on those occasions I have been defending people who have been charged with assault on police officers.
      I accept that there is a need for a stop and search power and that there will be occasions when it will be carried out by officers who are not in uniform. It would be unfortunate if that stop and search were found to be illegal. I should like safeguards to be introduced, because we have pinpointed the problem that offences arise out of the stop and search. Those are not offences of having an offensive weapon, possessing drugs or any offence, however trivial, which is the reason for the stop and search, but offences that arise out of the stop itself. Those offences are invariably of obstructing the police or assault on the police.
      People with no previous convictions have often been charged and convicted of assault on police officers. The evidence in the case is invariably of a police officer saying, "I produced a warrant card." There is no reason to disbelieve that, but why should people who have never been in trouble before start fighting a police officer who has produced a warrant card? They were not hiding drugs
      846
      or offensive weapons, and therefore the only logical reason for it is that there was a misunderstanding between the two parties.
      I should like safeguards introduced so that cases in which an offence arises out of a stop and search are referred to someone else before prosecution. If we are talking about a figure of 3 per cent.—30,000—which may rise because this provision will cover the country, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, and assuming that a large proportion of those offences will not have arisen out of the stop and search—such as hiding something that was found during the stop and search—we are not talking about a large number of cases.
      I should like all the cases of assault and obstructing the police that arise out of stop and search referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions before a prosecution is instituted. There would then be a safeguard and I should be able to support the Government in opposing the amendment with a happier conscience. That is why I am asking for the safeguard which would please so many of us.
      Mr. Max Madden: I have to report to the House that I have been stopped and searched twice by the police. On both occasions the policeman was dressed in uniform and it was in daylight. On the first occasion the police constable insisted that I empty my bag, which contained a large amount of dirty washing, on to the pavement and replace the dirty washing in it before proceeding on my way to the launderette. On the second occasion the police officer showed considerable curiosity about why I should be carrying an empty suitcase. I am glad to say that that was some years ago. Nevertheless, it left me at the time, and subsequently, with the same feeling as 40 out of every 100 Londoners had when they were surveyed after being stopped and searched by police—that there was no good reason for the police to stop and search them.
      Had I been a little younger, I am sure that my view would probably have been that which has already been expressed as the view of more than half the teenagers in Hillingdon who, after being stopped and searched by the police, were transformed into being anti-police and anti-law from being pro-police and pro-law.
      In his impassioned speech the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the rising tide of crime. Over the years we have all witnessed that rising tide with considerable anxiety. Today, as on all other occasions, the House must be interested in how society and the police combat crime effectively. My worry, which is one which has been voiced by a number of hon. Members today, is that the extensive new powers for the police to stop and search will be counter-productive and will do nothing to improve the level of crime detection which, unhappily, is extremely low in many parts of the country, particularly London. They will do nothing to improve relations between the general public and the police, which many of us believe are at the core of trying to combat the rising tide of crime.
      We are aware from the figures that extensive powers of stop and search result in a minimal level of arrest. It is clear that if the stop and search powers are introduced they will do nothing to combat crime effectively. They will,

      847
      however, I fear, do a great deal to alienate further large sections of the community; in particular, the young whites, blacks and Asians.
      I represent a consitituency which has a large ethnic community. Many members of that community are already extremely worried by the level of racial harassment which they, their parents and families face. I ask the House to try to imagine the position in Bradford late at night in a community which feels great anxiety about racial attacks against and harassment of black and Asian British people if a young casually dressed white seeks to stop a young black or Asian for the purposes that we have been discussing. There will inevitably be a suspicion in the mind of that young black or Asian that the person who is seeking to stop him is not a detective seeking to combat crime in Bradford, but is possibly seeking to attack him or her. This is not a question of balance as some hon. Members have sought to argue.
      I plead with the House to consider whether the amendment will serve the best interests of our communities. Will it effectively combat crime and will it improve relationships between the police and the community? In my view, it will not.
      6 pm
      I also invite the House to consider some of the views advanced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds when he waxed eloquent about the warrant cards which will be carried by detectives wearing casual clothes and seeking to stop and search individuals. What will be the situation, for example, for many of my constituents who do not speak English well? How will they easily understand that the persons seeking to stop them—persons who they think may be seeking to attack them—in reality are police officers seeking to combat crime in my constituency?
      It is nonsense. It is a recipe for increased racial tension in my community and many others. For that reason, I agree with the amendment accepted in the other place and with the views expressed by a former Lord Chancellor. I am fundamentally opposed to stop and search powers because I do not believe that there is a need for them. What is more, they will be counter-productive and will not effectively reverse the tide of crime about which we are all concerned. However, if we are to have the powers, they should be limited to police constables in uniform. If the amendment is overturned by the House and we have possibly thousands upon thousands of stops and searches at all hours of the day and night in inner cities such as mine, they will represent a recipe for many unfortunate incidents which will do nothing to reverse the rising tide of crime but will do a great deal to alienate further large sections of the community against the police. That would do a grave disservice to the community. It would certainly not be in the interests of the police.
      Mr. Warren Hawksley: I wish to express my support for the proposition that we should oppose the Lords in this amendment.
      It was interesting to hear both the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) refer to the safeguards in clause 2(2) and (3). These are new safeguards, and I suggest that they are justifiable when officers are not in uniform. However, I think that the House will accept that in putting forward those safeguards we are expecting the officers to be trained
      848
      to a new standard, and that brings me to the question which I wish to raise in this debate, although I suppose that it could be raised in debates on nearly all these amendments.
      I should like to know the Government's proposals for implementing this legislation, and I refer especially to the timing of the implementation. Before clauses 1 and 2 come into force we need to see a lot of training for police officers. For many months police officers have been tied up in defending civil liberties in mining areas and on the picket lines, and training for the regular police has suffered. Much training which would normally have taken place has been allowed to slip.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to assure the House that it is not proposed to bring in any of this legislation, especially this provision, until the training programmes of local police forces have returned to the levels which we should have seen but for the industrial action in the mines, and that time will be allowed for the full training of officers before any pressure is exerted to make the legislation effective.
      I hope that that assurance will be given. If it is given, I shall be only too pleased to support the Government in opposing the amendment.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the view expressed by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) and I hope that the Government will respond positively to his proposal that, if they succeed in reversing the Lords amendment, they will seek to delay the implementation of this provision until there has been due time for the training of police but possibly also until the Government have put forward their proposals about the establishment of an independent prosecution service.
      One of the complaints made with most force by those who have experience, especially the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), of conducting the defence of those subsequently arrested by the police is that the very fact of a search can provoke a chain of circumstances which in itself may lead to the commission of a criminal offence. It is highly desirable, if those circumstances are alleged, that the allegation should be subject to consideration by the independent prosecution service. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West spoke of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I think that what the Government have in mind may be more appropriate. If the Minister can give some assurances about that, he may assist the House considerably. However, it has to be said that, despite that safeguard, that is not really the only situation that gives rise to doubts about whether these powers are necessary.
      On this recommendation I felt that the Philips commission was less than adequate in its argument about the necessity. It was not one of the most forceful of the commission's recommendations. In fact, the commission was divided about it, and it is precisely the kind of matter on which it is not suitable for the House to be divided by the Whips or on party lines, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) suggested. It is essentially a matter on which the judgment of those involved in the prevention of crime should be before the House to enable right hon. and hon. Members to consider their evidence. It is precisely the kind of case where it would have been useful for a prelegislative committee to have the opportunity to listen to the arguments before recommending the appropriate approach to the House.

      849
      The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was right to say that it is a matter of balance. It is plainly undesirable that so many people should be stopped and searched by police officers in plain clothes, as undoubtedly will flow from this provision if the Lords amendment is rejected, if it is not strictly necessary that that should be done. We have not heard about the necessity for this power. We have not even heard anecdotal evidence about it. We have had all kinds of assertions from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds about its necessity. Some rather high-flown language has been used, but we have heard nothing persuasive in terms of practical operational necessity from the spokesman for the police. I should have preferred an opportunity to hear from the police directly why it is seen as an operational necessity.
      It is against that that we have to judge what is the clear evidence that a power of this nature will create a backlash of hostility against the police, especially among the young and ethnic minorities in our cities where already there is an observable erosion of confidence in the police and where it is more necessary than anywhere else to have the full co-operation of the public if the appalling crime figures are to be diminished.
      I cannot see that it is in the interests of the police and those whose task it is to maintain the rule of law in our cities that the House should pass measures which further alienate those among whom they have to move. For that reason, if, regrettably, the House votes against the Lords amendment, this measure must be used with extreme care and most exceptionally.
      There appear to be two circumstances in which it is argued that it is possibly justifiable to have searches made by policmen not in uniform. The first is where a policeman, when he is not in uniform, has his suspicions aroused and seizes the opportunity to find out whether the suspicious behaviour is indicative of an offence having been committed. If he encounters suspicious behaviour of that sort, he is presented with a difficult judgment. He has to consider whether he may damage the interests of the police by making an unjustified assumption. He runs the risk of alienating the sympathy of the person who is searched.
      I do not think that the Minister or anyone will doubt that to be stopped and searched, even by a policeman in uniform, is not an experience to which the public take kindly; but they take even less kindly to being stopped and searched by someone of whose credentials they are not sure. Although there are safeguards in clause 2, I do not think that they will eliminate hostility on the part of the public or provide any certainty in the mind of the person who is stopped or searched that the policeman is justified in doing so.
      The other circumstance is where certain members of the police feel it necessary or are instructed to go in plain clothes to make investigations. It is not by mere hazard that they embark upon such a search. It is an altogether more dubious practice than the first one that I mentioned, especially if it is not related to some specific and very serious offence.
      It is perfectly possible to draw a distinction between serious and less serious offences, despite what the Minister said to the contrary. This House has frequently had to face
      850
      that dilemma. I do not believe that it is justifiable for policemen not in uniform to have the power to stop and search, except for serious offences.
      For the reasons that I have given, I should be reluctant to support the Government in their motion to reject the Lords amendment. However, if the Government, with their huge majority, decide to overturn the freely expressed views of the other House, I beg them not to allow the police to embark on the process before the Government have brought in provisions for an independent prosecution service, or before the police have had proper time to establish training facilities to minimise the undoubtedly damaging effects that will flow from the provision if the greatest sensitivity is not used and if it is not used most sparingly.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not think that anyone in this House would accuse me of being on the wet, liberal left of my party on questions of law and order. I do not usually ally myself with hon. Members who seek constantly to use the police as a whipping boy, and who persistently attack a police force that I consider to be the finest in the world and which needs the support of this House rather than its criticism and constant attack. Nevertheless, I do not support the Government in the step that they are proposing to take this evening.
      Although I do not support the Government now, 10 years ago I would undoubtedly have done so. In the past 10 years there has been a significant change in our society. For that reason, it is more important than ever before that there should be a proper and appropriately high degree of identification and recognition of police officers before they discharge their duties. Our society has degenerated to the point at which there is a lot of aggravation. It arises in situations in which it would never have arisen 10 years ago.
      6.15 pm
      The issue before the House is one on which hon. Members on both sides have said that what is involved is a question of balance. Even Lord Denning—not the greatest friend of Opposition Members—said in their Lordships' House that his mind had wavered to and fro as the arguments had gone on in the Committee, and that the question was whether the safeguards in the Bill were sufficient. It is true that he said that the safeguards were just sufficient to warrant the Bill going forward without the amendment. That comment emboldens me to say that honourable men of experience in the exercise of police powers in our society are entitled, on balance, to come to different conclusions. I am emboldened in my conclusion by the fact that a number of very distinguished and eminent people share my view and, incidentally, the views of those who are opposed to the Government tonight.
      For three reasons, I think that it is undesirable, on balance, that the police powers should be extended beyond the powers they have to arrest without being in uniform in the most serious cases—those involving drugs, firearms and terrorism. We must not forget that those powers are very extensive.
      I accept from my own experience that it is likely that many innocent people will be aggravated. They will be young; they will be coloured. They will also be middle-aged; they will also be old. It is only in recent months that I have begun to receive post from reputable constituents complaining about what they consider to be encroachments upon their freedoms, or the freedoms of their

      851
      families, by over-zealous police officers. I have never noticed that before throughout the 10 or 11 years in which I have been a Member of this House.
      Ordinary, middle class, decent people who uphold and support the police are beginning to be aggravated. It may be that much of their aggravation is without justification, but it only underlines my point that the threshold of pain in our society today is now much lower. Whereas 10 years ago people were prepared to give police officers the benefit of the doubt and to accept their authority, they are now, for all kinds of reasons, less willing to do so.
      Secondly, all too often in our society—it never happened 10 years ago—people are set upon, stopped or halted in the street by people who they fear are about to mug or rob them. It used not to happen, but it happens now in some of our cities on a scale never before imagined. That seems to be very dangerous for police officers who are not in uniform and thus are not easily recognised.
      Thirdly—this follows from the second reason—I have little doubt that more police officers stopping more citizens in the new social atmosphere of high aggravation and a low threshold of pain will be assaulted. Frankly, it is a surprise to me that the Police Federation is in favour of taking away the uniform as a basis for stop and search in the lesser offences because it seems to me to be their protection against assault and attack.
      For those three reasons, based upon my judgment—which may not be shared by others—our society is far more vulnerable and volatile than it ever was. I feel the gravest hesitation in inviting police officers to be assaulted, inviting young people to be more resentful and inviting people to go in greater fear of attack on our streets than they might otherwise have done.
      I have also gone to and fro as I have heard the debates over the days, particularly tonight, and on balance I would say that we are giving a dangerous extension of power. The safeguards, the name, the police station, the object of the search, the grounds for proposing to make a search, the necessity to record—all those things are desirable. They are no less than we owe the police. They are not only justifiable but necessary. However, there is one problem in that they are not enforceable. A person stopped in the street and subjected to a search by a plain clothes officer would have to be extremely persistent to go along to the police station and to take advantage of the rights that we are giving to the citizen in clause 2. I do not think that the safeguards are sufficient to protect the police in the current situation of violence and aggravation in our society.
      Sadly, for the reasons that I gave at the beginning of my speech, I feel that I cannot support the Government in their bid to overthrow what some distinguished, honourable and knowledgeable lawyers in the other place thought was right.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: By leave of the House, I shall comment briefly on the points raised in the debate.
      I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for his kind remarks on my arrival, which were echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I find it extremely difficult to deal with the Bill, albeit in its last stages, with the same facility as others, but I shall do my best.
      I detected that there were three separate strands in the debate. First, there was concern about the possible abuse of the powers that might be involved; secondly, there was concern that the police should require to have such powers
      852
      extended to plain clothes officers; and thirdly, there was concern that the relationship between the police and the public would be endangered if the police took the powers that we propose to introduce by deleting the amendment that the other place inserted in the Bill.
      The House would do well to recall the background against which the Bill has proceeded. In the fight against crime, it is necessary to provide the police force with certain additional powers. It is also necessary to codify and co-ordinate some of the procedures that are needed. The necessity to make the policy more effective is important. The need to allow plain clothes officers to exercise stop and search powers when uniformed constables are also allowed to do so is also important.
      We must also put on the record the extent of the safeguards that are in evidence—first, the safeguards in the Bill to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) referred. They may not be sufficient, but I should like to remind the House of the ones that are to be found in the code of practice relating to these powers. The draft code of practice recognises the specific problem to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred in relation to the sensitivity of these issues. Paragraph 1B of the draft states:
      "Statistics on the use to date of powers to stop and search indicate that in most cases no such article is found, and there is strong evidence that on many occasions these powers have been used where reasonable grounds to suspect the individual concerned of having the article in question on him did not in fact exist. There is also strong evidence that such misuse plays an important part in mistrust of the police among some sections in the community."
      It is right that that should be set out clearly as the very important context in which any use of those powers is undertaken. The draft continues:
      "It is therefore important to ensure that the powers are used responsibly and sparingly. Over use of the powers is as likely to be harmful to the police effort in the long-term as misuse."
      The point is therefore specifically recognised in the code of practice to be issued that this is a crucial power, that the context in which it is used must be most carefully weighed and that it must be used responsibly and sparingly. The paragraph concludes:
      "It is also particularly important to ensure that any person searched must be treated courteously and considerately if police action is not to be resented."
      Therefore, that second element of safeguard that is in clause 2 and in the code of practice that has been drawn up for this purpose significantly reflects much of the anxiety that we have heard, for example, from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and Opposition Members.
      Mr. Robin Corbett: Can the Minister therefore give the House an absolute undertaking that in every circumstance those safeguards will be observed and enforced?
      Mr. Shaw: I cannot give the undertaking that in every case the safeguards will be enforced, but if they are not the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, under clause 64(7), when a code of practice is ignored, a disciplinary offence by the officer is created. That should be a significant deterrent for those who may seek to avoid implementing the code of practice.
      The third element of safeguard was strongly urged on me by two of my hon. Friends—the Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). They were both concerned about

      853
      training, as was the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin that the training period is crucial to the implementation of this part of the Bill, as it is crucial to so many others. Likewise, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the time provided for implementation of those portions of the Bill requiring training will be so judged. In consultation with the police, an adequate period will be provided for their training in the new powers embodied in the Bill. I assure my hon. Friend too that it is important that the training be carried out with the full sympathy and understanding that the code of practice lays upon the individuals, quite apart from the fact that many of the powers will also require training for the legal profession in its acceptance of what is involved.
      6.30 pm
      I put it to the House, therefore, that there will be considerable safeguards in relation to the implementation of the Bill. I conclude, however, that the need to provide such powers is important if we are to have full confidence that the police, whether in uniform or not, can operate effectively in stopping and searching when so much material—prohibited articles and stolen goods—can frequently be found on persons if they are correctly suspected of having been involved in taking them.
      Mr. Ashby rose——
      Mr. Shaw: I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friends—I am distressed that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton may not be one of them—and indeed the House as a whole will, on reflection, agree that the Government are right to advise the House to disagree with the Lords in the amendment.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment
      The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 160.

      Division No. 472]

      [6.31 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Browne, John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Budgen, Nick

      Amess, David

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Ancram, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

      Butterfill, John

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carttiss, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cash, William

      Bendall, Vivian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Benyon, William

      Chope, Christopher

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Colvin, Michael

      Body, Richard

      Coombs, Simon

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cope, John

      Bottomley, Peter

      Corrie, John

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Cranborne, Viscount

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

      Critchley, Julian

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Crouch, David

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bright, Graham

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brinton, Tim

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Dunn, Robert

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Durant, Tony

      854

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Eggar, Tim

      McCrindle, Robert

      Emery, Sir Peter

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Evennett, David

      Madel, David

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Major, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Farr, Sir John

      Maples, John

      Favell, Anthony

      Marland, Paul

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Marlow, Antony

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Mather, Carol

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Forth, Eric

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Fox, Marcus

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Franks, Cecil

      Merchant, Piers

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Freeman, Roger

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Fry, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Gale, Roger

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Moore, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Moynihan, Hon C

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Neubert, Michael

      Greenway, Harry

      Newton, Tony

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Norris, Steven

      Ground, Patrick

      Onslow, Cranley

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Osborn, Sir John

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Pawsey, James

      Harris, David

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir lan

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Pollock, Alexander

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Porter, Barry

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Powley, John

      Hayward, Robert

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Raffan, Keith

      Heddle, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Henderson, Barry

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hickmet, Richard

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hicks, Robert

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hill, James

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Hirst, Michael

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Ryder, Richard

      Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Holt, Richard

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Hooson, Tom

      Scott, Nicholas

      Hordern, Peter

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Howard, Michael

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

      Shersby, Michael

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Silvester, Fred

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jackson, Robert

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Jessel, Toby

      Speed, Keith

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Squire, Robin

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Key, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Stern, Michael

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Knowles, Michael

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Knox, David

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Latham, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Stokes, John

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sumberg, David

      Lilley, Peter

      Tapsell, Peter

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lord, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      855

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Watson, John

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Watts, John

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wheeler, John

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Whitfield, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Whitney, Raymond

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Waddington, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Wolfson, Mark

      Walden, George

      Wood, Timothy

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Yeo, Tim

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Waller, Gary

      Ward, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      Warren, Kenneth

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Freud, Clement

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      George, Bruce

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Ashton, Joe

      Gould, Bryan

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Hamilton, James (M'well N)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Barnett, Guy

      Hardy, Peter

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Beith, A. J.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Bell, Stuart

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Blair, Anthony

      Home Robertson, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Howells, Geraint

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Hughes, Simon (Southward)

      Buchan, Norman

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Caborn, Richard

      John, Brynmor

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Campbell, Ian

      Kennedy, Charles

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Cartwright, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Clarke, Thomas

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Litherland, Robert

      Cohen, Harry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Loyden, Edward

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cowans, Harry

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      McGuire, Michael

      Craigen, J. M.

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Crowther, Stan

      McKelvey, William

      Dalyell, Tam

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Maclennan, Robert

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

      McNamara, Kevin

      Deakins, Eric

      McTaggart, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      McWilliam, John

      Dobson, Frank

      Madden, Max

      Dormand, Jack

      Marek, Dr John

      Douglas, Dick

      Martin, Michael

      Dubs, Alfred

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Maxton, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Michie, William

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mikardo, Ian

      Faulds, Andrew

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Nellist, David

      Fisher, Mark

      O'Brien, William

      Flannery, Martin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Foster, Derek

      Park, George

      Foulkes, George

      Parry, Robert

      856

      Patchett, Terry

      Soley, Clive

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Pendry, Tom

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Pike, Peter

      Stott, Roger

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Straw, Jack

      Prescott, John

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      Radice, Giles

      Thorne, Stan (Preston)

      Randall, Stuart

      Tinn, James

      Redmond, M.

      Torney, Tom

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Wareing, Robert

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Weetch, Ken

      Robertson, George

      Welsh, Michael

      Ryman, John

      White, James

      Sheerman, Barry

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Winnick, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Woodall, Alec

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

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

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Robin Corbett and

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

      Mr. Frank Haynes.

    Clause 2

      PROVISIONS RELATING TO SEARCH UNDER S. I AND OTHER POWERS
      Lords amendment; No. 2, in page 4, line 23, leave out "and".
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Shaw: The amendments ensure that the notice which is left on an unattended vehicle which has been searched informs the driver of his right to have a copy of the record of the search.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 10 agreed to.

    Clause 4

      ROAD CHECKS
      Lords amendment; No. 11, in page 7, line 1, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 4 and insert
      "for suspecting that the person is, or is about to be".
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 14.
      Mr. Shaw: The amendments excise from the Bill the expression
      "pattern of crime in an area".
      That phrase was repeatedly critised by Labour Members and has generated a fair degree of controversy and misunderstanding.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16 agreed to.

    Clause 5

      REPORTS OF RECORDED SEARCHES AND OF ROAD CHECKS
      Lords amendment; No. 17, in page 8, line 24, leave out "set up" and insert "authorised".
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
      Mr. Shaw: These are technical amendments which simplify the Bill, and I commend them to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 agreed to.

    Clause 8

      POWER OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE TO AUTHORISE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF PREMISES
      Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 10, line 14, after "of" insert "or include".
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 314 to 318.
      Mr. Shaw: The amendments provide for a single application to a circuit judge where the police want access to material on the same premises, some of which is clause 8 material and some of which is special procedure material.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 10, line 20, at end insert—
      "(1A) A constable may seize and retain anything for which a search has been authorised under subsection (1) above."
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 27, 30, 34 to 36, 38, 40 to 44, 46, 48, and 319 to 323.
      Mr. Shaw: The amendments clarify the seizure provisions of the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 10

      MEANING OF "EXCLUDED MATERIAL"
      Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 11, line 15, leave out "held by him".
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31 to 33, 37, 39, 45, 49 to 52, 71, 73, 75, 79, 153, 155, 164, 165, 168, 170 and 290.
      Mr. Shaw: These are all drafting amendments which I ask the House to accept.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24 agreed to.

    Clause 16

      EXECUTION OF WARRANTS
      Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 14, line 32, leave out
      "there are grounds for suspecting that".
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      858
      The amendment makes it clear that the decision of an officer to execute a search warrant at an unreasonable hour requires no more than a bona fide belief that the purpose of the search would otherwise be frustrated.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 46 agreed to.

    Clause 20

      SEIZED ARTICLES: ACCESS AND COPYING
      Lords amendment" No. 47, in page 19, line 41, leave out "prejudice the investigation" and insert
      "prejudice—

      (a) that investigation;

      (b) the investigation of an offence other than the offence for the purposes of investigating which the thing was seized; or

      (c) any criminal proceedings which may be brought as a result of—

      (i) the investigation of which he is in charge; or

      (ii) any such investigation as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above."

      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment permits the police to refuse someone access to an article which has been seized from him on the grounds not only that that would prejudice the investigation but that it would prejudice other investigations or criminal proceedings.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 48 to 59 agreed to.

    Clause 26

      ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT FOR FINGERPRINTING
      Lords amendment: No. 60, in page 23, line 27, at end insert
      "(aa) has not at any time been in police detention for the offence; and"
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 296.
      Mr. Shaw: Amendment No. 60 honours an undertaking given on Report in this House to make it clear that the power of arrest conferred by the clause may be exercised only if the person convicted of an offence was not properly in police custody. Amendment No. 61 gives such a person a minimum period of seven days to go to a police station to be fingerprinted before the power of arrest can bite. Amendments Nos. 62 and 296 are drafting amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 61 and 62 agreed to.

    Clause 29

      ARREST ELSEWHERE THAN AT POLICE STATION
      Lords amendments Nos. 63 and 64 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 65, in page 24, line 36, at end insert—
      "(1A) Subject to subsections (1B) and (1C) below, the police station to which an arrested person is taken under subsection (1) above shall be a designated police station.
      (1B) A constable who is working in the area covered by a police station which is not a designated police station may take

      859
      an arrested person to any police station unless it appears to the constable that it may be necessary to keep the arrested person in police detention for more than six hours.
      (1C) Any constable may take an arrested person to any police station if—

      (a) either of the following conditions is satisfied—

      (i) the constable has arrested him without the assistance of any other constable and no other constable is available to assist him;

      (ii) the constable has taken him into custody from a person other than a constable without the assistance of any other constable and no other constable is available to assist him; and

      (b) it appears to the constable that he will be unable to take the arrested person to a designated police station without the arrested person injuring himself, the constable or some other person.

      (1D) If the first police station to which an arrested person is taken after his arrest is not a designated police station he shall be taken to a designated police station not more than six hours after his arrival at the first station unless he is released previously."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 5, leave out from 'constable' to 'may' in line 6 and insert
      'to whom this subsection applies'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, Lords amendment No. 93, Lords amendment No. 94, with amendment (a) to it, and Lords amendments Nos. 95 and 294.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments relate to custody officers and to the detention which flows therefrom.
      One of the most important concepts in the Bill is that of the introduction of the custody officer. The Royal Commission recommended, in paragraph 3.112 of its report, that as soon as a suspect is brought into a police station under arrest accountable responsibility for his welfare, for seeing that he is aware of his rights, for answering inquiries about his whereabouts and for decisions about his detention pass out of the hands of the arresting or investigating officer and into the hands of another officer. Following the Royal Commission, we have called this other officer the custody officer, and clause 34 provides for the appointment of custody officers.
      The responsibilities and duties of custody officers are set out in clauses 35 to 37 and in the draft codes of practice for which clause 63 provides. To a large extent, these responsibilities and duties involve a distillation of current best practice—the custody officer inheriting the mantle of the present station sergeant. However, as his title implies, his role will involve a new and necessary emphasis on the treatment of the detained persons and a new element of direct personal accountability for their welfare and the safeguarding of their rights.
      In Committee, clause 34 attracted criticism from both sides. It was urged that the custody officer's role was so significant a development of that of the station sergeant, and that the range of new safeguards provided by the Bill was so extensive, that clause 34 incorporated too casual an approach. We concluded that there was force in the criticisms. The difference in reality between the busy city centre police station manned round the clock by a number of officers and the unmanned rural station which is unlocked and used for only a couple of hours a day is greater than the distinction between subsections (1) and (2) of clause 34 implies. In the light of the Committee debates, we took into account some other inherent practical
      860
      problems which we had originally underestimated and which the Committee did a service in exposing. We therefore proposed in another place that clause 34 should be replaced by a new clause—amendment No. 94.
      The other amendments deal with the necessary changes which flow from the new scheme in the new clause. Amendment No. 93 paves the way for the change. The new clause defines the term "designated police station". It requires each chief officer to designate sufficient police stations to provide accommodation for persons who are detained in his police area. These will be fully manned stations, generally open for 24 hours, to which the great majority of arrested persons will be taken.
      Amendment No. 294 is consequential to the new clause, and adds the definition of a "designated police station" to the general interpretation clause.
      The first five subsections of amendment No. 94—the new clause—provide for the appointment of at least one custody officer, who must be at least of the rank of sergeant, at each designated police station. The important feature of these subsections is that custody officers are to be specifically appointed as such and that those appointed must be of at least sergeant rank, although subsection (4) permits other officers, who might sometimes be of lower rank than sergeant, to perform the functions of the custody officer if he is not readily available.
      Subsection (5) retains in the case of designated stations the division of investigative and custodial responsibilities at present prescribed generally in clause 34(3).
      Subsections (6) to (9) address the problem of small rural police stations. Subsection (6) defines who is to perform the functions of the custody officer if an arrested person is taken to a non-designated station. If possible, an officer who is not involved with the investigation will perform this task. It may be that in the case of a two-man station the other officer would be available to do so. However, no such officer is readily available, or if both officers had been involved in the arrest, the demarcation between custodial and investigative responsibilities may be suspended.
      The institution of custody officers is a major development in the ethos of policing. It is vital that the scheme should be workable and practicable. Clause 34 as printed would cause difficulties. It would lead in a minority of cases to considerable inconvenience to the arrested person and the depletion of local police cover. The amendments made in another place will meet this problem and introduce extra safeguards to balance the increased discretion given to the police.
      Finally, we propose small additional amendments to the revised detention scheme. They will not in any way affect the 43 police forces in England and Wales which are governed by the Police Act 1964, but they are necessary to enable other forces such as the British Transport police and the various ports or docks police to continue to work effectively. I trust that the House will accept the amendments.
      Mr. Alfred Dubs: I am particularly concerned with Lords amendment No. 94. However, I should first like to welcome the new Minister of State to our deliberations. He joins us shortly before the second anniversary of the long saga of the Bill, which has spanned two Parliaments and survived two Home Secretaries. The

      861
      Minister is the third Minister of State to have been involved, and the Bill may well have attracted a record number of amendments.
      I have to commiserate with the Minister, who resembles an actor taking over in the last act of a play. The lines have already been written, and he is forced to go through with the part. He has undoubtedly done his homework, but he may not be as aware of some of the debates that have taken place as we are. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and myself are the only survivors of the whole saga of the Bill.
      Mr. Roger Sims: Oh.
      Mr. Dubs: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon: there are three survivors.
      It is significant that, despite the many changes to the Bill and the long hours of debate, the question of the custody officer and his key links with the provisions for lengthy periods of detention without charge continues to cause concern. Concern remains despite the changes which the Minister has described and the many changes made to the provisions for detention without charge made here and in another place. The worry has not been allayed. We have not yet been convinced that Scotland's six-hour maximum is not much more sensible than a 96-hour maximum.
      The task of the custody officer is the key issue as he is responsible for authorising detention without charge in a police station. The Bill clearly states the reasons for that. They are to secure or preserve evidence or to obtain such evidence by questioning. The custody officer has a fundamental part to play. We believe that the result of his decision may be an oppressively long period of detention without charge during which a person is subjected to questioning. We know from cases that have come to light that that sometimes results in people being induced to confess to crimes that they have not committed. We quoted some examples in Committee. Safeguards against the abuse of such powers are few and far between. We have not yet had the safeguard which the Government conceded—it is still in its experimental stage—of tape recordings of interviews in police stations. That safeguard should be in place because of the custody officer's decision. When will that safeguard be forthcoming?
      7 pm
      As a result of the custody officer's decision, a person is held. Although the codes provide some right of access to legal advice, there is no absolute right. Some people who are kept for a long time may not be allowed access to solicitors. That is provided for in the code. It is important that access be safeguarded when a person can be held in custody for 96 hours. The Bill does not remove the right of habeas corpus, which is basic to our liberties, but these clauses significantly reduce a person's right to apply for it. That represents an erosion of people's rights and liberties.
      New clause 94 worries me because it gives the responsibility of being a custody officer to a police officer of at least sergeant rank. I read in the October issue of Police that a Metropolitan police working party has examined the Bill's procedures and the requirement to provide custody officers. The working party sent a message to Sir Kenneth Newman and, the article runs,
      862
      "he duly applied for a considerable increase in the establishment of sergeants. The Home Office turned him down."
      The police are worried that the duties of custody officers will be so wide ranging and onerous that more sergeants will have to be appointed, at least in London. I find it alarming that the Metropolitan police envisage such an increase in the number of custody officers. That implies a large increase in the number of people who are detained without charge, some of them for quite a long time. New clause 94(4) provides:
      "An officer of any rank may perform the functions of a custody officer at a designated police station if a custody officer is not readily available to perform them."
      If the Metropolitan police working party is to be believed, that will happen quite frequently.
      The Government are saying that responsibility for holding someone without charge may quite frequently rest on an officer who does not have the seniority and experience of a sergeant. I entirely accept that sergeants must have served for some years, but they are not normally regarded as being all that senior. However, an officer of less experience might have the onerous responsibility of detaining someone for a long time. That is not good enough. We challenge the fundamental principle of long hours of detention without charge and the detail of new clause 94 which provides that the responsibility might be exercised as I have described.
      In spite of the anxieties that hon. Members and others have expressed, these provisions damage civil liberties and could be used oppressively. We still lack safeguards. That is a great cause for concern. We shall vote against the principle and attach our objections to voting against new clause 94.
      Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment agreed to.
      Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment made, in line 9, at end insert—
      `(1BB) Subsection (1B) above applies—

      (a) to a constable who is working in a locality covered by a police station which is not a designated police station; and

      (b) to a constable belonging to a body of constables maintained by an authority other than a police authority.'

      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 66 agreed to.

    Clause 31

      SEARCH UPON ARREST FOR AN OFFENCE
      Lords amendment: No. 67, in page 25, line 32, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 34 and insert—
      "(1) A constable may search an arrested person, in any case where the person to be searched has been arrested at a place other than a police station, if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person"
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 68 to 70, 72, 74, 76, 78 and 80.
      Mr. Shaw: These are minor drafting changes.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 68 to 87 agreed to.

    Clause 33

      LIMITATIONS ON POLICE DETENTION
      Lords amendment: No. 88, in page 28, line 13, at beginning insert
      "Subject to subsection (2A) below,"
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 91.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments make the custody officer responsible for directing the release of a person in police detention, irrespective of whether he is in a police station.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 91 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 92, in page 28, line 33, at end insert—
      "(5) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person arrested under section 7(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 is arrested for an offence."
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 105.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments generalise the provisions of clause 36(2) in what I hope is agreed a sensible way.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 93 agreed to.

    Clause 33

      LIMITATIONS ON POLICE DETENTION
      Lords amendment: No. 94, to insert the following new clause—
      ".—(1) One or more custody officers shall be appointed for each designated police station.
      (2) A custody officer for a designated police station shall be appointed—

      (a) by the chief officer of police for the area in which the designated police station is situated; or

      (b) by such other police officer as the chief officer of police for that area may direct.

      (3) No officer may be appointed a custody officer unless he is of at least the rank of sergeant.
      (4) An officer of any rank may perform the functions of a custody officer at a designated police station if a custody officer is not readily available to perform them.
      (5) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to section 37(2) below, none of the functions of a custody officer in relation to a person shall be performed by an officer who at the time when the function falls to be performed is involved in the investigation of an offence for which that person is in police detention at that time.
      (5A) Nothing in subsection (5) above is to be taken to prevent a custody officer—

      (a) performing any function assigned to custody officers—

      (i) by this Act; or

      (ii) by a code of practice issued under this Act;

      (b) carrying out the duty imposed on custody officers by section 37 below;

      (c) doing anything in connection with the identification of a suspect; or

      (d) doing anything under section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1972.

      (6) Where an arrested person is taken to a police station which is not a designated police station, the functions in relation to him which at a designated police station would be the functions of a custody officer shall be performed—
      864

      (a) by an officer who is not involved in the investigation of an offence for which he is in police detention, if such an officer is readily available; and

      (b) if no such officer is readily available, by the officer who took him to the station or any other officer.

      (7) References to a custody officer in the following provisions of this Act include references to an officer other than a custody officer who is performing the functions of a custody officer by virtue of subsection (4) or (6) above.
      (8) Where by virtue of subsection (6) above an officer who took an arrested person to a police station is to perform the functions of a custody officer in relation to him, the officer shall inform an officer who—

      (a) is attached to a designated police station; and

      (b) is of at least the rank of inspector,
      that he is to do so.

      (9) The duty imposed by subsection (8) above shall be performed as soon as it is practicable to perform it."
      Read a Second time.
      Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment made, in line 45, after 'officer', insert
      'of a force maintained by a police authority'.
      Motion made—[Mr. Giles Shaw]—and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended:—
      The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 121.

      Division No. 473]

      [7.09 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Coombs, Simon

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cope, John

      Alexander, Richard

      Corrie, John

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Amess, David

      Critchley, Julian

      Ancram, Michael

      Crouch, David

      Ashby, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Aspinwall, Jack

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Dunn, Robert

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Durant, Tony

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Eggar, Tim

      Beith, A. J.

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evennett, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Benyon, William

      Fallon, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Farr, Sir John

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Favell, Anthony

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

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

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Forth, Eric

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fox, Marcus

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Franks, Cecil

      Bright, Graham

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Brinton, Tim

      Freeman, Roger

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Freud, Clement

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Fry, Peter

      Browne, John

      Gale, Roger

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Budgen, Nick

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Burt, Alistair

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Butterfill, John

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Greenway, Harry

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

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

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Ground, Patrick

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Cartwright, John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Cash, William

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Chapman, Sydney

      Harris, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      865

      Hayes, J.

      Pollock, Alexander

      Hayward, Robert

      Porter, Barry

      Heddle, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Henderson, Barry

      Powley, John

      Hickmet, Richard

      Raffan, Keith

      Hicks, Robert

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Hill, James

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Hirst, Michael

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Holt, Richard

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Hooson, Tom

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Hordern, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Howard, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

      Shersby, Michael

      Howells, Geraint

      Sims, Roger

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert

      Speed, Keith

      Jessel, Toby

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Squire, Robin

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Kennedy, Charles

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Steen, Anthony

      Key, Robert

      Stern, Michael

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Knox, David

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Lang, Ian

      Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

      Latham, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sumberg, David

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lester, Jim

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lilley, Peter

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Lord, Michael

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Thurnham, Peter

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Madel, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Major, John

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Malins, Humfrey

      Waddington, David

      Maples, John

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Marlow, Antony

      Walden, George

      Mather, Carol

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Waller, Gary

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Merchant, Piers

      Warren, Kenneth

      Moate, Roger

      Watson, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Watts, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Moore, John

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Wheeler, John

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Whitfield, John

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Whitney, Raymond

      Newton, Tony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Norris, Steven

      Wolfson, Mark

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wood, Timothy

      Ottaway, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pawsey, James

      Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Peter Lloyd.

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Blair, Anthony

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Boyes, Roland

      Barnett, Guy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Barron, Kevin

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

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

      Bell, Stuart

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

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

      Buchan, Norman

      866

      Caborn, Richard

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      McTaggart, Robert

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McWilliam, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Madden, Max

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Marek, Dr John

      Cohen, Harry

      Martin, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Maxton, John

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Meacher, Michael

      Cowans, Harry

      Michie, William

      Crowther, Stan

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Dalyell, Tam

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

      Nellist, David

      Deakins, Eric

      O'Brien, William

      Dewar, Donald

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dormand, Jack

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Douglas, Dick

      Park, George

      Dubs, Alfred

      Parry, Robert

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Patchett, Terry

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)

      Pendry, Tom

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Pike, Peter

      Fatchett, Derek

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Prescott, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Radice, Giles

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Randall, Stuart

      Flannery, Martin

      Redmond, M.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Foulkes, George

      Robertson, George

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Rogers, Allan

      Hardy, Peter

      Ryman, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Sheerman, Barry

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Heffer, Eric S.

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

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Silkin, Rt Hon J.

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Home Robertson, John

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

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Soley, Clive

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Stott, Roger

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

      John, Brynmor

      Tinn, James

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Torney, Tom

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Wareing, Robert

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Weetch, Ken

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Welsh, Michael

      Litherland, Robert

      Winnick, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Woodall, Alec

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McCartney, Hugh

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McGuire, Michael

      Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Rubin Corbett.

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      McKelvey, William

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 95 agreed to.

    Clause 35

      DUTIES OF CUSTODY OFFICER BEFORE CHARGE
      Lords amendment: No. 96, in page 29, line 10, after
      "Where" insert "(a)"
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to discuss Lords amendment No. 97.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments permit the custody officer to detain a person who returns to the police station to answer to police bail for the purposes of charging him. I commend them to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 97 and 98 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 99, in page 30, line 4, leave out

      867
      "informed that he may be liable to prosecution and".
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 100 and 101.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments provide for the situation in which a person is dealt with either by a formal caution or by no further action being taken. I commend them to hon. Members.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 100 and 101 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 102, in page 30, line 23, at end insert—
      "(10A) It shall also be the duty of the custody officer—

      (a) to take such steps as are practicable to ascertain the identity of a person responsible for the welfare of the arrested juvenile; and

      (b)if—

      (i) he ascertains the identity of any such person; and

      (ii) it is practicable to give that person the information which subsection (10) above requires the custody officer to give to the arrested juvenile,

      to give that person the information as soon as it is practicable to do so.
      (10B) For the purposes of subsection (10A) above the persons who may be responsible for the welfare of an arrested juvenile are—

      (a) his parent or guardian; and

      (b) any other person who has for the time being assumed responsibility for his welfare.

      (10C) If it appears to the custody officer that a supervision order, as defined in section 11 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, is in force in respect of the arrested juvenile, the custody officer shall also give the information to the person responsible for the arrested juvenile's suppervision, as soon as it is practicable to do so."
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment requires the police to inform someone responsible for a juvenile's welfare, as well as the juvenile himself, of the fact that a prosecution decision falls to be taken under section 5(2) of the Children and Young Person's Act 1969. That section has not been brought into effect and there are no plans to do so. It follows that clause 35(10) will also be left in abeyance.
      The amendment honours an undertaking given in the other place, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 103 to 105 agreed to.

    Clause 36

      DUTIES OF CUSTODY OFFICER AFTER CHARGE
      Lords amendment: No. 106 in page 31, line 43, leave out from first "so" to second "make" in line 1 on page 32.
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 114.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments deal with the transfer of juveniles who have been charged with an offence into the care of a local authority pending production in court the next day.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 107 to 115 agreed to.

    Clause 38

      REVIEW OF POLICE DETENTION
      Lords amendment: No. 116, in page 34, line 8, at end insert—
      "(5A) If a review is carried out after postponement under subsection (4) above, the fact that it was so carried out shall not affect any requirement of this section as to the time at which any subsequent review is to be carried out."
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 128 and 129.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments all fill minor and unintentional gaps in the scheme of safeguards for the review of detention.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 117 to 129 agreed to.

    Clause 41

      WARRANTS OF FURTHER DETENTION
      Lords amendment: No. 130, in page 38, line 26, after "application" insert "on oath".
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments No. 131, 135 and 136.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments all relate to the procedure for making an application for a warrant of further detention prescribed in clause 41(12).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 131 to 153, agreed to.

    Clause 53

      INITIMATE SEARCHES
      Lords amendments: No. 154, in page 49, line 3, at beginning insert
      "Subject to the following provisions of this section.".
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it is convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 156 and amendment (a) thereto, 157 to 163, 166, 167, 169, 171 to 173, 174 and amendment (a) thereto, 289 and 291.
      Mr. Shaw: We now come to clause 53 which is concerned with the powers of intimate search. I know that this issue has been of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House as well as to their Lordships. The amendments permit, in the first place, nurses as well as doctors to undertake an intimate search, and, in the second place, the authorisation of doctors and nurses to search for class A drugs in certain circumstances. In addition, the Customs' powers of investigative intimate search are unaffected by these provisions.
      7.30 pm
      The Bill as passed by this House made no provision far intimate searches to be undertaken by anyone other than a registered medical practitioner or police constable, nor did it provide for an intimate search to be carried out for

      869
      any reason other than to remove a concealed or potential weapon. The first Bill provided for an intimate search to be carried out for investigation purposes—to obtain concealed evidence of a serious arrestable offence—but when my right hon. Friend reviewed the provisions of the Bill before reintroducing it into this House he took the view that this investigative power should be removed from the police.
      However, in another place there was general agreement on all sides that this position was not satisfactory. It was urged that nurses and midwives as well as doctors should be able to undertake intimate searches, on the basis that, if such a search had to be undertaken in the first place, it was preferable for it to be undertaken by someone who was better qualified than a police officer. The Government were wholly sympathetic to this argument. We have always made it clear that intimate searches should be undertaken by police officers only as a last resort, where the risk of injury to the detained person himself or those guarding him outweigh the risk of injury caused by the search. Accordingly, after consultation with the relevant professional bodies, amendments were brought forward which would permit registered nurses to carry out intimate searches. These are amendments Nos. 162, 171, 172 and 174.
      I should like to stress several points. First, intimate searches now take place only in exceptional circumstances. The new safeguards contained in the clause will ensure that the need to resort to a compulsory search of this nature arises only where there is no acceptable alternative. Secondly, if the need for such a search arises, the first port of call for the police is, and will remain, their own police surgeon, if this is practicable and he or she is available. It follows that the participation of nurses will be far from a routine occurrence. Thirdly, the Bill does not oblige any doctor or nurse to undertake a search on the authorisation of a senior police officer; it simply provides the authority in law for a search to be made.
      The second point on which there was general agreement in another place was that, in view of the threat to the life and health of many young people posed by the growing trade in dangerous drugs, there should be a clear provision in the Bill for an intimate search to be carried out when a dealer or carrier is suspected, on reasonable grounds, of internally concealing drugs, particularly heroin. The amendments now before the House meet this need. They provide a power of search related to a class A drug which is being carried with intent to supply or export it. So the power is focused on those directly concerned in trading in these evil substances. It is also limited in other ways. Unlike a search for a concealed weapon, considerations of great urgency will not arise, and search for a class A drug may be carried out only by a registered medical practitioner or nurse—not by a police officer—and only at a hospital, surgery or other medical premises—that is, not at a police station. Because the power to remove class A drugs is vested solely in doctors and nurses, we have to recognise——
      Ms. Clare Short: The Minister must be aware that the British Medical Association is unhappy with the amendment. Most doctors will refuse to conduct such searches and police constables will have to conduct them.
      870
      That is the consequence of the amendment. Untrained police constables will conduct intimate body searches on large numbers of people.
      Mr. Shaw: I am not entirely persuaded that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) is right in her allegation that the consequence of the amendment is that police officers will have to conduct searches. I am aware of the objections from certain branches of the profession, but the arrangements in the Bill do not require members of the profession to carry out searches. I accept that there are different views about who should carry out these searches.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Home Office will instruct chief constables to ensure that all police surgeons and deputy police surgeons on their appointment indicate their willingness to conduct intimate searches so that police surgeons cannot object on principle, and therefore the problem will not arise? Will chief constables also be instructed that when an intimate search is thought necessary the police surgeon or his deputy will be contacted, not some other doctor who is known to object to intimate searches, so giving the police an excuse to conduct the search themselves?
      Mr. Shaw: The police will not seek to interpret the powers in that restrictive way. They will recognise that the medical practitioner may—not must—carry out a search if invited to do so and that it is lawful for him to refuse.
      I take note of the hon. and learned Gentleman's other remarks and hope to reply later.
      We naturally hope that if doctors or nurses are called upon to help the police to remove drugs from a suspected dealer or carrier, they will co-operate to the maximum degree possible, consistent of course with conscience and their own professional and ethical responsibilities.
      Because of the restriction of the power to searches involving suspected supplies of class A drugs, it is much more limited in scope than the power in the Police Bill mark I. Since the decision to remove that power was taken over a year ago, we have all become much more aware of the threat posed by heroin and other hard drugs; and I believe that a strictly controlled search power should remain a weapon available for use in the campaign against hard drugs.
      Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister take note of the terms of amendment No. 156 which refers only to the male person with regard to weapons, and, in paragraph (b)(i), states:
      "may have a Class A drug concealed on him; and (ii) was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest"?
      Is it intended that intimate searches should apply only to the male population, or does the word "him" also apply to females?
      Mr. Shaw: The powers are not confined to one sex. It is accepted that in legislation "him" also means "her". We are talking about medical practitioners of either sex or nurses of either sex.
      We have restricted the power to class A drugs on the basis that an exceptional power of this type should be limited to the most serious crimes. No one will doubt that drug smuggling is a very serious offence. The smuggling of lesser drugs, such as cannabis, remains a very serious

      871
      offence, but it does not follow that the same threat is involved. Trafficking in heroin and other hard drugs is unique, and we believe that such powers are appropriate.
      Ms. Clare Short: The BMA says that class A drugs comprise 85 substances, some of which are not addictive and not dangerous. If the Minister wants to deal with the heroin problem, why is heroin not named in the Bill? The BMA is worried because so many substances are in the class A category. The BMA is worried in case the power becomes a licence to search unnecessarily. The Minister has not justified the power to search for so many different substances.
      Mr. Shaw: We have no intention of using the reference to class A drugs as an invitation to search for every drug in that category. We are dealing with the classification of drugs and their potential seriously to damage health. It is most likely that heroin will be the drug for which a search is made. Searching will not take place if no criminal element is involved in the drug concerned. Trafficking in drugs, particularly heroin, is the cause of much crime and drug addiction.
      The power can also be regarded as consonant with the protective intimate search power already in the Bill, since the internal concealment of toxic substances is very dangerous for the person concerned because of the risks of leakage or rupture.
      I wish to stress one point. The Government brought forward the amendments, not—as has been suggested in the press—in response to pressure from the police, although it is certainly no secret that the police have indeed pressed us for the power to search for drugs. The reason that we brought forward the amendments was a genuine consensus in the other place that the repeal of the investigative search power should not extend to the most dangerous drugs. The Opposition there made it clear that they supported the retention of a power narrowed in that way, and we decided that it would be right to respect and to respond to that concern from all quarters.
      Mr. Stuart Bell: The Minister is telling the House why the Government wish to accept the amendments. Has he any statistical evidence to support the Government's judgment?
      Mr. Shaw: The statistical evidence is of drug abuse, drug carrying and drug trafficking. We are discussing whether the use of an intimate search power would be an effective way to deal with one aspect of criminal activity. I cannot give any statistics about intimate search recovery, because the power has not previously been available.
      In this group of amendments there are amendments that permit Customs and Excise to apply to itself the power of protective intimate search contained in clause 55. That is a desirable safeguard that should clearly be available to Customs officers. However, Customs and Excise does have investigate search powers that derive from section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. That permits both intimate and non-intimate searches. In keeping with Customs' role in controlling the movement of goods in and out of the country, its search provision is not limited to class A drugs. Unlike the power now proposed for the police, the Customs provision permits searches only of persons within ports or airports, or entering or leaving the United Kingdom, and is therefore
      872
      exercisable only at those places. In short, section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act is shaped expressly to enable it to fulfil its particular functions.
      Were Customs to adopt clause 53 in full, the investigative power provided for the police would call its own power into question. The first amendment to clause 107, therefore, limits its adoption of the clause to the protective power and search. Its present power of investigative search is maintained intact by the second amendment, in accordance with undertakings given here and in another place.
      Mr. Corbett: The House will be grateful to the Minister for dealing with the amendments at some length. There is concern in every part of the House about the explosion in the trafficking and use of drugs such as heroin. It is a scar on many of our inner city areas. I say quite frankly to the Minister that a contribution to that has been the reduction in Customs and Excise staff at ports of entry. It has been estimated that at the major ports of Dover and Heathrow millions of pounds worth of heroin are smuggled into the country. The Minister may be interested to know that recently a member of the Customs and Excise staff told me that at an airport outside London at certain times of the day and night—and I am being careful not to mention the exact times—it is not possible to man even the red channel, let alone the green channel with its random searches.
      We are now discussing intimate body searches and the possibility of their being carried out under compulsion. The Minister does not need me to remind him that the Opposition find that an offensive principle, and we have opposed it throughout the lengthy passage of the Bill. However, I am pleased that the Government now accept that such searches should be carried out only by a suitably qualified person, only at a hospital or similar premises, and that they will not, in any circumstances, be carried out by other people.
      7.45 pm
      I listened carefully to the Minister's argument in favour of changing the status of a suitable person from a registered medical practitioner to suitably qualified persons, such as nurses and midwives. I was glad that he made it clear that it would not be just any old body who had taken a first-aid course.
      I grudgingly welcome the fact that under no circumstances will a constable be allowed to carry out intimate searches for drugs. For the life of me, I cannot foresee any circumstances in which, when an intimate search is required, it will prove impossible to find someone suitably qualified. It is going too far even to envisage circumstances in which, on the authority of a superintendent or senior police officer, a constable could be asked to carry out the search.
      Ms. Clare Short: My hon. Friend appears to be suggesting that it is inconceivable under the clause that a constable could carry out an intimate body search on the suspicion of drugs being carried. I fear that that is not the case. If it is not practicable to have a doctor—and we know that the medical profession objects to the power—untrained constables can poke around in the orifices of men and women.
      Mr. Shaw: The hon. Lady is under a misapprehension, and I apologise if I contributed to that. When she

      873
      intervened in my speech, I thought that she was referring to police surgeons, as opposed to doctors and qualified people. I wish to make it clear that there is no power for police officers to carry out intimate searches for drugs. Such searches must be carried out by a police surgeon or another qualified person, such as a medical practitioner or a registered nurse or midwife. If doctors, nurses or the police surgeon are not available to undertake a search, there will be no search.
      Mr. Corbett: I am glad that the Minister has clarified that point.
      The Opposition have two major objections to the Government's proposals for intimate searches for drugs that could be carried out with the use of force. In all the consultations during the passage of the Bill the doctors have made clear their distaste at being required to search for evidence. Doctors and others in the medical profession have found that prospect alarming. They are reluctant to be asked not simply to search for evidence during an examination, but, if necessary, to do so with the application of force. I am sure that the Minister and others will take on board the fact that it is a matter of medical ethics, which must not be taken lightly in this place or elsewhere. It is certainly not taken lightly in the medical profession. Many members of the medical profession may decline to become involved in such practices. I noted that the Minister was careful to say that, where someone in the medical profession came to that conclusion, that view would be accepted.
      A doctor, or, in the terms of one of the amendments, a "suitably qualified person", does not have ethical problems when the search—perhaps involving the use of force—of an arrested person is justified on ground of danger to the life of the individual. As the BMA has told us:
      "It is our view that there can be no objection to a medical practitioner carrying out an intimate body search where the purpose is to remove an object which is of immediate danger to the life or personal safety of the suspect or of those people responsible for the suspect's custody and supervision."
      I am glad that the Minister acknowledges the strength of that argument. In other words, the BMA accepts that where the concealed drug could cause danger or physical injury to the suspect, its members would be prepared to search.
      As the Minister and the House will recognise, this is an important distinction, because we are being told that the BMA does not support the search for evidence but would support a search if the reasons for it involved the safety of the suspect and that is the reasonable judgment of the suitably qualified person. That is a mile away from the clumsy compulsion in other parts of the Bill.
      The second problem relates to the class A list of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The BMA was in consultation with the Home Office and made some proposals to the Department, but then the lines went dead. It was expecting a response from those responsible in the Home Office, but, in the words of the old song, "Answer came there none." As the Minister and the House will be aware, more than 85 drugs are listed in schedule 2, part I, to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The House will be delighted to know that I do not intend to read them out, mainly because of the problems that I anticipate over pronunciation of names of the drugs.
      874
      A wide range of drugs are set out in the list. There are a few of immediate interest, such as heroin, which the Minister mentioned. The others are the cocaine and cocaine-based drugs and the morphine and morphine-derivative drugs. I have taken advice, and I am informed that those are a small number of the drugs listed in the class A schedule. The amendment implies that we expect police officers not simply to be able to suspect that there may be morphine or cocaine-related drugs concealed in the intimate parts of the suspect, but to be able to spot the difference between cannabinol, either with or without cannabis or cannabis resin around it.
      Amendment No. 156 allows for forceful intimate searches where a superintendent or more senior officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect may have a class A drug concealed on him. Are we saying that a superintendent, or the generality of senior officers above that, can tell his ethylmethylthiambutene from his 4-Cyano-2-dimethylamino-4? It is ludicrous to suggest that, and, with the greatest respect to those in the medical profession, I should think that one would have to go a long way round that profession before one could find a qualified doctor who could instantly tell one the use of most of the drugs on the class A list.
      The BMA further tells us that it acknowledges the point about the need for much better efforts to be made to stop the entry of heroin, the trafficking in it and its use. It is very much a linked process. As I have already said, if better efforts were made to stop heroin coming into the country in the first place, it would help to solve the problem.
      The BMA also says this:
      "We appreciate the size of the current problem relating to the illegal importation of heroin but we believe that any provision made in respect of heroin would need to be a specific temporary provision. It appears to us that this could be done within the Bill by giving the Secretary of State the power to permit searches for heroin by laying the appropriate regulation. We believe these powers should be covered by an Affirmative Regulation."
      It goes on to make the point that on the class A schedule is a drug called Fentanyl. It is used in carefully controlled circumstances in operating theatres, and there is no known case of addiction to it.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this before. Like him, I have carefully read the BMA's memorandum. Does he think that the BMA's advice to Parliament as to how this should be done under regulations is sound?
      Mr. Corbett: We should listen to what the BMA and those who practise medicine say. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has been telling us how important it is to take notice, through him, because of his links with the Police Federation, of what he described as the people at the sharp end. The BMA also has people at the sharp end and has stated its objection to what is suggested in the amendment. We should take on board what it is saying.
      The list is far too long to be sensible. There is no need for it. As the Minister has already implied, if the main purpose of the amendment is to do something about the heroin and hard drugs problem, why do the Government not say so and limit what they are proposing precisely to that problem? I hope, although I am being optimistic, that it may not be too late for the Minister to change his mind.
      I think the Minister appreciates that the medical profession dislikes being involved in intimate searches,

      875
      perhaps with the use of force, where evidence is being looked for by the police on the suspect. A suitably qualified person may be involved in a case in which the police are on the verge of requesting an intimate search and are able, under the terms of the Act, to use force. In this case, the medical practitioner may come to believe that there is no danger to the life or safety of the individual. For example, there may be a suspicion of the concealment of heroin in an intimate part of the body, and a suitably qualified person may have to make a judgment. Why not let nature take its course? Nature will eventually produce what the police suspect may be concealed.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Not always.
      Mr. Corbett: I am not a "not always" man but I accept that there is no such thing as 100 per cent. of anything. In the generality, and with suitable patience and given suitable time, the drug, if that is what is being concealed, will be produced from the suspect. That is the alternative to be set against the judgment of suitably qualified persons who, in a general sense, are able to examine the suspect.
      The Opposition dislike the powers that are set out in the clause. We think that they are far too wide and that they are dangerous in what we like to regard as a free society. We think that they are unnecessary for drugs and that there are are more effective measures that can be taken to deal with those who traffic in the vile trade of drugs.
      8 pm
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that we are talking about matters that are dangerous to a free society. The most dangerous feature that we face is the avalanche of drugs that are coming into the country. When the Bill was discussed on Report the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) suggested that the use of hard drugs was taking on epidemic proportions. We must judge the danger to our society against that description.
      I am obliged to three police officers for the information that they have made available. The chief constable of Sussex reported that in 1983 he executed 69 search warrants in his police area with a positive result for hard drugs. In 1984 he successfully executed 120—nearly double the 1983 figure. Seven arrests were made in 1982 involving heroin and 50 in 1983. So far this year 29 such arrests have been made at his count. The progression is clear. It is, of course, steeply upwards.
      Secondly, I refer to the report of the chief constable of Lothian and the Borders police area. I have chosen areas that are representative of the country as a whole. The chief constable of Lothian and the Borders, in his annual report, stated:
      "Drug abuse in Edinburgh has reached the stage where heroin is in prolific use in several districts of the city."
      He reported that there was a
      "serious involvement of the criminal fraternity in the market for heroin, morphine and cocaine, that large sums of money are readily available for financing drug dealings and that there is evidence that the so-called customers are turning to crime to raise the money to feed their addiction."
      Those are the considered words of the chief constable in his report to his police authority.
      The Times reported recently that a survey
      "of those arrested for theft or house breaking in Edinburgh in a six-month period last year showed that more than 34 per cent. of those offences had direct links with drug abuse."
      The connection between hard drugs and violent crime is proven beyond peradventure.
      Mr. Bermingham: How many of the search warrants to which the hon. Gentleman has referred were connected with an intimate search of the person against whom the warrant was issued? On how many occasions in Edinburgh have heroin-based drugs been found to be concealed in the intimate parts of a female? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we must direct our remarks to the subject matter, which is intimate searches.
      Mr. Griffiths: I think that I am entitled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your agreement, to set out the general context against which we have to consider the amendment. I am setting out the general context and I intend to complete it. I shall deal with intimate searches in a moment.
      The chief constable of the Thames Valley area, Mr. Peter Imbert, stated:
      "The epidemic is spreading from the cities into the towns and is affecting more and more young people."
      He speaks eloquently, in my view, of the tragedy, and says:
      "In the past few years the age of addicts has become younger and the accessibility of drugs is moving towards younger people in our society."
      That is what he said while chairing a conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Hutton in Lancashire. In my view, Lord Lane said it all in a recent speech. He said that the hard drugs problem is becoming deadly serious and that its link with violent crime is clear cut. It is against that background that we must consider——
      Ms. Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has not yet mentioned intimate body searches, which is the subject of the amendment. He has spoken generally about the problem of drugs in our society and their association with violent crime. Surely that is not in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). It is for the occupant of the Chair to decide whether a Member is out of order.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ladywood should know, after our long service on the Bill, that I speak in order.
      In the context that I have described, with hard drugs becoming a major problem and perhaps an epidemic in Britain, and with their proven connection with violent crime, I turn to the question before us. How do we deal with it, and is it necessary to have the disagreeable business of intimate searching? No police officer wants to be involved with a distasteful and unpleasant practice. The suggestions made in some of the anti-police literature that has been put about by the Greater London council and the hard Left, that the police are slavering at the lips to get into intimate searching, is a perversion of the truth. However, the police have a duty, and they have often to carry through a disagreeable duty.
      The power to carry out an intimate search, whoever performs it, is most valuable, because often it causes the offender to produce the drugs himself or herself rather than submit to an intimate search. I recall giving one example in Committee which bears repetition. I think that the matter arose in the Gloucester police area, but I am not sure. There was a series of offences involving thefts from

      877
      parked cars at a beauty spot. The police were keeping observation and a couple were observed. To use the rather quaint language of the police description, the lady was walking rather peculiarly.
      Ms. Clare Short: This is revolting.
      Mr. Griffiths: Yes, it is revolting. It emerged that many of the keys that had been used in stealing from the parked cars had been carried in what is politely known as the body orifice. When challenged by the police, the lady produced those keys, because she knew, and was told, that it was possible that she would be submitted to an intimate search. The intimate search was, therefore, unnecessary.
      When we debated this subject previously, we considered the problem of the police search for evidence. The House, in its wisdom or otherwise, disagreed on the issue of whether the police could search for evidence. The Government now propose to add a much more limiting power to the Bill. The power deals specifically with two points. It deals with the possibility of searching for those things that could be used to cause harm to the individual concerned or to others in his proximity and—I am glad of this measure—class A drugs.
      Mr. Bermingham: As this is the last occasion on which the hon. Gentleman can do so, will he answer the question that I asked him previously when he referred to the Gloucestershire story? The question is simple: upon what authority was the lady told that she could be subjected to an intimate search? Even under the provisions of the new Bill, a bunch of keys could not be said to be a weapon, and certainly not a class A drug.
      Mr. Griffiths: I understand that, even before we came to debate this Bill, the power of the police to require a search to be carried out already existed. That may well be a common law power, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to comment on that point later.
      The amendment will allow a search for items that can cause injury to the person concerned or to others in his vicinity. Without going into distasteful detail, I point out that it is extraordinary to note the remarkable collection of items that have been carried in the body orifices. I shall not go into detail, save to mention two examples. In one case, a man was found outside a police station with a listening device within his body. He was listening to an interrogation that was going on in the police station.
      I must mention another case, because we are living in the aftermath of the terrible events in Brighton. It is not uncommon for microdetonators to be carried within the body. No one can exclude the possibility of terrorists carrying in their bodies the microdetonators or radio timing devices that can be used to trigger explosions. I know that hon. Members do not lke to hear about those matters, but they are the facts of the modern technological age, and the police service must cope with them. It is right to have this power to cause a search to take place if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is carrying items that can damage himself or those within his immediate vicinity. I am glad that the Government have included this measure in the Bill.
      I am sorry that hon. Members were not able to dispose of the drugs matter on Report. I moved an amendment to that effect, but at that stage the measure was not favoured
      878
      by the Government. I am pleased that the other place has been more persuasive than I was. I have two questions to ask, one of which has been asked already by the hon. Member for Erdington. I do not understand the logic of the class A drugs list. I do not believe that all the drugs on that list are addictive. Having read what the British Medical Association said, I am inclined to feel that my opinion is correct.
      8.15 pm
      If the class A list does not hang together because the items on it are addictive, what is the peculiar justification of that classification? I regard other class B drugs as damaging. I certainly do not think that people should traffic in those drugs in this country, but they are to be excluded. As the hon. Member for Erdington said, no police officer, when he requires a search to take place, can possibly tell the type of drug he is searching for. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about how police officers can tell the type of drug for which they are searching is that they do not know. In practice, the police turn over any evidence of drugs of that type to the forensic department. The police require the forensic department to determine what the particular drug is.
      There is a danger with this practice. Suppose there is good reason to believe that a person is a trafficker in these terrible things which place children in the most appalling danger and is carrying such drugs and a search is made and the forensic people determine that the drug found is not class A but class B. The police have a certain amount of humour. One police office said to me, "I suppose that if it is a class B drug, they have to put it back". That is preposterous. No one imagines for one moment that that would happen. There must be a more logical explanation—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will provide it—why the classification of class A is appropriate. No doubt at some stage this measure will be embodied in force orders so that the forensic people will know how to handle the drugs.
      The BMA lectured the Committee about how we should conduct our business. I, among others, asked the BMA to meet us and explain its difficulties. I do not know why the BMA did not do so. Perhaps it was frightened that its case was not very good. I do not believe that the BMA's professional performance in advising Parliament on this Bill has been very good. Moreover, there is no evidence that the BMA speaks for the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain. The police surgeons have their own professional body. I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister of State—if not now, perhaps on some other occasion—whether the Association of Police Surgeons, which is separate from the BMA, has a considered view.
      I believe that the Government have got the amendments right. They should be passed. They will assist in the fight against terrorism and hard drugs.
      Mr. Bermingham: Once again I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). Much of what he said tonight was said in other places, including in Committee. I do not believe that the Bill can be allowed to go on to the statute book without, at some stage, someone answering certain fundamental questions. I have posed those questions to Government Ministers and to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds on a number of occasions, but have not yet received answers.

      879
      I intervened during the speech of the Minister of State to draw his attention to the wording of Lords amendment No. 156, which is in the male, rather than the male or female, form. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds inadvertently misled hon. Members in Committee, on Report and in the House. I appreciate the cause that he seeks to espouse, and I understand his position in these matters, but I do not see how the listening device referred to in the first example can be said to be an object likely
      "to cause physical injury to himself or others; and
      (ii) he might so use while he is in police detention or in custody of a court;"
      I cannot see how the type of detonator that needs other firing devices can be said to fall within the provisions of amendment No. 156. I have often puzzled over the Gloucestershire case and I have never been able to understand how a bunch of keys would come under the terms of the amendment.
      When one talks about intimate body searches, whether of male or female persons, one is beginning to go down the road which says that even the human body is no longer sacrosanct within the English legal system. It is easy, in the context and times of dreadful events, to use a dreadful event as an excuse to pervert—if I may put it as strongly as that—some of the basic principles that we have held strongly for a long time.
      Everyone in the House wishes to facilitate the fight against crime, to ensure that the guilty are captured and sentenced and that society is protected, but liberty also has its price. I have heard no evidence at any stage of the discussions on the Bill which has convinced me that intimate body searches will assist in the fight against the drug pusher. Not one example has been given, as far as I can recall—if anyone can think of an example I shall stand to be corrected—of intimate body searches having facilitated the conviction of a drug pusher. The reality is that when a person suspected of being a drug pusher or carrier is taken to the police station it is easy to make a claim, "We suspect that you are." What worries me is that if the amendment reaches the statute book that allegation will become the justification for the extensive use of intimate body searches.
      I am also worried that the amendment talks of a class A drug only. How is anyone to know beore the search whether one is searching for—I believe that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds recognised the point—class A or class B drugs? It will be sought to justify the search by saying that it might be a class A drug, even if it turns out to be a class B drug or nothing. How, why and what justification will be sought? We all know that in practice it will be recorded in the notebook, "I believed that". That is a justification, but it is not good enough. We have stepped down the road of licence. We have started licensing intimate body searches. The moment one starts down that road, one starts to negate liberties.
      In a civilised society we do not need these provisions. There are many other ways in which we can secure the protection of our liberties. For example, we could employ people to find these offenders, but I shall not waste the time of the House by canvassing what has been said by other hon. Members about other methods.
      I shall leave the House with one last thought. It goes back to something that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said tonight. He asked whether the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain would take the same
      880
      ethical view as the BMA. The BMA objects to intimate body searches on the ethical ground that it is wrong to probe the human body where there is no danger to life or limb from whatever that person has been using his body for. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the letter from the BMA dated 23 October, of which no doubt he has received a copy, he will see that it sets out clearly the basis of its ethical objections. It is simple. If there is no danger, there should be no probe.
      I cannot see how the Association of Police Surgeons can take a different view. Its members are invariably members of the BMA and no doubt are subject to the same rules of the ethics committee. Perhaps we could end the argument if the members of the medical profession stood united. Whether they be doctors, nurses or midwives, the basis of their ethics is the same. They believe in the sanctity of human life and the protection and sanctity of the human body. If they stand firm, as the Minister said, there will be no intimate searches and our country will be that little bit more civilised.
      Mr. Sims: I rise to speak lest my silence on the amendment be interpreted as enthusiastic support for it. I believe that intimate body searches are distasteful and disagreeable, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, the power needs to exist because more often than not the simple threat that it can be used is sufficient to produce what would otherwise be found by the search.
      The first Bill that we discussed codified powers of intimate search as being for a weapon or evidence of an offence. The latter part was dropped in the later Bill for reasons that I have yet to hear clearly explained. In Committee, I endeavoured to reintroduce the proposal because I believe that the police should have the ultimate power to search for evidence of an offence. I suggested that it was easy for people to conceal on their person evidence of an offence such as keys, money, credit cards and drugs. I was unable to persuade the Government despite the long list of offences where such evidence had been found, but I am pleased that they considered the strong representations on this issue made in another place. My regret is that the solution they reached is most unsatisfactory and the worst of all worlds.
      The amendment specifies certain drugs only and, therefore, we have the ridiculous position that an intimate search can be carried out if it is believed that a person is carrying within him or herself heroin but not if it is believed that he is carrying cannabis. The other is the difficulty, highlighted by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), of what the position is if the police require an intimate body search to be carried out on the ground that the person is believed to be carrying within himself a class A drug but it is found that he is not carrying the drug but is carrying something else which is evidence of an offence such as keys, money or a credit card.
      As I understand it, although it could be argued that the search should not have been carried out, having been carried out and the evidence having been produced, it can then be used. The opportunities for improper procedures and abuse are self-evident. I believe that that is an unsatisfactory solution to the problem, but on the ground that half a loaf is better than no bread, I shall reluctantly support the amendment.
      Ms. Clare Short: I cannot let the amendment pass without objecting to the provisions that the Government

      881
      are introducing. When one discusses the Bill with members of the public, women find the provisions that permit the police to organise intimate body searches the most objectionable.
      When we discuss the Bill's provisions we tend to talk as though such searches will be made only when they are justified. But in the nature of the provision that is not so. When we say, "If there is reasonable suspicion this can be done," it follows inevitably that people will be searched who are not guilty and forcibly searched in the most intimate parts of their bodies when there is nothing incriminating to be found and they should not be searched in that way.
      8.30 pm
      I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that, in the case of drugs, with this widening of the power it will not be possible for the police to search an individual forcibly if a nurse or a doctor is unwilling to agree to it. But I fear that this will not be the protection that it may be in these days of massive unemployment and poverty, even in the medical profession and especially amongst nurses. I fear that there will always be someone willing to carry out such a search in return for the money that he or she will be paid.
      In our inner cities especially, in the name of looking for drugs the police can and do stop and search every young black whom they feel like stopping and searching. It follows inevitably from this provision that the police will be able to threaten with an intimate body search every young black whom they pick up whenever they feel like doing so. That is what will flow from this provision.
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) talked with relish, as he did in Committee, of the need for intimate body searches. In doing so he demonstrates the low level to which society is descending. I find it appalling that we happily and openly take powers to search forcibly the most intimate parts of the bodies of human beings. We do not appear to justify reluctantly the powers being taken and we hear from Government supporters calls for even more powers so that the police will be able to search forcibly anyone in these intimate places whenever they like.
      There has to be some basic standard of decency. Probing around in the most intimate parts of the bodies of human beings or threatening such probes is indecent. We should not take this power. It is disgraceful and objectionable. I object to it strongly.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to one or two matters raised in the debate.
      I ought perhaps to remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that the amendment approved in the other place was moved by my noble Friend Baroness Masham of Ilton. If my noble Friend had heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Ladywood she would be rightly shocked. It is not an issue which anyone takes any relish in debating or legislating about. It is unfortunately an issue which the length to which members of the criminal fraternity are prepared to go in drug dealing has brought to our attention. We are doing our best in the amendments approved in the other place to solve the problem.
      I wish to comment on three issues raised in the debate. The first refers to class A drugs. By their definition, class A drugs are highly dangerous. There is no doubt that some
      882
      are more dangerous than heroin. LSD is an example. As for addictiveness, since the power is restricted to possession with intent to supply in practice it will bite only in the case of drugs which have a market and for which there is a demand.
      Our main concern at the moment is with heroin. But there are other drugs which are also of concern although they are not so common or popular with addicts at present. I have in mind some of the pain-killing drugs—the opiates, morphine, pethidine and, of course, cocaine. But there are reasons for saying that the class A drugs are the most dangerous and that those drugs which become marketed as part of the criminal intention to create addiction are the ones which in due course will be covered by police activities in this area.
      As for the BMA, the medical profession has made it clear that doctors can ethically and properly carry out intimate searches to remove articles which pose an immediate threat to the lives of the persons concerned or those guarding them. The BMA has now accepted that, because of the threat posed by heroin to the health of society, it may be right and necessary for doctors to participate in its removal from a suspected dealer. But the amendments are not limited to heroin, because there are other class A drugs, and there can be no logical difference between the removal of one dangerous drug and that of another. Internal concealment and danger to the health of the carrier which is posed by it make the drugs even more dangerous, and we hope that doctors will be able to agree to act upon police requests for assistance.
      The nursing professions have accepted that the voluntary involvement of their members is permissible in the exceptional circumstances for which this power provides. The Royal College of Midwives has not accepted it, but in many cases members of that college are also registered nurses. The Bill makes it clear that the searching for drugs in terms of the intimate search powers will have to be carried out by a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse.
      My final comment relates to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). The real issue at stake should be the prevention of drugs coming into the country, anyhow. We know that this is a big world-wide traffic. We have to do our best to improve the sources of detection before they reach the market. I assure the House that the Government have taken action in terms of additional customs provision. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health announced recently that 100 new customs posts will be provided to fight drug smuggling alone, that there will be additional customs staff on the Central Drugs Intelligence Unit and that senior customs officers have been posted to Karachi to improve operational intelligence about that market from which so many drugs come. I accept entirely that what has to come about is stifling the trade at birth rather than being involved in pieces of legislation which give no one pleasure when discussing the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and these amendments.
      Mr. Corbett: Are the customs posts to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred additional jobs, or are officers being transferred from other duties?
      Mr. Shaw: As far as I am aware, they are additional jobs. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for the customs service.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 155 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 156, in page 49, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—

      "(i) he could use to cause physical injury to himself or others; and

      (ii) he might so use while he is in police detention or in the custody of a court; or

      (b) that such a person-—

      (i) nay have a Class A drug concealed on him; and

      (ii) was in possession of it with the appropriate criminal intent before his arrest,"

      Read a Second time.
      Amendment to the Lords amendment proposed: (a), leave out from 'court' to end of line 10.
      Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 239

      Division No. 474]

      [8.37 pm

      AYES

      Anderson, Donald

      Haynes, Frank

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Ashton, Joe

      Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

      Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

      Home Robertson, John

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Barnett, Guy

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Barron, Kevin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Bell, Stuart

      John, Brynmor

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Blair, Anthony

      Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

      Boyes, Roland

      Litherland, Robert

      Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Buchan, Norman

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Caborn, Richard

      McGuire, Michael

      Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

      McKelvey, William

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Clarke, Thomas

      McTaggart, Robert

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McWilliam, John

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

      Madden, Max

      Cohen, Harry

      Marek, Dr John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

      Martin, Michael

      Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

      Maxton, John

      Craigen, J. M.

      Meacher, Michael

      Crowther, Stan

      Michie, William

      Dalyell, Tam

      Mikardo, Ian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

      Morris, Rt Hon J, (Aberavon)

      Deakins, Eric

      Nellist, David

      Dewar, Donald

      O'Brien, William

      Dobson, Frank

      O'Neill, Martin

      Dormand, Jack

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Douglas, Dick

      Park, George

      Dubs, Alfred

      Parry, Robert

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Patchett, Terry

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

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Evans, John (St. Helens N)

      Pike, Peter

      Fatchett, Derek

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Prescott, John

      Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

      Radice, Giles

      Flannery, Martin

      Randall, Stuart

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Redmond, M.

      Foster, Derek

      Richardson, Ms Jo

      Foulkes, George

      Robertson, George

      George, Bruce

      Rogers, Allan

      Godman, Dr Norman

      Rowlands, Ted

      Gould, Bryan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Hardy, Peter

      Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

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

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Skinner, Dennis

      884

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

      Welsh, Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Rt Hon A.

      Soley, Clive

      Winnick, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Woodall, Alec

      Stott, Roger

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Straw, Jack

      Tinn, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Torney, Tom

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Robin Corbett.

      Wareing, Robert

      Weetch, Ken

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Favell, Anthony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fenner, Mrs Peggy

      Alexander, Richard

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Amess, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Ancram, Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Ashby, David

      Forth, Eric

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Fox, Marcus

      Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

      Franks, Cecil

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Freeman, Roger

      Beith, A. J.

      Freud, Clement

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gale, Roger

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Benyon, William

      Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

      Best, Keith

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Blackburn, John

      Grant, Sir Anthony

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Greenway, Harry

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

      Bottomley, Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Ground, Patrick

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

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Hargreaves, Kenneth

      Bright, Graham

      Harris, David

      Brinton, Tim

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Hayes, J.

      Budgen, Nick

      Hayward, Robert

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Heddle, John

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Henderson, Barry

      Butterfill, John

      Hickmet, Richard

      Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

      Hicks, Robert

      Carlisle, John (N Luton)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hill, James

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hirst, Michael

      Cartwright, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cash, William

      Holt, Richard

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hooson, Tom

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howard, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

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

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Colvin, Michael

      Howells, Geraint

      Coombs, Simon

      Hubbard-Miles, Peter

      Cope, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Corrie, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Hunter, Andrew

      Critchley, Julian

      Jackson, Robert

      Crouch, David

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jessel, Toby

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Robert (W Herts)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Kennedy, Charles

      Dunn, Robert

      Key, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

      Eggar, Tim

      Knox, David

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Lang, Ian

      Evennett, David

      Latham, Michael

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Lawler, Geoffrey

      Fallon, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Farr, Sir John

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      885

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Sims, Roger

      Lester, Jim

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Lilley, Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Speed, Keith

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      McCrea, Rev William

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Squire, Robin

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Madel, David

      Stern, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Maples, John

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Marlow, Antony

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Mather, Carol

      Stokes, John

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Sumberg, David

      Meadowcroft, Michael

      Tapsell, Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Moate, Roger

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Moore, John

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Thurnham, Peter

      Neubert, Michael

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Newton, Tony

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waddington, David

      Norris, Steven

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Ottaway, Richard

      Walden, George

      Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

      Walker, Bill (T'side N)

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Pawsey, James

      Waller, Gary

      Pollock, Alexander

      Ward, John

      Porter, Barry

      Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Powley, John

      Watson, John

      Raffan, Keith

      Watts, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Wheeler, John

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Whitfield, John

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Ryder, Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sackville, Hon Thomas

      Wood, Timothy

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mr. John Major and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Shersby, Michael

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Lords amendments Nos. 156 to 178 agreed to.

    Clause 55

      ADDITIONAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS WHO ARE ARRESTED
      Lords amendment:No. 179, in page 52, line 11 leave out from "arrested" to end of line 16 and insert
      "such steps as are practicable shall be taken to ascertain the identity of a person responsible for his welfare.
      (2A) If it is practicable to ascertain the identity of a person responsible for the welfare of a child or young person, that person shall be informed, unless it is not practible to do so—

      (a) that the child or young person has been arrested;

      (b) why he has been arrested; and

      (c) where he is being detained.

      (2B) Where information falls to be given under subsection (2A) above, it shall be given as soon as it is practicable to do so.
      (2C) For the purposes of this section the persons who may be responsible for the welfare of a child or young person are—

      (a) his parent or guardian; or

      886

      (b) any other person who has for the time being assumed responsibility for his welfare.

      (2D) If it is practicable to give a person responsible for the welfare of the child or young person the information required by subsection (2A) above, that person shall be given it as soon as it is practicable to do so."
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 180, 181 and 182.
      Mr. Shaw: Clause 54 requires the police to inform the parents or guardian of a juvenile in police detention of his arrest and whereabouts. That duty already exists at present by virtue of section 34 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Clause 54 was intended to update that section. Unfortunately, however, we realised while the Bill was in another place that it did rather more than that. Whereas the 1933 Act obliges the police to take such steps as may be practicable to convey the necessary information, clause 54 as printed imposes an absolute duty. But of course there may be cases where the duty cannot be carried out because the whereabouts of parents are simply not known. Amendments Nos. 179, 180 and 181 accordingly set out what the police practicably can and must do after arresting a juvenile.
      Amendment No. 182 covers the case where a juvenile is in the care not of a local authority but of a voluntary organisation having parental rights and responsibilities for him.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I am very concerned abut the earlier part of this set of amendments. In broad terms what is suggested is acceptable and good, sound common sense, but there have been many cases in which the police have said from time to time in evidence, "We would have told the parents," or "We would have told the guardian or foster parents,"—such cases often arise—"if it had been practicable to do so, but we telephoned their home and they were out." Alternatively, the police might say, "We sent a bobby round to their house, but they were out." Where a child or a young person is taken into custody and often, nowadays, regrettably, charged with an extremely serious offence, it is desirable that the police should take more than merely cursory steps to ascertain the whereabouts of the person responsible for the welfare of the child or young person. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that the Government will issue guidelines and, if so, what guidelines will be issued to ensure that that happens.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.
      Mr. Shaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. There are important distinctions between having a juvenile and having those of more mature years in custody. All that I can do is to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the police are to take this duty seriously and that in the case of a juvenile they must take as many practicable steps as possible to inform the next of kin, parent, guardian or person who has responsibility. That is what the amendment is designed to do. There will be guidance on this matter in due course. I must also tell the House, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will probably concede, that the police try extremely hard, when they have young

      887
      persons in custody, to find the parents. It is astonishing sometimes how lax parents are about knowing the whereabouts of their children.
      Amendment No. 182 covers the case where a juvenile is in the care not of a local authority but of a voluntary organisation. In such a case it is clearly desirable that the police should have to give the organisation the information required by the clause. The amendment ensures that they will.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad to support these amendments.
      Often children who come into the custody of the police are terrified of their parents. In some cases children will lie when the police ask them where they belong because they are frightened. Sometimes there is child abuse and child beating. I can only say from personal experience that, although I do not wish to generalise because all generalisations are untrue, there is a remarkable amount of kindness in police stations towards young people—terrified children, children who are wet, cold and hungry. Sometimes even when the social workers are on strike the police station is the last recourse, and the police take the children in. They do not have many facilities, but in wide areas of the police force there is such kindness to children, which should be put on record.
      Of course, it is right that the police should get in touch with the parents as soon as possible if they can, but amendment No. 181 is right to insert the words
      "as soon as it is reasonably practicable".
      For my part, I am confident that the police service will do that in the overwhelming majority of cases.
      I should like to ask my hon. Friend about amendment No. 182, which concerns cases when the child or young person is in the care of a voluntary organisation. Manifestly, the same duty must lie upon the police in such cases. One of the problems is that such organisations frequently do not have a night number. For one reason or another, there may be no one on duty or available. I hope that in any guidance or advice by circular to chief officers the Home Office will take account of the fact that not every voluntary organisation which has custody of children is necessarily easy to contact late at night.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The purpose of the amendment is clearly highly desirable. It is also clear, however, that there is no inherent sanction. I appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that in some areas some officers may not be so assiduous as others in carrying out this duty. As there are no sanctions attaching to this statutory obligation, it is important that police forces should lay down very careful guidelines as to the steps that officers should take in given circumstances. I am sure that the House will welcome any observations that the Minister can make on that.
      9 pm
      Mr. Giles Shaw: The points raised in all three interventions relate to the same matter. I accept that if juveniles are held in custody, the duty on the police to inform those responsible for them must be taken very seriously indeed, and that is how it will be.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 180 to 183 agreed to

    Clause 56

      ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE
      Lords amendment: No. 184, in page 52, line 40, at beginning insert
      "Subject to subsection (2A) below,"
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 185.
      Mr. Shaw: These amendments excuse the police from having to record a request for legal advice made by a person already at court. Clause 56(2) rightly requires the police to record a request for advice made by a person who has been arrested and is in custody, but it is frankly not sensible to require them to make a record when the person is already at court. Once there, he is in the custody of the court, whether he is in the court room itself or in the cells below. It is thus for the court and its staff to deal with any request for legal advice, and no useful purpose would be served by a police log. Indeed, it might cause the police some administrative difficulty as the person's custody record would have been left behind at the police station. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that the amendments are sensible and should be accepted.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Defendants often assert in court that they asked for a solicitor to be called, but that that was not done. One purpose of the custody record is to ensure that any request by the accused for a solicitor is recorded. The amendments will bring about a hiatus—a period during which it will be provided that no record should or, indeed, can be kept of such a request. One can foresee the police admitting in court that a request for a solicitor was made, but saying that, as it was made at court, no record was kept, while the defendant claims that the request was made before leaving the police station. The Minister laughs, perhaps with some justification, but I assure him that the criminal mind is well capable of spotting such a problem area and the news gets around quickly, especially in the remand centres. I hope that the Government considered that problem before deciding that this was the appropriate course. If not, perhaps they should think again.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Again, I am in some sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the position. If a defendant makes a request to the court for a solicitor, that is almost certainly a matter of public record or at least something that can be established. The worrying point, however, is where the request is made after leaving the court because there is then a matter of controversy. If the request is made before going into the court, the defendant can clearly repeat it to the court, so in that case the difficulties are largely overcome. There is a period between the moment when he ceases to be in the court and the moment when he leaves the court building when there is no record and no means of establishing fact.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, even at court, a defendant may say in not very distinct tones, "I want to see a brief.," or something of that sort, which is unlikely to be recorded in many magistrates' courts in which he might appear?
      Mr. Hogg: I am not entirely sure whether I agree with that. If a request is made, albeit in the most informal of

      889
      language to the court, the probability is that that request will be acted on either at the behest of the court through the duty solicitor scheme or by some other method.
      I am more concerned with the situation when the defendant has left the court room and gone down to the cells. He could then make a request and, under the amendment, there would be no record of it. Therefore, there is a period which is not covered either by an existing record or by an application to the court. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could amplify that matter.
      Mr. Nicholas Lyell(Mid-Bedfordshire): Whether the application has been recorded is not the only question that arises. After all, the purpose of recording whether or when a defendant makes an application for legal advice is to ensure that he or she should get legal advice when it is required. Has the Home Office given its mind to the substance of the problem rather than to the formalities? One of the Bill's difficulties is that it will result in a great deal of paperwork. We are concentrating here on the paperwork side. When a defendant goes to court, it is all very well to say, as my hon. Friend the Minister did, that he is in the custody of the court and therefore it is the court staff who should see that the defendant has access to legal advice, but my experience is that in the courts any prisoner might well be forgiven for not realising whether he is in the custody of the court or of the police. The person whom the prisoner is likely to ask to provide him with legal advice is the police officer.
      What is the real justification for that lacuna when one tests it as a matter of practicality? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will go into this in some detail. In the course of his period at the Home Office he will no doubt have had to visit a number of courts and probably the passages and spaces between the prison and the court. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us whether he has had to visit Strangeways where there is, or used to be, a passage between the prison and the court. If the application is made in the course of passing through that passage, at what point does the matter have to be recorded? I see hon. Members laughing, but it is a serious problem, and I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give his views on it.
      Mr. Ashby: I acknowledge the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell). It is an important point despite its amusing aspects. We must realise that the magistrates courts are not courts of record. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) expects that if such a request were made in court it would be noted somewhere, my experience is that whatever is said in court is noted nowhere and that nobody knows what goes on in court. I have had the experience in a magistrates court of calling two or three people from such courts to say what went on only to be given two or three different versions.
      We cannot be satisfied about what goes on in the court. There is a gap. It would be easy for my hon. Friend the Minister to speak to the Attorney-General and consider whether the magistrates' courts could not be asked to make a record of any request made in the court. That would be a small amendment and would present no problem.
      The court officials have to give written reasons when applications for bail are refused. The change which I envisage would be only an extension of that duty, and it would be quite within the capabilities of a clerk to the
      890
      court. This is an important gap and one that should—if I may use a term from the world of advertising—be bridged.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: We have had an intellectual debate of the highest order on something which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has described as a significant matter of substance, but which has also been aptly described as that woolly animal, the lacuna.
      I can offer some advice to my hon. Friends who are concerned. There are clauses in the Bill which provide for the establishment of custody officers. At long last, the situation is much more precise. So long as the prisoner is in the custody of the police, a direct record will be kept of all that is involved in the progress of his case. The purpose of the custody record is to record the person's treatment while he remains within police custody. As I understand it, once he arrives at the court he moves out of the custody of the police and into direct supervision of the court. The hiatus which worried the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery does not exist. The prisoner moves from one direct form of supervision to another.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) pointed out, the problem is that the court is very lax in the supervision of the details of administration in regard to those within its jurisdiction at any time. That is a matter which I would have to draw to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor if the House wished me to pursue it, because it is not a matter which is directly related to the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the time when the prisoner moves from the court. Surely the prisoner either leaves the court to go back into police custody—in which case the custody officer resumes his duties—or he goes to prison or, presumably, he is put at liberty.
      Mr. Hogg: The hiatus arises when the prisoner leaves the court room and, for example, goes downstairs to the cells. He may stay there for a couple of hours. During that time he has not left the court but he has left the court room. That is the hiatus.
      Mr. Shaw: I am not as proficient in the matter of law as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, but I assume that, when he goes downstairs, the prisoner remains within the jurisdiction of the court in so far as the court takes responsibility for all that happens within the building. If that is the case, if the prisoner has made a request to see a solicitor, for instance, the court officers should make a record of the fact.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Although when he is in the cells underneath the court room the prisoner is still at a court, he is guarded by the police officers who brought him from the police station and will take him back again. There is no court officer or prison officer there to whom the prisoner could make such a request. He is in police custody, because he has been remanded in police custody from the court room, but he is still at a court. There should be provision for a request to see a solicitor to be recorded if it is made in that situation.
      Mr. Shaw: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's clarification. If that is seen to be a serious gap in the provisions about access to lawyers or the maintenance of records, it should be considered and

      891
      rectified. However, what we are discussing is the role within the Bill of police custody and its relationship to a person who is, for the purposes of a hearing, already transferred to court. The amendments make it clear that, in that case, no useful purpose would be served by the maintenance of a police log. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has said that there is a gap. It requires observation. I note that and perhaps in the meanwhile the House will agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Lyell: I tried to emphasise that people need legal advice when they get to court. The Bill is designed to protect people when they are kept in custody for a long time but its provisions are irrelevant if a case comes on quickly. In those circumstances, ensuring that people who need legal advice get it is most relevant. There is a gap in the provisions that ensure that people who need legal advice get it and have their requests recorded. My hon. Friend appears not to have dealt with that issue. He says that it will be dealt with by the court. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) have rightly observed that such a person will be in the custody of the police. I appreciate that it is difficult for my hon. Friend the Minister to amend at this stage but perhaps he could have the matter looked into and comment on it briefly now.
      Mr. Shaw: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's intervention. The role of the custody officer and the maintenance of a prisoner's contacts and requests should be ordered properly and a log should be kept. I agree that if, on transfer to court, there is a gap in the provision of access or in the recording of requests, the matter is primarily one for the court authority. If it fails to do that, we should have to consider amending the guidance notes that are given to the police, if that would help alleviate the problem. We should examine that after the new provisions have been in practice for some time.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If there be such a gap—I always defer to the legal experience of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—I do not see why the obligation should be put on the police to fill it while defendants are in the custody of the court. Why cannot the court's officer be obliged to make a log?
      Mr. Shaw: I think that my hon. Friend is right, in that the prime responsibility is to ensure that the administration of the court is of such a quality that it is able to maintain an accurate record of proceedings. My hon. Friends, most of whom are hon. and learned, are well versed in court procedure and have said that that is far from the case. Apparently courts do not have quite the logical way of going about these things as do the police. Perhaps I might take it as the House's wish that, after experience, if a gap emerges, we might consider amending the code of practice.
      Mr. Hogg: The House would be much reassured if my hon. Friend were able to say that the anxiety that has been expressed about what happens in cells after the defendant has left the court room will be brought to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor as magistrates'
      892
      courts are in his jurisdiction. It is desirable that there should be some means of recording a request to see a solicitor when it is made in the cells. That is a matter of procedure which has hitherto been overlooked.
      Mr. Shaw: I agree that this matter should be drawn to the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor but I cannot think of a better envoy than my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 185 to 189 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 190, in page 55, line 1, leave out subsections (19) to (22).
      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take amendment No. 191, which involves privilege.
      Mr. Shaw: The amendments replace the provisions in clause 56 (19) to (22) relating to legal aid with a new clause. Provision is made for solicitors' clerks to act under the scheme and for those at a police station voluntarily to receive the assistance under the scheme. Other minor drafting amendments are also made.
      The amendments transfer the provisions of clause 56 (19) to (22) into a new clause and extend their scope. The provisions deal with the making of arrangements—duty solicitors' schemes—to provide advice and assistance at public expense to persons at police stations, so making fully effective the right to legal advice conferred by clause 56(1). The new clause differs from subsections (19) to (22) in some important respects. First, it provides for solicitors' representatives to be permitted to act under the arrangements where necessary. Second, it extends the scope of the free schemes to those who are at police stations voluntarily as well as those who are there under arrest. That is an important new provision which will help to ensure that there is no grey area between liberty and detention and that persons who are at police stations under caution, but not under arrest, are indeed there voluntarily and not under a form of disguised compulsion.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I hope that the House will warmly endorse the amendments. The Bill has been criticised for being too oppressive, but the amendment is a good example of how the Bill has enlarged the rights of people who are in police custody.
      I particularly welcome two aspects mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. First, the amendment enables representatives of solicitors to act under the Legal Aid Act 1982. If advice is always to be available, it is desirable that solicitors' representatives should be permitted to act, because it is not always possible for solicitors to be present. If we are to give full expression to the purpose of legal aid, representatives should be permitted to act.
      The even more important advance is that the amendment applies to those who are voluntarily at a police station. It is often said that those who are attending "voluntarily" are under some form of compulsion, but the Government have gone a long way towards ensuring that everyone attending a police station is either under arrest or attending truly voluntarily. In the latter circumstance, legal aid is available and those people can discover their rights. The amendments are a valuable extension to civil rights and the Government deserve our congratulations.
      Mr. Lyell: I concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said about the substance of the amendments, but the wording leaves much to be desired. New subsection (1A) in amendment No. 191 consists of 97 words and refers to solicitors designated by reference to other types of solicitors.
      Will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify something about the types of solicitors referred to? It will be noted that someone may find a solicitor available and then discover that that solicitor is precluded from giving him advice because he is not a solicitor of the type specifically referred to in the new subsection.
      The new clause states:
      "A scheme under section 15 of the principal Act which relates to advice and representation at magistrates' courts may provide that arrangements made under it may be so framed as to preclude solicitors from providing such advice and representation if they do not also provide advice and assistance in pursuance of arrangements made by virtue of the scheme under that section which relates to the provision of advice and assistance for persons such as are mentioned in section 29 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and for persons arrested and held in cusiody."
      It is clear that section 29 refers to people who are arrested other than at police stations. But I hope that my hon. Friend will carefully consider how one is to recognise that the solicitor from whom one wishes to seek advice is or is not one who also provides advice and assistance
      "in pursuance of arrangements made by virtue of the scheme under that section which relates to the provisions of advice and assistance for persons such as are mentioned in section 29".
      I see my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in his place and perhaps he can give my hon. Friend the Minister some guidance if he does not have a note in front of him. But it would seem that there are considerable practical difficulties in placing this restriction. If my hon. Friend the Minister can explain how one identifies whether the solicitor available is entitled to give advice under this rather complex section, I should be grateful if he could then explain what rationale precludes a solicitor who is not prepared to give advice to those not arrested at police stations from giving advice under subsection (1A). Normally, amendments from the other place are very carefully thought out, and I therefore accept that there may be a sound rationale. Indeed, I look in the direction from which it might be forthcoming. However, at present I find it difficult to understand what it is. Perhaps other hon. Members can help. But failing that I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could enlighten me before the provision is enacted.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: The main point at issue is, of course, the range of solicitors from which the prisoner may choose to take legal advice at the point at which he continues in police custody. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) is right to say that that brings into play the question of the legal profession's range of services which are available to the prisoner at any given time. Perhaps I can couch my answer in terms of the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme, as that represents for most people the most effective way of obtaining legal advice that they wish to have, and for which—under clause 56—we are making provision.
      Some doubts have been raised about the extent of the Government's commitments to the successful operation of duty solicitor schemes, but the facts simply do not bear that out. The provision contained in clause 58 providing a statutory right to legal advice for those arrested and held in custody, reinforced by the extensions of rights to advice
      894
      contained in the statutory code of practice, represent an important consolidation of the existing position, and an improvement upon it.
      The Government have recognised that there would be considerable difficulty in attempting to make the rights as newly set out in the Bill effective using the existing legal aid provisions, since advice will need to be quickly and simply available throughout the 24 hours of the day. We have therefore attempted to assist the legal profession to meet the new demands on its resources—my hon. and learned Friend was right to say that by virtue of the provision there will be increased demands upon it—by explicitly extending the Law Society's powers to enable it to make specific arrangements for duty solicitor schemes, and giving the committees that will administer them a discretion to link membership with the existing schemes at magistrates' courts to help with manpower.
      9.30 pm
      Considerable changes have been made in the usual requirements on the financial limits for eligibility and liability to contribute because of the special circumstances in which the advice will be sought. Additional financial provision has already been made in forward estimates towards the likely cost of the schemes. The Government have demonstrated their willingness to respond to helpful criticism by amending the original form of the legislation to enable the schemes to provide fully for those who are not under arrest.
      My hon. and learned Friend should be reassured that the changes to the duty schemes and the provisions made with the Law Society's agreement go a long way towards providing the legal support and aid for persons in detention which is the bedrock of this clause.
      Mr. Lyell: I thank the Minister for that answer, which clarifies the position. Am I right to espy what might be described as beneficent restrictive practice?
      I shall not elaborate at too much length, but it seems clear that those solicitors who take the trouble to provide the 24-hour service will have reserved for them the right to give advice which people need during that period and that other solicitors who happen to be around will not be able to benefit. That seems to be the rationale of the scheme——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We seem to be suffering from a number of long interventions. I remind the House that interventions must be brief and that hon. Members cannot speak twice in these debates.
      Mr. Lyell: Of course I shall pay great attention to what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be brief. Is the object to restrict the provision of advice in such cases to those solicitors who provide the 24-hour service?
      Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend has gone wide of the mark because what we are discussing in the amendment is the participation in the magistrates courts of the duty solicitors scheme being a condition of the solicitors participation in the police station scheme. The two are interlinked in that way. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 191 agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

    Clause 59

      INTIMATE SAMPLES
      Lords amendment: No. 192, in page 57, line 39, at end insert—
      "() Where the appropriate consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person was refused without good cause, in any proceedings against that person for an offence—

      (a) the court, in determining—

      (i) whether to commit that person for trial; or

      (ii) whether there is a case to answer; and

      (b) the court or jury, in determining whether that person is guilty of the offence charged,
      may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper; and the refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence against the person in relation to which the refusal is material."

      Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment is important. It allows a refusal to give an intimate sample to be used by the prosecution as the basis from which inferences can be drawn, those inferences to be capable to amounting to corroboration.
      Hon. Members will, I trust, forgive me if I explain at some length the rationale behind this amendment to a clause which deals with a sensitive and difficult subject—the taking of intimate samples. At present, refusal to provide an intimate sample may, if it has been possible to bring a case before the court, be referred to as part of the prosecution evidence. If the defendant exercises his right not to give evidence at the trial that is all that can be said. Even if he does give evidence and is cross-examined on why he refused, the prosecution has to recognise that he is entitled to refuse.
      Hon. Members will recall that it was agreed by the House that the present position should be altered by providing that consent to the taking of an intimate sample must be in writing in accordance with one of the main objectives of the Bill, which is to move towards carefully recorded investigations and more formal opportunities for the accused person to exercise his rights. But the requirement for written consent creates the difficulty that it may encourage the guilty to refuse, secure in the knowledge that if they are eventually brought to trial they will be at no disadvantage for having refused to cooperate. Hon. Members will know that it is often in relation to offences of the greatest gravity, of which rape or sexual assault on a child are obvious examples, that the evidence obtained from an intimate sample is most likely to be relevant.
      The problem is how to ensure, so far as can be done by acceptable means, that refusal of consent does not give the guilty a virtual immunity from prosecution where the case requires evidence of that sort. The House will recall that when that was discussed in Committee there was wide support from all parties for a provision suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that refusal to give a sample without good cause should be capable of corroborating the prosecution case. That is exactly what the amendment provides, as agreed to in another place. That means that it would be for the jury to determine the weight to attach to a refusal, which we believe is the best way of providing for the wide variety of motives—some, of course, wholly innocent—which might be behind a refusal to provide an intimate sample.
      896
      The person asked for an intimate sample might be drunk and belligerent, or he might simply be afraid of the process.
      If that were explained at any subsequent trial, the jury might attach little significance to the refusal. On the other hand, where it was thought that the suspect refused because he had something to hide, the jury would be allowed to take the refusal into account as evidence against him.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is there any requirement in either the Bill or the amendment that police officers should draw to the attention of the defendant the fact that a failure to give written consent could amount to corroboration?
      Mr. Shaw: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question now, but will do so in due course.
      I should explain to hon. Members why the amendment refers in particular to the refusal to corroborate the prosecution case. As hon. Members will know, in general the English law does not require corroboration; if testimony is given by a single witness who is believed, that is generally sufficient. In all trials for sexual offences, however, which as I have said are amongst those where, typically, evidence from an intimate sample may be crucial, the judge is obliged to warn the jury that it is unsafe to convict solely on the evidence of the complainant. If the complainant's evidence is not corroborated, a charge of rape, for example, may well fail.
      In those circumstances, it seemed to the Committee of this House, and to the Committee in another place, important that it should be open to the jury, if it thinks fit, to attach virtually the same weight to the refusal as it would to evidence from an intimate sample that directly implicated the defendant. I hope that the House will agree to the amendment.
      Mr. Ashby: We have come a long way in this clause. In the early 1960s, when I was first called to the Bar, we had drunken driving offences. The new breathaliser laws were introduced by Barbara Castle, and I remember the uproar throughout the country because someone was being forced to give evidence against himself, which was contrary to the law as we knew it. Any refusal to give a sample was construed in the same way as this amendment will be construed—against the defendant. It was justified because there was a great deal of drinking and driving that resulted in accidents and deaths. It was thought to be a motoring offence rather than a serious offence that would involve the liberty of the subject.
      This clause is to be used for criminal, not driving, offences and therefore involves the liberty of the subject. Hitherto, people had been allowed the right to silence. Hitherto, a defendant had been allowed to say to a police officer, "You make these allegations against me, so you must prove them." Now the police officer can say, "We want to take a sample from you and if you refuse to give one that can be taken as evidence against you and the jury can consider that evidence."
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has made an important statement—that a police officer can tell the defendant that a refusal wall constitute corroborative evidence against him. I was searching for that provision in the Bill, and if my hon. Friend can find it, that would be a great help.
      Mr. Ashby: The provision is not in the Bill. My hon. Friend raised a point with my hon. Friend the Minister

      897
      earlier about an officer warning a motorist that refusal to give a sample could result in that being used as evidence against the motorist, but that point does not appear in the Bill. However, it is contained in a printed form which police officers have as part of their administrative duties. The form sets out the formula through which they have to go when somebody is breathalysed under the Road Traffic Acts. I foresee that, as a result of the Bill, the form that the police use at the station will be a complex but readily understood document that will go from one stage to the next. I hope that it will contain some formula along the lines of the station sheet for motoring offences. The arrested person will have to give a sample, but if he does not it will be construed as evidence against him.
      That is the simple way to do it and I expect that the Home Office will produce such a document. Legislation is not needed for such a form, but I hope that one will be incorporated. There must be a personal station sheet that will have such directions for the police officer, custody officer or whoever is responsible. The officer will be able to go through the formula from one stage to the next, so no mistakes will be made. There has been much talk about the complexities of this Act, but I think that in practice there will not be so many complexities if the Home Office considers carefully, as no doubt it will, the way to provide the best kind of station sheet, and one that will be uniform for everyone.
      We are taking a serious step with this clause. It touches on a fundamental point to do with the way in which British justice is administered. No man should have to give evidence against himself. Some of the offshoots of British law, such as American law, enshrine such a right in the constitution. If this clause were enacted in the United States of America, there would be a furore.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is not my hon. Friend in a dilemma? On the one hand he said that this is a profound move that greatly diminishes the rights of the individual, while on the other hand he says that it is sufficient, by a procedural device, to introduce the principle that refusal to give a sample will be corroborative evidence. If there is such a profound change, should there not be a statutory requirement, if not in this Act at a later stage, to bring to the notice of a defendant the fact that refusal will be used as corroborative evidence?
      Mr. Ashby: My hon. Friend should be addressing that question to the Minister, and I am not the Minister. If it was considered in 1967 that such a provision did not require a legislative basis, there will not be any more need for it in 1984 when we have seen so much erosion of our rights and civil liberties. It is now becoming accepted practice that failure to give evidence can be taken as evidence against someone. I suppose that I must accept that at the end of the day, but I hope that the House will be fully aware of what it is being asked to accept. It must understand that it is being asked fundamentally to change the criminal law.
      Mr. Michael Howard: Does my hon. Friend think that justice is the more likely to be done if the amendment is agreed to or if the existing law continues?
      Mr. Ashby: I accept the amendment, but if the House is to accept it, it must do so with its eyes open.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The amendment represents an important change in the law and it is one which I welcome, subject to the proviso that I have just made to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. In the generality of cases, intimate samples will be taken only when the person concerned is accused of a serious offence; for example, rape. We have been reminded that the consent must be in writing. It would be intolerable if a suspected person could frustrate the process of the law by refusing to give consent without there being any sanction attached to that refusal. It would be especially intolerable in cases such as rape, where there are frequently very few witnesses, and sometimes only the complainant, and, as a matter of principle, the complainant's evidence must be corroborated.
      Once the requirement of consent is introduced the individual is being given the opportunity, unless we accept the amendment, of frustrating the main thrust of the Bill. Therefore, I welcome the proposition that a refusal to give consent should be treated as corroborative evidence. That is extremely sensible. I for one have never believed in the rule of silence. If a defendant refuses to give evidence, that, too, should be corroborative.
      I am concerned that there is nothing in the Bill or the amendment to bring this important exception to the individual's attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) knows all about the 1967 legislation, but not everyone who appears in a police station has that knowledge. Moreover, my hon. Friend relies on the pro forma document, but those who appear in police stations are often confused, drunk or in some other way incapable. I would not expect them to read the pro forma document, and in the confusion of the moment the police officer might not make the requirement absolutely clear.
      If we are to change the law in such a marked way, the consequences of not giving consent should be brought to the attention of the person required to give it. I am not going to stand in the way of the passage of the amendment, but I shall be greatly comforted if the Minister will say that he regards my point as important, that he will reflect upon it and that if necessary he will consider what legislative steps can be taken in another place or on another occasion to meet it.
      Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend has told us that he has never believed in the rule of silence. I must welcome his voice back to the Chamber, he having drifted in and out of Hades. Now that he is no longer a Whip, he is making substantial contributions to our debates.
      My hon. Friend is saying that there must be more provision in the Bill to warn someone that corroboration might be created if he refuses to consent to give a sample. Is he not tilting at a windmill? A person must be warned if it is an offence to refuse to give a sample, as in the drink-driving legislation. The amendment states:
      "Where the appropriate consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person was refused without good cause".
      Surely it would be the best possible cause for establishing grounds for a refusal if an ignorant person were not told that if he refused to give the sample some harm might befall him. Furthermore, the amendment goes on to say, not that that refusal is an offence, but that the court
      "may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper".

      899
      Is there not, on the face of the amendment, an adequate deterrent to a charge being based upon the failure to allow the intimate search, when it is clear that such a charge will not prevail because of the absence of good cause and because of the court's discretion to deal with the matter as is proper in all the circumstances?
      Mr. Hogg: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his kind offering.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has addressed the House once on this subject. He cannot do so twice.
      Mr. Hogg: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that was an intervention.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that was an intervention, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will not inflict a speech on the House. More than once tonight, I have reminded hon. Members that interventions have been overlong. I had assumed that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) had concluded his remarks.
      Mr. Hogg: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I specifically gave way to an intervention. I was on my feet and I gave way.
      Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to apologise for delivering what you thought was a speech. Often my interventions are much longer than my speeches, and I profoundly apologise.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept the hon. and learned Member's apology. I shall, however, certainly bear his remarks in mind when he seeks to catch my eye in the future.
      Mr. Hogg: That sounds remarkably like a threat. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his kind words to welcome me back. His point has much force, but I counter it by saying that if we introduce a piece of legislation which imposes penal consequences—however the amendment is viewed, it imposes a penal consequence because it gives rise to the existence of corroborative evidence where there previously was none—then, as a matter of principle and of justice, the consequences of the omission must be brought to the attention of the person who is asked to provide consent. That is desirable, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will reflect on what has been said on this issue.
      Mr. Derek Spencer: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made an intervention which appeared to be a speech. If I make a speech which appears to be an intervention, I hope that there will not be any objections.
      I am surprised at how long the defendant's right to obstruct the course of justice by refusing to provide an intimate sample has survived in our law. I think that any outside observer would be amazed to learn that that measure has not been laid to rest before now. I therefore welcome the amendment. Although my hon. Friend the Minister of State appears to be impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), I hope that, on more mature reflection, he will not allow himself to be persuaded by them.
      If we accept my hon. Friend's suggestion and reach the stage where a defendant has to be warned that failure to supply an intimate sample is capable of being regarded as corroboration, where does the argument stop? In justice,
      900
      should the defendant not be warned also that if he tells a deliberate lie that is capable of being corrobation? Should he not be dissuaded from indulging in all sorts of other conduct which under present law is capable of being regarded as corroboration? On mature reflection, my hon. Friend the Minister may come to the conclusion that the amendment as drafted amounts to sufficient justice and may be well advised to leave it exactly where it is.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I respond to the cogent point of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) with support from other of my hon. Friends?
      I make no apology for describing the amendment as important. The debate has made that abundantly clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham asked whether the person from whom the sample was requested was to be informed of the possibility that a refusal would be put in evidence. That is not plain on the face of the Bill, as my hon. Friend pointed out. I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. We intend to include this reference in the next draft of the code of practice. It will require the police to warn a suspect of the consequences of refusal.
      The suggestion that a warning be prescribed came not just from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham but from the Lambeth police community consultative group which has made a substantial and praiseworthy contribution to the improvement of the Bill. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks, and I assure the House that if it accepts the amendment, as I trust it will, it will be accompanied by at least a definition that the corroborative quality of the refusal will be notified to the person making it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 193 to 196 agreed to.

    Clause 63

      CODES OF PRACTICE
      Lords amendment: No. 197, in page 60, line 27, leave out from "with" to "the" in line 29 and insert—

      "(a) the exercise by police officers of statutory powers—

      (i) to search a person without first arresting him; or

      (ii) to search a vehicle without making an arrest;

      (b) the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons by police officers;

      (c) searches of premises by police officers; and

      (d)"

      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 198 to 206.
      Mr. Shaw: The principal amendment in this group provides for the issue of a code of practice governing the use of powers of stop and search. The case for such a code was argued persuasively on Report, and in deciding to amend the Bill we are impressed by the wish of the police to have a code of practice. We debated the importance of the stop and search powers earlier, and I am sure that the House would wish to agree with the Lords in the amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 198 to 207 agreed to.

    Clause 69

      PART VII—SUPPLEMENTARY
      Lords amendment: No. 208, in page 63, line 18, after second "1955" insert—
      "(aa) proceedings in the United Kingdom or elsewhere before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court—

      (i) on an appeal from a court-martial so constituted or from a court-martial constituted under the Naval Discipline Act 1957; or

      (ii) on a reference under section 34 of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968;"

      Mr. Shaw: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendments Nos. 216, 306 to 311, 346, 351, 353 and 354.
      Mr. Shaw: The amendments are technical and relate solely to the application of the Bill to the armed services. They ensure that the definition of criminal proceedings includes proceedings before the Court Martial Appeal Court as well as courts martial, and make minor adjustments to the extent of the provisions relating to service offences.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
      To be further considered tomorrow.

  Social Security Office, Newcastle
  Motion made, and question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel Jones.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the effects being felt by the recipients of benefit as a result of the current industrial dispute at the DHSS centre at Newcastle. Since I intend to concentrate on the national impact of the strike, it would be churlish and wrong to deny the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), an opportunity to intervene in this brief debate if he sought to do so and was lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I am aware that the Minister will have to tread with trepidation and be extremely careful about how he words any remarks of his in response to the debate. I understand that the current negotiations between the Department and the two unions, the Civil and Public Services Association and the Society of Civil and Public Servants, are adjourned. Although a date has not been fixed for the resumption of the negotiations, I am confident that there is still an opportunity to resolve the dispute by negotiation, and certainly that is the solution sought by right hon. and hon. Members on the Liberal Bench.
  I wrote to the Minister on 12 October asking a series of questions. I do not want to elaborate too much on the difficulties of the current negotiations, because they are extremely delicate. However, some elaboration of them would help, since I for one have found it difficult to make a judgment of the issues involved because of the failure to make much of the information public. This is the first chance that the Minister will have had, at least in debate, to air some of the issues, and in this debate I ask him to address his mind to a couple of the questions that I put to him in my letter. If he feels that he cannot deal with them tonight, perhaps he will be prepared to do so in due course by a written answer or in reply to my letter.
  I have visited the strike centre and, although I was not there for long, it appeared to me that these were ordinary people who were worried about their working conditions. There was no evidence that I could see of any Left-wing militancy or of any other influences. It seemed to me to be a perfectly straightforward dispute.
  One of the questions raised with me during my visit and one that requires an answer is why the Government set about their reorganisation on the basis of an organisation and methods report which did not involve the trade unions in its compilation. That seems to be the industrial relations of the Stone Age. If important and swingeing changes in work procedures are to be introduced, it is quite wrong that the report from which they stem should not involve the trade unions at an early stage.
  I know that the details are complicated, but I should be obliged if the Minister would confirm that the new shift system, as well as having the potential of reducing shift allowances, interferes with the possibility of shift workers anticipating their work schedules week on week for the future. In the one-in-three shift system it is possible for a shift worker to say when he will be at work and when he will not be. I understand that in a one-in-five shift system it is impossible for him to say what shifts in the near future he will be asked to work.

  903
  I have not seen the Government's response to the union's claim that there are other ways of making substantial savings—almost the £700,000 that the Minister is looking for with his shift rota changes. The unions seem to think that they can save £610,000 by making savings outside the proposed changes in the shift allowance. Before trying to make any objective judgment I should like to hear the Government's view. These are fairly low-paid workers, and if there were a change in the shift allowance it would require a reduction in the wage packets of some of them of about £10 to £14 a week. That is a considerable sum in their terms.
  There is confusion in regard to the cost to the public purse, which is an important factor in the dispute. The official spokesman for the Opposition, with his characteristic hyperbole, suggested that the dispute was costing £100 million a year. I do not know whether that is a correct figure. He said that it had cost £43 million to date and that it would continue to cost a further £2 million a week.
  Apart form the cost of the additional post office staff, there must be additional overtime and bonus payments to the DHSS staff at Newcastle. The cost must be extensive, although I am prepared to believe that it is a good deal less than £100 million. The Minister is hoping to make savings. If one believes the union, the figure is about £50,000; according to the Department, it is about £700,000. The saving is relatively small in relation to the large sums of money being spent in the course of a long and intractable dispute.
  The dispute started in November 1983. As soon as the organisation and management report was produced, there was a work to rule, and a full strike began on 14 May 1984. Clearly, the Government have been guilty, prima facie, of ham-fisted industrial relations. However, I do not know the details and I accept that it may be sensible for the Minister to reply at a later stage to the points raised.
  The social services correspondent of The Guardian estimates that it may take until the year 2014 before there are any savings to be made over and above the additional costs, if the dispute is not ended soon.
  The effect of the dispute on the Post Office was made clear to all hon. Members in a letter dated 9 October from the managing director of the counter services of the Post Office. He made several cogent points to which I should like to refer. The Post Office, whom I consulted today on the matter, said that the current price for the emergency payment for each stamp has not yet been negotiated between the Post Office and the DHSS. Some press reports say that the price is 38p and some say it is 50p. The Post Office, if I understood correctly this afternoon, said that the fee had not yet been negotiated. Therefore, it may well be that the Government do not yet know what the cost will prove to be in the fullness of time.
  There are 20,600 post offices and at the end of last week they were processing manually 4·65 million pension books. That is producing intolerable strains on the post office network. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Post Office is required to take action to keep on stream some of the sub-post offices and other Crown offices that it was intended to close. The Post Office is now having to go back to sub-postmasters and others and ask them to stay on until they can cope with the damage caused by the dispute. I am in favour of keeping sub-post offices open but not in the way that the Government are operating.
  904
  I was told by the Post Office that, even if the dispute were to be resolved tomorrow, it would take until February 1986 before the mess was sorted out at the post office level. That is a very long time.
  The most worrying aspect is the effect on the people who are suffering as a result of the dispute. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the dispute is affecting retirement pensions, national insurance, widows' benefit, child benefit, and child special allowance. The worst effects are being felt by people in those categories, particularly in relation to the procedures for claiming pensions for those who are overseas, ill or on holiday.
  The Government have undertaken a fairly extensive campaign of press advertising, and I agree that it was the only way to handle the situation in the prevailing circumstances.
  I have had correspondence in my postbag, particularly from Scotland—I am sure that other hon. Members have heard similar stories—about the difficulties and distress caused by some of the emergency procedures. That is happening willy nilly. It is inevitable that if we operate emergency procedures there will be difficulties. I am told by Age Concern that some pensioners have not received benefits for many weeks. I have not been able to corroborate any cases myself, but there are difficulties. I am told that in Scotland about 3,500 new pensioners are also in difficulties because they must go through the emergency procedure of going to the DHSS office. Even some dead pensioners are still getting books. All those anomalies and difficulties are being thrown up as a result of the manual emergency payment procedure.
  The real difficulty is that only one payment per week can be made through the emergency procedure so that people who have been accustomed to storing up three or four payments and collecting them every month are no longer able to do so while the strike continues. That is causing a great deal of distress and hardship. Evidence of that has been sent to me through my constituency and contacts up and down the country as I am the spokeman for my party.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree with all the points that he has raised so far. I also thank him for raising this important matter on the Adjournment.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the hardship that the dispute is causing. I should like to make a point on behalf of the constituents whom I represent, as the dispute is taking place in my constituency. It was caused by a management review of the shift working of computer operators at Washington and Longbenton, the Newcastle branch of the DHSS. It particularly affected the automatic process workers. The key recommendations of the management review are contained in paragraph 24 of its very full report. The crux of the recommendations was that the shift times be altered, particularly so that the computer operators finished before 12·30. That has a peculiar effect on Civil Service terms and conditions—it claws back part of the bonus that forms part of the remuneration of the employees. I should like to give the House an example of what that would mean in practice to a constituent of mine. A junior data processor who is paid £120 a week top line—his gross wage—would suffer a reduction by 9·5 per

  905
  cent. to £110·50. My constituents, not unreasonably, and like everybody else in the world, do not want to take a reduction in their wages.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I have visited the workers at the strike centre. They are not on high wages or a group of people noted for their industrial militancy. Some have told me rather bitterly that they voted Conservative at the last election and will not do so again. They do not want to cause all the difficulties that are being caused by the dispute. They feel strongly that they want to help pensioners and those in receipt of child benefit, but—this is the crucial point—they do not want to take a wage cut. The industrial action that they are taking is symptomatic of the increasing resentment and desperation that are being felt not just by the workers at Longbenton but by the whole community in the north-east of England. They feel that their community is being killed off by several aspects of Government policy and that the Government's behaviour is mean and irrational.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that constructive intervention, which adds positively to my argument.
  The purpose of the debate for all Opposition Members is basically to seek two assurances from the Minister. First, will he give a categorical assurance that the upratings due on 26 November will be paid in full, on time and with precision? The whole country needs that assurance and should accept nothing less. Secondly, will the Minister take charge of the negotiations as soon as possible, personally if need be, to bring this intractable dispute to a speedy conclusion?
  10.15 pm
  The Minister of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) not just for choosing this important subject for debate but perhaps even more, in the present circumstances, for the very moderate, reasonable and sensible way in which he recognised the difficulties that I face while negotiations are going on.
  There is no doubt that this is an important matter which has given rise to a good deal of anxiety among pensioners. If nothing else, today's debate gives me the opportunity to convey to the two hon. Members who have spoken and to the House in general the best assurance that I can give—that we expect the uprating to be carried out on time and accurately in the vast majority of cases. Clearly I cannot give a 100 per cent. guarantee about this uprating or indeed any uprating because the size of the problem means that there are bound to be errors in almost any circumstances. Nevertheless, we are confident that for the vast majority the uprating will be accurate and on time.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: And the Christmas bonus.
  Mr. Newton: And the Christmas bonus. I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
  Before dealing with the specific details of the uprating, it is appropriate for me to say something about the background to the dispute, although my comments will naturally be cautious in the context of the current negotiations.
  906
  As has been pointed out, the dispute arose due to management plans to change the shift working arrangements in the computer operations area so as to improve efficiency, make better use of equipment and meet current and emerging operational requirements. The need for change was brought to notice in a report by a routine internal audit which questioned the arrangements which then existed. In response to the auditor's questioning, management initiated a review which found that the arrangements that had been in operation since the early 1970s were no longer appropriate to current operational needs. At this stage, I merely say that, in my view, no responsible Government could or should ignore evidence that such an important complex in the social security system was not being run as efficiently and economically as possible.
  Briefly, the proposed changes involved the introduction in some areas of a rotating night shift to meet changing operational requirements arising, for example, from the increasing number of pensioners and to do so in a way which made the fullest use of very expensive computer equipment. In other areas, an existing night shift which had proved unnecessary in the light of experience with new equipment would be discontinued. Some shift starting and finishing times would also be adjusted so as to end the situation in which staff on evening shifts receive a full night shift allowance although working only until shortly after 12.30 am.
  The total effect of the changes would be to save the taxpayer an estimated £700,000 per year as well as ensuring a fully efficient service to beneficiaries. Those savings would derive from three main elements. The work would be done by fewer staff, expensive overtime working would be eliminated in some areas and reduced in others—an objective that we share with the unions—and there would be less expenditure on shift allowances.
  On the subject of union involvement at the outset, I should add that there are procedures governing this. They involved notification to the unions that the examination by the management services people was to begin and copies of the report were supplied to the unions before any communication was made to the individual staff involved. That was both sensible and fulfilled our obligations.
  We commenced negotiations with the unions in January this year. They were continuing when the unions broke them off and called for a strike from 14 May. The numbers on strike have varied a little over the intervening period, but there are currently 379 of the computer operations staff in the shift working areas on strike, together with 114 staff who are in associated areas but not affected directly by the shift working proposals. To put that into perspective, that total of fewer than 500 is only a tiny minority of the overall staff at Newcastle central office which numbers some 10,500 in all.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), that we have always been aware that for a small minority of the shift workers the changes would mean, other things being equal, a loss of take-home pay. Throughout we have been anxious to negotiate transitional arrangements which would safeguard those shift workers' earnings. The offer that has been on the table for months means that no existing shift worker who accepted the new arrangements need lose any take-home pay. I cannot emphasise that too strongly. We are and have been

  907
  concerned about the position of our staff and shift workers need not lose any take-home pay as a result of our proposals.
  Indeed, in our efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement we have always been more than willing to talk to the unions. Perhaps the most striking evidence of that was the previously unprecedented step in the Civil Service of involving the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service when our officials spent some 15 hours attempting to find a way to settle the dispute.
  Those proposals which have been on the table for many months concerning transitional protection, the need for which we have consistently recognised, go significantly further than the existing negotiated arrangements nationally for transitional protection in such circumstances. I do not accept that management and Ministers have been intransigent either in what we have offered or in the way in which we have been willing to talk, in particular by being willing to accept conciliation through ACAS.
  We have reaffirmed our willingness to resume negotiations on many occasions since the ACAS discussions. We have demonstrated that again by our response to the unions' recent request for further talks. Those negotiations started yesterday, as has been recognised, and are continuing. Therefore, the House will understand that in the circumstances it is not right to say more tonight about the points which are themselves issued in those negotiations.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to costs. It is difficult at the moment to be sure about precisely what the costs are, for reasons which he touched on. First, the exact arrangements with the Post Office for the emergency arrangements remain to be fully negotiated. Therefore, I cannot be certain what those costs will be. Secondly, quite a lot of overtime is being worked. One of the ironies of the dispute is that the pay of DHSS staff is operated by the computers which are not operating—indeed, the pay of DHSS Ministers as well. Because the computer is not working normally we have had to make emergency arrangements for pay and therefore we are also in a difficult position to estimate precisely the cost of the dispute. There are inescapable uncertainties. I can only say that on the best estimates that we can make at the moment the figure of £100 million which has been quoted is about three times higher than what we would estimate.
  Sir John Page: I apologise for not being here for the beginning of my hon. Friend's speech, but I was otherwise engaged. If by any chance those who are paying themselves what they hope is too little are paying themselves too much, will the Minister be gentle in asking them to pay back what they have overpaid themselves over, say, six months or a year? I know that this is a matter of great concern to DHSS employees who are having to assess themselves.
  Mr. Newton: I hope that I shall not find myself in that position. We shall wish to be as helpful as possible in dealing with any difficulties which may emerge after the dispute. We would need to deal with the matter case by case. However, I believe that our handling of the dispute has been very reasonable, and I can assure my hon. Friend
  908
  that we would seek to be reasonable in any such problems which may affect our own staff, or indeed social security beneficiaries, in the afterrnath of the dispute.
  Even if the dispute ended now, it would be long past the stage when the uprating could be carried out by normal methods. I shall explain how the main categories concerned will be dealt with.
  There are 7 million pensioners and 7 million recipients of child benefit whose payments are normally made by order book issued from Newcastle, and who are currently being paid by the Post Office on the stub of an expired order book. For those cases, new covers have been prepared showing the new rates coming into operation during the week beginning 26 November. Those covers have all been printed. Most of them have been enveloped, and they will be sent out to post offices and attached to the stubs of the old books between now and mid-November. Anyone who holds the stub of an old order book which does not show the new rate and had not has a new cover attached to it by 19 November should get in touch with the local DHSS office. Those arrangements are being publicised by advertisements in the press and posters in post offices. Hon. Members may have seen the first advertisements which appeared just over a week ago.
  Secondly, there are 1·6 million supplementary pensioners paid on order books issued manually by local DHSS offices. They will continue to get their new books in the normal way, and in their case the uprating will proceed as usual. We have been able to issue the necessary information from Newcastle to make sure that the retirement pension element of their payments can be accurately calculated.
  Thirdly, there is a substantial group of beneficiaries who are paid either by automatic credit transfer through the banks or by payable orders sent out from Newcastle. There are about 600,000 to 700,000 on ACT, about 430,000 on payable orders in Britain and about another 300,000 overseas. Those are the cases for which it is most difficult for us to make adequate emergency arrangements, because we have had no reliable means of identifying the beneficiaries being paid by that means.
  We remain confident that in most cases we will be able to carry out the uprating: effectively. Most of the pensioners involved have been in touch with us, and we have been paying about four fifths of the pensioners in this country and a similar proportion of those abroad by manual means from Newcastle. Of those, all who are entitled to an uprating increase will receive it on time, and I hope that by the time the uprating is due we shall have been able to identify from the computer the remainder of those who have not yet been in touch with us direct and thus put the emergency procedures into operation for them. If we are successful in identifying the remainder, they too will get the uprating increase due to them, together with the benefit owing to them since the dispute started. Similarly, we hope to be able to make the necessary arrangements for those on automatic credit transfer. At the same time, I hope to be able to eliminate those distressing cases where payment has continued automatically from banks to pensioners who have died.
  There has been much interest in the payment of the Christmas bonus. We expect that this, too, will be paid on time, in the first week of December, in the vast majority of cases. Locally issued order books will contain the appropriate voucher. For stub payments—the re-covered

  909
  Newcastle books—the post offices will pay out an additional £10 that week, and £10 will be added to the payable orders or ACT payments relating to that period.
  Although there have been difficulties, a remarkable job has been done by the vast majority of DHSS staff both in coping with the emergency arrangements and in making sure that the uprating should proceed successfully. I hope
  910
  that the whole House will join me in expressing our heartfelt thanks for the dedicated work of the vast majority of officials at Newcastle and the tens of thousands of DHSS officials in local offices who have done a first-class job in very difficult circumstances.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Custodial Remands (Statistics)
  Custodial Remands (Statistics)
  Women Prisoners
  Women Prisoners
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  London Fire Brigade
  London Fire Brigade
  British Nationality Act
  British Nationality Act
  Local Police Authorities
  Local Police Authorities
  Immigration (Mental Disorder)
  Immigration (Mental Disorder)
  Prison Hospital Officers
  Prison Hospital Officers
  Mentally Handicapped Prisoners
  Mentally Handicapped Prisoners
ENERGY
  Natural Gas
  Natural Gas
  NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
  NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.
  New Industry (Castleford)
  New Industry (Castleford)
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
PRIME MINISTER
  Wildlife and Conservation
  Wildlife and Conservation
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Chester
  Chester
  International Garden Festival
  International Garden Festival
  Italian Prime Minister (Talks)
  Italian Prime Minister (Talks)
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Libya (British Citizens)
  Libya (British Citizens)
  Social Security Commissioners
  Social Security Commissioners
WALES
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Secondary Schools (Dyfed)
  Secondary Schools (Dyfed)
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Motor Vehicle Parts
  Motor Vehicle Parts
  Information Technology (Report)
  Information Technology (Report)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Southend United Football Club
  Southend United Football Club
  Colour Film
  Colour Film
  Bus and Coach Council (Radio Frequencies)
  Bus and Coach Council (Radio Frequencies)
  Car Prices
  Car Prices
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
THE ARTS
  Books (VAT)
  Books (VAT)
  English National Opera
  English National Opera
  South Bank Board
  South Bank Board
  South Bank Arts Complex
  South Bank Arts Complex
  Museum Service
  Museum Service
  Kenwood (Open Air Concerts)
  Kenwood (Open Air Concerts)
  National Portrait Gallery
  National Portrait Gallery
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education (Parental Contribution)
  Higher Education (Parental Contribution)
  Education Costs (Assistance)
  Education Costs (Assistance)
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Books (VAT)
  Books (VAT)
  Student Grant
  Student Grant
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Examination Results
  Examination Results
  Secondary Schools (Amalgamation)
  Secondary Schools (Amalgamation)
  "Parental Influence at School"
  "Parental Influence at School"
EMPLOYMENT
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Newham
  Newham
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  "Poverty Wages on Merseyside"
  "Poverty Wages on Merseyside"
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Travel-to-work Areas
  Travel-to-work Areas
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid (Joint Funding Scheme)
  Aid (Joint Funding Scheme)
SCOTLAND
  University of Edinburgh (Dental Hospital and School)
  University of Edinburgh (Dental Hospital and School)
  Standard Grade Courses
  Standard Grade Courses
  Grant-aided and Independent Schools
  Grant-aided and Independent Schools
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Greenock and Port Glasgow
  Greenock and Port Glasgow
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Inverleith House
  Inverleith House
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Motor Cycle Testing (VAT)
  Motor Cycle Testing (VAT)
  Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Meeting, Toronto
  Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Meeting, Toronto
  International Debt
  International Debt
  Manpower Changes
  Manpower Changes
  Central Government Trading Funds (Staff)
  Central Government Trading Funds (Staff)
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Libya
  Libya
  Firstland Oil and Gas plc
  Firstland Oil and Gas plc
  Iran (Support Vessels)
  Iran (Support Vessels)
  Cyprus (Foreign Radio Stations)
  Cyprus (Foreign Radio Stations)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Terrorists (Central America)
  Terrorists (Central America)
TRANSPORT
  Roadworks (Expenditure)
  Roadworks (Expenditure)
  Rothwell (Bypass)
  Rothwell (Bypass)
  Air Fares
  Air Fares
  Airline Passengers (Baggage Rules)
  Airline Passengers (Baggage Rules)
  Public Transport Integration, London
  Public Transport Integration, London
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  London Transport Executive
  London Transport Executive
  River Thames
  River Thames
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Seafarers (Medical Standards)
  Seafarers (Medical Standards)
  Heathrow Airport
  Heathrow Airport
  Civil Aviation
  Civil Aviation
  British Airways (Falkland Islands Contract)
  British Airways (Falkland Islands Contract)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  British Midland Airways
  British Midland Airways
  Scottish Lowland Airports
  Scottish Lowland Airports
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Agricultural Surpluses
  Agricultural Surpluses
  Bread-making Wheat
  Bread-making Wheat
  Glasshouse Growers (Gas Prices)
  Glasshouse Growers (Gas Prices)
ENVIRONMENT
  Telecommunications Development
  Telecommunications Development
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Newham (Land)
  Newham (Land)
  Housing Development, Beckton
  Housing Development, Beckton
  London (Strategic Housing Authority)
  London (Strategic Housing Authority)
  London Housing Authorities
  London Housing Authorities
  Redundancies (Docklands)
  Redundancies (Docklands)
  Housing (Docklands)
  Housing (Docklands)
  Docklands (Dentists)
  Docklands (Dentists)
  London Boroughs (Housing Stock)
  London Boroughs (Housing Stock)
  Housing Expenditure (Renovation)
  Housing Expenditure (Renovation)
  GLC (Mutual Exchange Bureau)
  GLC (Mutual Exchange Bureau)
  South-East Regional Aggregates Working Party
  South-East Regional Aggregates Working Party
  Superstores and Hypermarkets
  Superstores and Hypermarkets
  Housing Investment Programme (Allocations)
  Housing Investment Programme (Allocations)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Housing Stock (Renovation)
  Housing Stock (Renovation)
  Stockbridge Village Trust
  Stockbridge Village Trust
  English House Condition Survey (Repair Costs)
  English House Condition Survey (Repair Costs)
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Private Rental Housing (London)
  Private Rental Housing (London)
  London (Housing Needs)
  London (Housing Needs)
  London Boroughs' Association
  London Boroughs' Association
  Inner Urban Areas Act
  Inner Urban Areas Act
  Scotswood House
  Scotswood House
  International Garden Festival, Liverpool
  International Garden Festival, Liverpool
  Council Houses (Rents)
  Council Houses (Rents)
  Development Land
  Development Land
  Stansted Inquiry (Report)
  Stansted Inquiry (Report)
  Cantril Farm Estate
  Cantril Farm Estate
  Planning Decisions
  Planning Decisions
  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Report)
  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Report)
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Uddens Heath, Ferndown
  Uddens Heath, Ferndown
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Demolished Dwellings
  Demolished Dwellings
  Rateable Values
  Rateable Values
  "The Rates Act: Protecting the Ratepayer"
  "The Rates Act: Protecting the Ratepayer"
  Office Development
  Office Development
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Wheelchairs
  Wheelchairs
  Binder Hamlyn Report
  Binder Hamlyn Report
  NHS (Pay Settlements)
  NHS (Pay Settlements)
  Children (Long-stay Hospitals)
  Children (Long-stay Hospitals)
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Benefits (Scale Margin)
  Benefits (Scale Margin)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Industrial Injuries Compensation
  Industrial Injuries Compensation
  Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Health Authorities (Ancillary Service Costs)
  Health Authorities (Ancillary Service Costs)
  Heating Allowances
  Heating Allowances
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Urgent Cases Regulations
  Urgent Cases Regulations
  Social Security Advisory Committee (Recommendations)
  Social Security Advisory Committee (Recommendations)
  Special Hospitals
  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Michael Martin
  Mr. Michael Martin
  Homeless Persons (Board and Lodging)
  Homeless Persons (Board and Lodging)
  Secure Units (Research)
  Secure Units (Research)
  Residential Places
  Residential Places
  NHS (Privatisation)
  NHS (Privatisation)
  Housing Benefits
  Housing Benefits
  NHS (Genetic Services)
  NHS (Genetic Services)

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

Bingham Committee: Suspension of Proceedings
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Bingham Committee on the Law of Discovery has been suspended.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, in May of this year the European Commission of Human Rights ruled admissible the application by the honourable Member for Peckham that the United Kingdom was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Failing a friendly settlement the commission thereupon became obliged to rule on the merits of the application. Clearly the Bingham Committee could not consider further the selfsame area of law without knowing the outcome of the proceedings before the European Commission. To avoid wasting the time and effort of the distinguished members of the committee, I requested its chairman to suspend the proceedings.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. However, I should like to ask him whether the abandonment of the commission is by way of a postponement of the publication of its report or whether the report will die a natural death?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, would the noble Lord kindly repeat that question?
Lord Morris: Of course, my Lords. While thanking my noble and learned friend for his Answer, I should like to ask him whether the abandonment of the Royal Commission report is by nature a postponement of the publication of the report or whether the publication of the report will die of natural causes?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it was not a Royal Commission; it was a committee headed by Mr. Justice Bingham, and there is no report. But of course if there is not too long a delay and no friendly settlement, and the Court of Human Rights gives its judgment, I shall have to consider what I do next. The committee has only been suspended, not dissolved. It still exists, but it has not yet reported.

The Unemployed
3.3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will list the number of people who have been unemployed for over one, two, and three years respectively.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, figures for July 1984, the latest available, show that in the United Kingdom there were 546,165 unemployed for over one year and up to two; 311,930 for over two years and up to three; and 376,273 for over three years. As there are a number of other figures relating to 1979–1983, I will, with your Lordships' permission, circulate the full information in the Official Report.
Following is the information referred to:

Unemployed by duration of unemployment at July each year:

Over 1 year and up to 2 years

Over 2 years and up to 3 years

United Kingdom over 3 years

Registrations

July '79

178,277

72,754

109,591

July '80

174,085

73,667

116,328

July '81

389,023

98.701

139,156

July '82

676,149

217,952

176,405

Claimants

July '83

587,186

268,314

247,081

July '84

546,165

311,930

376,273

NOTE: Comparisons over time are affected by the October change in the basis of the unemployment count (from registrations to claimants) and by 1983 Budget provisions which enabled an estimated 162,000 men aged 60 and over, 125,000 of whom had been unemployed for over one year, to receive the long-term rate of supplementary benefit and national insurance credits without having to sign on.

Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. However, would the noble Lord agree that the figures that he has just given indicate that the number of people who will be out of work in the long term is still showing a substantial and dangerous increase? Would the Minister care to predict when he expects this reservoir of despair to begin to reduce? While I accept the measures that the Government have taken to attempt to alleviate unemployment, which the noble Lord announced in Answer to another Question last week, is he aware that the lifebelt being thrown to people in this pool of despair is nowhere sufficient? When can we expect some additional measures of an urgent nature to deal with this situation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is no question that the figures are of great concern, though I am advised that they show some lessening in the rate of increase compared to a year ago. There are, I think, some encouraging signs in particular, the latest figures that I have been given show some 247,000 additional people in work compared to a year ago. The noble Lord also asked me about increased resources. We are putting massive

273
resources totalling £2¼ billion into assisting some 670,000 people who are involved in the Manpower Services Commission's special employment and training measures, with a great emphasis on training. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced some improvements in those measures within the last two to three months and I am sure that when the noble Lord heard of them he welcomed them.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what proportion of the doubled number of training places for adults will be on the community programme which, as he knows, is designed specifically for the long-term unemployed?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it will be some 50,000.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend inform me whether any records are kept of the number of job opportunities or job offers that are given to people who are unemployed, or whether we are to presume that these people have not had job offers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I gave to your Lordships' House two days ago a figure which shows that vacancies in this country at the moment are the highest that they have been for the last four-and-a-half years.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that last week I asked him about some figures concerning what he has again referred to as new employment over the past year? May we assume that he is speaking on behalf of the Department of Employment? If so, has he had time in the ensuing week to look at the figures published by his own department, which show that during the second quarter of this year the number in new employment is only one quarter of that in the last quarter of last year? Does this not show an underlying trend which is gravely slowing down the numbers placed in new employment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is one of those occasions on which both the noble Lord and I are correct. The noble Lord is absolutely right that, taking the two particular quarters which he has selected, there is some slowing down in the rate of increase of the creation of new jobs. At the same time I repeat the figure which I have been given and which I believe to be correct, which is that the latest figures available show that there are some 247,000 more people in employment than there were the year before.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister agree that, unfortunately, many of the long-term unemployed are now concentrated in certain districts and communities? Will the Government consider introducing some new measures more specifically aimed at communities which have really lost their traditional form of employment and which are not sufficiently pinpointed under the regional aid which is at present given?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be looking at certain of the special employment and training measures which are due to come to an end in March of next year unless anything is done and, therefore, I think that we can expect some further information from my right honourable friend. Indeed, I shall draw his attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, has said in this respect.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the number of unemployed is unevenly distributed throughout the regions of the United Kingdom? In view of the noble Lord's concern for helping in this situation, will he explain the fact that regional employment grants have been cut by one third in the last year and by no less than 50 per cent. for Scotland? In the circumstances is that likely to contribute to a reduction in the uneven balance of unemployment in this country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that we are moving on to a slightly different question. As the noble Lord will know, aid from the Government to the regions since the present Administration came into office in 1979 has been absolutely massive. I believe I am right in saying that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is looking at the question of regional policy, but that is a matter for my right honourable friend.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, would the Minister agree that, as regards the figures that have been quoted today, the biggest single tragedy occurs at the top end of the age scale, where there are becoming unemployed an increasing number of people who may never work again? If further resources are to be made available, will the noble Lord use his good offices within Her Majesty's Government to consider allocating some of those resources to that group in order to make their permanent unemployment more bearable?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord will, of course, be aware that on 30th July my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced that there would be a doubling of numbers for adult training. This should go some way towards trying to cope with the very difficult problem which the noble Lord has outlined.

Red Sea Mine Recovery
3.10 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government who made and who laid the mines recently recovered by the Royal Navy from the Red Sea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the mine recovered by the Royal Navy from the Gulf of Suez was of Soviet manufacture, but we do not know who laid it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I know that it is always wrong to invite a Government to speculate, but may I ask whether, for instance, the noble Lord is able to exclude any countries which could not reasonably have been assumed to have laid the mine? Would he care to comment on assertions that have been made in the press that it was Iran or that it was Libya in particular?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it would be very unwise of me to speculate at all upon who laid that mine—but I can confirm that it was not the Royal Navy!
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister who paid for the expenditure incurred by the Royal Navy in going out there to recover these mines?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, mostly Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware (of course he will be aware) that an international conference is to be held in, I think, Khartoum on 20th November to consider this whole matter of the Gulf and the Red Sea? Can he indicate whether or not Her Majesty's Government are taking an interest in that conference, and whether we shall be sending either a representative or an observer there?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to come absolutely clean and say that I was not aware of the conference concerned; but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know the answer.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, if this sort of thing can happen in times of so-called peace, what is likely to happen if there is war? One can imagine the destruction of shipping. Are we satisfied that we have an adequate volume of merchant shipping capable of carrying the cargoes that are necessary—military and otherwise—in the event of some aggression? Are we in that situation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord may be reassured to know that as regards mine-clearing vessels generally, we have 28 Ton class vessels, eight Hunt class vessels and two River class vessels currently in service, and in addition the single role minesweepers are on order.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, seriously, I wonder whether the noble Lord can go a little further. Was the mine of a type which must have been laid by a ship or which must have come from an aircraft? Have Her Majesty's Government made inquiries of the riparian states, particularly Egypt? Have we made inquiries of the United States, whose satellite surveillance capability would probably be enough to identify the state which laid the mine?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are certainly wondering which country it is which could have laid the mine, but we would have to begin the inquiries on the basis of some evidence, and so far we have none that is of any consequence.

Weeds Act 1959
3.14 p.m.
Lord Sandys: 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 contemplating a review of the Weeds Act 1959.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, last year my department consulted interested organisations on the need to retain specific legislation for the control of weeds. Our conclusion, which was announced in another place on 16th February this year, was that the Weeds Act 1959 continues to play a useful role in specific areas. We have no plans to conduct a further review.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend that for that very helpful Answer. Can he further enlarge on his Answer by informing the House whether it is the case that this legislation has been used on only one or two occasions, and will he also agree that that is no measure of the efficacy of the Act as such and that the fact that it exists on the statute book is often a very helpful preventive?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I believe that the Act has been used only twice in the last five years, and I would entirely agree with my noble friend's view about the necessity to keep the Act on the statute book.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think it is very good that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to keep this Act. The point has often been made—and I think that I agree with it—that there is no such thing as a weed; it is only a plant in the wrong place. Nevertheless, the fact that the Act has been used only twice shows that over a whole area of land, particularly urban blight land, the weeds are not cleared. As I happen to farm in these areas, I would ask the Minister to make sure that, if I make a complaint, the Act will be used, because there is nothing worse than seeing thistledown floating over one's farm from unused land next door.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord makes a complaint, it will be taken very seriously.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, as regards the weed problem, encouragement of the use of waste land and converting it into useful allotment gardens would go a long way towards controlling weeds?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord say that, and I believe I am right in saying that the take-up of allotments in the country at the present time is very good.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that any review of this Act would inevitably involve a reshuffle of the Cabinet?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in fact, this Act applies only to five different sorts of weed. So far as I am

277
concerned, the only thing which came out of the review was that the best thing to do with all five weeds was not to sit on them.
Lord Soames: My Lords, can my noble friend inform me whether the Nature Conservancy Council is in order under the Act when it instructs landowners not to cut thistles and other weeds because of the existence of rare flora?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if, because of a management agreement, there was such a stipulation, of course that would come within the purview of the Nature Conservancy Council. However, if one of those five weeds was causing a threat to agriculture because it was liable to spread, it would be possible to bring the Act into effect.
Lord Soames: Oh, good.

Business
3.16 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3. 30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Hong Kong Agreement.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, it is hoped that Parliament will be prorogued on Wednesday, 31st October. As has already been announced, the new Session will be opened by Her Majesty the Queen on Tuesday, 6th November.

Hereford City Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Worcester City Council Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 58 [Defence of due negligence]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare) moved the following amendment:
Page 53, leave out line 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very minor technical amendment and it brings this Bill into line with the Hereford City Council Bill, which your Lordships have just passed. The promoters of the Bill seek to make this amendment and I would commend it to your Lordships. I can go into further detail, but it is fairly complicated, and I would recommend the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1984
3.20 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations [S.I. 1984 No. 1116], laid before the House on 1st August 1984, be annulled.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is my privilege to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It relates to the proposed annulment of the order known as the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1984 laid before Parliament on 1st August 1984, the day before the House rose for the Summer Recess. The regulations came into force on 1st September 1984. I should like to protest at that timing, as there was no opportunity to debate those regulations before they came into effect.
There seems no reason for treating Parliament in this way. The National Union of Students was informed of the likely decisions back in February and a circular went out to local education authorities at Easter. Therefore, the content of those regulations was known months before. One can only assume that Ministers deliberately decided to make debate impossible before the first grants under the new regulations were paid. This is particularly galling, as Mr. Peter Brooke, when the 1983 order was debated in Standing Committee on 10th November of that year, when there was criticism of the delay, said:
"the department has already stated its clear intention to achieve a better timetable in 1984–85".
Well, it has not. Could the Minister, when he replies, please give us an assurance that we shall have the opportunity to debate the 1985–86 regulations before they come into force?
It was particularly important to have a debate this year as there have been three major changes: in the way travel costs are treated, in the parental contribution scale, and in the minimum award. As the new method of allocating money for travel is so different from that operating in previous years, and as many students will be adversely affected, I shall speak of travel costs first.
Since the current grant system was introduced in 1962 it has always been acknowledged that the cost of a student's daily travel to and from college, and three return trips to the student's home, should be fully reimbursed. With effect from the current academic year new students will no longer be able to claim reimbursement of their travel expenditure above a fixed element within the main rate of grant. That is £100 for students living away from home and £160 for students living in their parental home.
After pressure from the National Union of Students and other interested parties, the DES have acknowledged that students already on course would not be in a position to change their travel patterns in the light of the new regulations, and in consequence new transitional arrangements have been introduced. Nevertheless, these transitional arrangements still involve continuing students in expenditure of £150 from their own pockets before they are enabled to claim reimbursement of any additional travel expenses. The transitional arrangements do nothing to

279
ease the problem for all new students for whom the closing date for UCCA applications was 15th December 1983. This has meant that they have not been able to reconsider their choice of university or college with the new financial implications of those choices in their minds.
The introduction of this new policy on student travel costs will disadvantage many students. The NUS, from its surveys on student income and expenditure and on LEA awards, estimates that some 39 per cent. of all mandatory award holders will be out of pocket, with 35,000 students (10 per cent.) being out of pocket by at least £150, and as many as 7,000 (2 per cent.) having to find more than £350 from their own resources. Particularly badly hit by the new regulations are students living in their matrimonial homes and students studying in London.
Students in London on average incur three times the expenditure on travel that their colleagues incur. Indeed their expenditure is considerably higher than that incurred by Scottish students, who continue to get their travel costs reimbursed, as the Scottish Office considered, in the light of data collected, that their students were a "special case", in that their travel expenditure patterns were different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Not only will students suffer pressure upon their scant resources but there are wider implications which affect certain institutions particularly. Some under threat will be Lancaster University, Warwick University—Canterbury University was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester when he asked a Question earlier in the summer—and Ulster University, all of whose students have to live a considerable distance from the institution. This may deter many students from making a free choice of where they wish to study, and these institutions could become ghost establishments. The new regulations will particularly deter students from mainland Britain wishing to study at the University of Ulster. The situation really is not different from that in Scotland.
The cost of travel will almost inevitably mean that a student chooses not the course that will best suit his needs but a university or college where he knows he will have little distance to travel. The other inevitable consequence—and this is already being felt—is the pressure on accommodation close to the institution that the student is attending.
Sir Keith Joseph, in answering a Question on 26th July this year on what assessment he had made of the effect that the new arrangements for student travel would have upon student housing choices, said in col. 754:
"None. It will be for individual students to decide how best to deploy the resources available to them within the overall grant."
A complacent answer, my Lords.
It seems quite extraordinary that no assessment was made of the possible consequences. Colleges are often in the centre or, in the case of the new civic universities, on the fringes of large urban areas, so that many students have to live considerable distances away. Portsmouth Polytechnic did some research in the mid-1970s. Thirty-five per cent. of all non-home based students lived between two and five miles from
280
their institution, 19 per cent. between five and 10 miles away and, surprisingly, 10 per cent. over 10 miles away.
Polytechnic students in London tend to live a long way away—15 per cent. over 10 miles. There will be inevitable pressures on all accommodation near colleges, with perhaps unfortunate effects on other more vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. There will be increasing demand on a narrow and declining section of the housing market, the private rented sector. We already hear of problems of overcrowding, sharing, and multiple occupation.
Local authorities and housing associations will not be able to respond to the additional and unnecessarily imposed need, given the financial restrictions on their housing activities. It seems incredible that no thought seems to have been given to these inevitable consequences of the new travel arrangements. Will the department be doing any survey or conducting any research on this aspect?
I turn to the parental contribution scale. With effect from this academic year the DES has amended the method for means-testing for parental contribution. First, they have increased the threshold at which parents start to make a contribution from £7,100 to £7,600, in line, as usual, with average earnings. That is a move that we welcome, but they have also reversed their former policy of tailing off contribution as parents' income increases with a system where they now require a higher contribution from parents in the middle and high income brackets.
The effect of this change means that parents with a residual income of over £12,000 per annum are having to pay a much higher contribution than in the past, and indeed parents with a residual income of around £18,000 will have to find an extra £466 for their child's grant over and above the amount required last year. It must be remembered that that residual income may of course be made up of both parents' earnings.
In a letter dated 16th August 1978 to the former Chairman of the Federation of Conservative Students, Mrs. Thatcher herself promised to:
"conduct a thorough review of student grants. In that review highest priority will go to a reduction in the parental contribution".
The reality is that the present Government have imposed a "backdoor tax" on parents and have substantially reduced the state contribution to student awards while expecting parents to contribute to the state shortfall. There have been a number of letters from parents in the papers recently complaining about this, and I shall quote from just one that appeared in the Guardian a few days ago. This is from two teachers who are parents:
"As so often in recent years, there appears to be a positive discrimination against the larger family with a moderate income, in so far as those with higher incomes and fewer children are protected by the minimum grant arrangements.
"Under the new formula for the calculation of parental contribution, our assessment has been increased by a factor of 250 per cent. from around £1,000 in the three previous years to above £2,500 for 1984–85 with the same number of children at university."
The third change is in the amount of the minimum award. Further evidence of the imposition of a backdoor tax upon parents has been the introduction this year of a reduction in the minimum award. This

281
has been halved, reduced from £410 to £205, with parents being asked to make up the shortfall. Not only is this a blow to the degree to which students can be independent from their parents, but it is a severe blow to the significant number of students whose parents refuse to complete the necessary assessment forms and refuse to make up the parental contribution. The 1982–83 survey showed that only just over half the parents paid their assessed contribution and 12 per cent. of students received over £200 less than could be expected.
There is evidence of a good deal of borrowing from banks and of overdrafts. The same survey shows that 56 per cent. of students had overdrafts at some point in their courses and that 33 per cent. ended their last term overdrawn. Loans, in fact, are coming in by the backdoor, too.
Students who would like to be independent are finding it increasingly difficult, with the present unemployment situation, to get vacational jobs. Some students manage to find work in term time, but that is not satisfactory for their academic work, particularly when, as in some cases, 20 hours per week were being put in. There have been rumours that the halving of the minimum grant this year is the first step to its abolition next year. When the Minister replies, will he reassure us that this is not so and that the parental contribution scale will not demand even more of parents next year.
Thus, there is a cumulative effect from these changes to the regulations. The impact will be profound for both students and parents. In discussions with the National Union of Students, Mr. Peter Brooke gave a commitment to monitor the effects of the new regulations on travel costs. We want to ask the Minister how the monitoring is to take place and when a report will be forthcoming.
These three substantial changes in the regulations this academic year have been made without the benefit of any hard evidence from the Government. The only information available on travel costs was collected in Scotland and, as a result of this information, the Scottish Office decided against following the example of the DES and has retained the old reimbursement system.
The National Union of Students, on the other hand, has collected and presented in three major forms information which shows the current climate for students whose resources are coming under attack from all quarters. In the last year the NUS has published its annual local education awards survey, its accommodation costs survey, and its independently conducted income and expenditure survey. The Secretary of State has copies of all these documents.
Mr. Peter Brooke, at a meeting with the NUS president and officials on 28th September last, said that he accepted the information on travel produced by the NUS as correct to within 10 per cent.—which is the normal margin of error in statistical calculations.
In the last five years since the Government came to power the student grant has declined in real terms by some 10 per cent. Indeed, with the abolition of the system of reimbursing excess travel expenditure for many students there will be a much greater decline in the value of their grant. During the same period, due
282
to the financial constraints placed upon the higher educational establishments, there has been an increase in real terms in costs for accommodation. Accommodation and food now account for approximately 75 per cent. of annual income, as against 62 per cent. in 1979.
The NUS is due shortly to present its annual submission to the DES concerning the grant regulations for 1985–86. The main point of the claim will be an education allowance for all 16-to 19-year-olds; a minimum allowance for all post-16 students which would provide parity with the allowance for young people on the youth training scheme—£30 a week is proposed.
In the EEC report on youth training, debated in this House last Monday, one of the recommendations was that this age group should have a common status and income. I very much hope that that will be accepted by the Government.
The NUS is asking for a 14 per cent. increase in the main rate of grant to restore its real value to the 1979 value. On travel, it is proposing a return to the reimbursement system, but with three different fixed elements within the main rate in order to ease the administrative burden on the LEAs, which we admit was heavy and which, one presumes, was a major reason for the change. It is suggested that the minimum grant should be £1,200, reflecting the claim of a minimum of £30 per week over a 40-week period, excluding the summer vacation.
In the debate on higher education on 14th March this year in this House I urged the Government to review the whole system of both student mandatory awards and the present 16–19 tangle. This will require cross-departmental co-operation between the DES, the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security. I was cheered to hear the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, in the debate last Monday say that he was chairing a committee composed of junior Ministers and senior officials from those departments and from the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope very much that that committee will look at this whole grant question.
It is now nearly a quarter of a century since the publication of the Anderson report on the grant system on which our present system is based. It is high time for a new look.
I hope that the review will take evidence from both Government departments and relevant nongovernmental bodies, with the results being made public at the earliest opportunity. The National Advisory Body in its Strategy for Higher Education in the Late 1980s and Beyond, at page 37 in the section on student support says, in paragraph 8.43:
"We therefore urge that the DES should institute a major review of the system of fees and of student support with the declared objective of identifying ways in which both might be adjusted to increase access and encourage student demand in the light of our recommended priorities".
There was feeling all round that a change is very much overdue.
Can we have some commitment from the Government that this review will take place? Can we have an absolute assurance that there will be a

283
monitoring of the effect of these very important and major changes to the award regulations in 1984–85, which we believe will cause great difficulties for a great many students in higher education in this country? I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations [S.I. 1984 No. 1116], laid before the House on 1st August 1984, be annulled—(Baroness David.)
3.38 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness for praying against these regulations and thus giving us the opportunity for this short debate. The noble Baroness has made most, if not all, of the points which arise from the regulations. I want to concentrate on one area—books. It is manifestly obvious that courses cannot be pursued without the proper material, of which books are by far the most important. There is, as I understand it, no notional sum built into the grant for books in the same way as the basic £50 for travel. Since 1963 the value of the maintenance grants has been steadily eroded. Yet more and more students are being forced to use part of their maintenance money on buying books as a result of the enforced cutbacks in library purchases.
If a small group of, say, six or seven, has to queue for the only library copy of an essential book for the course, it is obvious that those at the tail of the queue will be forced to buy it if they are to pursue their course competently and conscientiously. Even if there are five copies for a course of 20 students, the same thing may happen.
My noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge raised this whole question in a very trenchant speech which he made on his own Unstarred Question on 24th March 1983 when he gave the figures on university library purchases as they were at that time. Since then more recent statistics have become available, and, judging from a report from the National Book League on library book spending in universities, polytechnics and colleges between 1978 and 1982, there is no reason to think that the experience has been any better since. There are two passages that I should like to quote. The first is this:
"In the 1978–79 academic year, the average expenditure on books and periodicals per student (full-time equivalent) in the UK's 53 university and university college libraries was £57.50. Four years later, in 1981–82, the figure for average expenditure on books and periodicals had risen by 20 per cent. to £69.06. During that period, however, the retail price index for books rose by 53 per cent. and a comparable index for periodicals (Blackwells) by 45 per cent. All this amounts to an effective reduction in real expenditure of books and periodicals of over 19 per cent. per full-time equivalent student."
It also appears to be the case from this report that at only seven of the 53 institutions that I have mentioned did bookspending rise to keep up with inflation and at six universities real expenditure on books actually fell by half over those four years.
It is clear that some types of course require more books than others. A student on a scientific course may be able specifically to work with perhaps a single text book for a short time but a history student who is covering his period in depth obviously will need a considerable array of reading matter. It is also clear that the slender financial resources of students cannot
284
be expected to make good the deficiencies of provision in their libraries' book stocks.
There is one further point on books which I should like to raise with the noble Earl. There have been some very ugly rumours circulated in the press recently that the Government plan to impose VAT on books. This would make the situation even worse, and certainly would lead to demands from universities to reimburse them for their VAT costs and therefore the imposition of VAT would be counter-productive. It would in fact be pointless. But even if the Government did that, the individual student would still be faced with an even higher cost for his or her own individual book purchases. I hope very much that the noble Earl will be able to assure us this afternoon that the Government have no such intention and that the press reports are mischievous and wrong.
Before I sit down I should like to ask the noble Earl what the Government consider they are achieving by their constant erosion of the educational potential of this country. We understand perfectly the search for a new relevance. We do not think that all the Government's initiatives have been bad. The new 14-to-18 year old technical and vocational scheme is clearly an important experiment. The introduction of the new AS-level to run in tandem with A-level is to be welcomed. It appears in fact to be a version of the I-level scheme put forward by the now defunct Schools Council, which we have been advocating for several years. We do not believe that the MSC is the devil incarnate running roughshod over the educational establishment, and we do not believe that any purpose is served by a civil war between the trainers and the educators.
But we do think that the constant snipping and squeezing of lifelines to the mainstream educational system is, to say the very least, shortsighted. However much you train, however much you persuade industry to put into training and however shrewdly you try to select the topics and disciplines most relevant to the future, you cannot possibly manage to predict future requirements in job-specific skills or the balance between one industry and another, for example, 10 years from now, with any great exactness. What you can say—and I believe that most employers would support this—is the formation of a whole person able to cope with and adapt to the shifting demands of the labour market and the needs of society very much depends on the general education service—nursery, primary, secondary, further and higher—of this country.
It is folly to underfund that service and to seize on falling rolls as an excuse for indiscriminate cuts rather than taking the opportunity of long-overdue improvements. It is folly to introduce, as these regulations do, travel regulations which make it more difficult for students to get to the universities where they have been offered a place which is suitable for their abilities. It is folly to impose cuts which make it impossible for university and other libraries to buy enough books for their students, and it is folly to erode maintenance grants to the extent that students who are forced to buy books as the result of the library cuts are unable to do so. Incidentally, it is also bad for the United Kingdom publishing industry.

285
Finally, it is my hope that the Government will take seriously what has been said and what is yet to be said here this evening and that they will recognise that some of this relentless pressure on our universities and their students can be nothing but damaging in the long run to the efficiency and prosperity of the country.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I would join with the noble Lord in congratulating my noble friend Lady David for giving us the opportunity for debating what in my opinion is a very important subject—not only the actual problems of the grants but the consequences that are likely to follow from the way things are going within this field. Before commenting briefly on some of the points that my noble friend Lady David made—because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, she has covered the ground extremely well—I should like to endorse what Lord Kilmarnock said about the cost of books. It was my good fortune to have as tutor in politics two distinguished Members of your Lordships' House but I would not want to hold either of them responsible (or for your Lordships to hold them responsible) for what has happened subsequently in my political career. One of them said: "Of course, the object of reading PPE (philosophy, politics and economics) at Oxford is that you do not really learn anything about the subject but you should have a very good acquaintanceship with the bibliography over the field".
Recollecting the length of the book list that I was given at that time, I suspect that at present it would take the whole of one's grant to buy them and there would be nothing left for any other purpose at all; because it is not only the case that books have risen very much more on average than the cost of living and statistics that have gone into the compilation of grants, but also libraries have been cut back. A lot of universities trying to maintain other aspects of their work have cut back on library provision. I have heard this from many quarters. It is extremely difficult even for the students to borrow the books. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has said, there is a great distinction between students in a perhaps more practical field of study where they spend a good deal more time in laboratories and lectures than in some other subjects where it is desirable that they should have a wide acquaintance with the literature involved.
Quite apart from the actual books for study, one of the advantages I always feel of the university is that it is one time when people can read, and should be encouraged to read, outside their own subject. Indeed, with the pressures now under the present grants applying to students, I doubt very much if they would have the funds even to buy paper-back books of a very wide kind; and on the few occasions that I have recently stayed in college rooms, I have noticed that the students' libraries are a lot thinner and smaller than they used to be some years ago.
I think that the worst feature of the present grant system is the way that the Government have gone back on all the commitments that they made prior to becoming the Government and all the things that they said to me and to my predecessors about the way the
286
grant system was devised. I do not think that anybody who voted Conservative in 1979 expected for example that the parental contribution would change from 22 per cent. in 1979 of the total cost of student maintenance to 39 per cent. in 1984, with all the likelihood of that figure increasing. Indeed, I am told by the results of research that over the same period between 1981 and 1984 the parental contributions in total have gone up by 117 per cent. and the public fund provision for student maintenance has gone down by 5 per cent. I do not somehow seem to have read anything about this in the Conservative Manifesto for either the last election or the one before. One of my noble friends says, "Maybe it will be in the next one"—but I have a feeling that this will be something which is only in the small print. While we have to accept that there is a parental responsibility and that parents should provide, we are not living in the general economic circumstances when parental incomes in real terms are increasing. Indeed, in many families it is the very reverse.
I endorse what my noble friend Lady David has said about the need for a complete look at the whole question of the grants system, apart from these student cuts. I believe that the current grant, depending on how much is allowed for travel in view of the changed practice of which my noble friend spoke, has dropped about 10 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred to the matter of books; and we know that in one or two other fields of expenditure, such as when students have to eat out, or live in college and university institutions, charges have gone up, I would suspect, rather more than the average annual increase in the retail price index. So I think there has been a reduction in the real income available to students even if their parents have paid their full contribution; although of course in many cases they do not.
What will be a very real problem for many students is the reduction in the minimum grant from £410 to £205. There has been speculation recently that this will be reduced further, or even abolished altogether. We shall be most anxious to learn from the noble Earl when he comes to reply what assurances he can give on this point—namely, that there is no intention to reduce the minimum grant still further. The minimum grant, of course, goes to wealthy parents. I am sorry to say that it is some of the wealthiest parents who are the least generous in the provision that they make for their sons' and daughters' education. It may be that there are differences of view about whether they should or should not go to university and so on. But I have come across quite a number of students whose parents could certainly have paid the whole cost of the education with no great hardship, but in fact they gave their children very little or nothing, so that they had to depend—and it is increasingly difficult now—on finding work during the vacations to supplement the minimum grant to which they were entitled.
I hope therefore that we can get some guidance from the noble Earl that these matters are being taken very seriously by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who I know is a man with a very real interest in education and young people. I would hope that we could have an assurance that the submission which

287
was sent only last week by the National Union of Students to the department will be given the most serious consideration.
I will not weary your Lordships by going into the details of the very substantial facts that the National Union of Students have put together about the whole set of problems they face, but it seems to me to be a serious submission based on research and real facts which we do not have in support of the regulations currently before us and I would like to be given an assurance that serious attention will be given to this submission. I see that it was sent only on Monday of this week by the students to the department. Of course, we would not expect an answer to all the points this afternoon, but I am sure that some assurance will be appreciated.
Finally—and I will be brief because I have raised this matter before in your Lordships' House and in a sense it is not directly relevant to the particular problems of our national students—I would hope there could be another look at the definition that is applied as to who is a "home" and who is an "overseas" student, because one hears of some very hard cases: for example, soldiers who have served continuously in Germany have found that their children are denied grants. As I say, I hope another look can be given at the definitions, on the one hand, and also at the whole question of the enormous differential between home and overseas students in the matter of fees.
I think that this differential is one of the most stupid and narrow things that have ever been done. I admit it was started in a tiny way by my own Government—but not by me. I knew that once a differential was opened up it would get wider and wider. The situation now is that very few students who used to come to this country are coming. They are going to universities in France, Germany or other continental countries, or to the United States.
In the longer run we are going to lose the business that has often come in the past, because when students who have been educated here as young men become leaders in their own countries, their contacts are here and they tend to look to English magazines and English firms for their supply. In fact, I met a Greek friend this very week who asked me if I could get him a report of Marks and Spencer's—he is in the retail trade. He said, "I want to take it back because my nephew will never read anything about Britain because he was educated in the United States: all he looks to for information are journals from the United States".
Loss of business is bound to happen, particularly in higher technology, engineering and so on, if we make education virtually impossible—as in many cases it has been made impossible—by this very high level of fees we are charging, not only for undergraduate but more particularly for postgraduate studies. I would hope that this could be looked at again in the context of the review of the financing of universities, for which I thought that my noble friend Lady David made a very strong case. I hope that we can have some information from the Minister which will give us a little encouragement, although I know it is not your Lordships' practice to vote in favour of a Motion such as that on the Order Paper.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wish very briefly to intervene and I apologise for not having put my name down on the list and given the Minister notice. My noble friend Lord Glenamara has on more than one occasion during the current year raised on the Floor of the House the special problems of the students at Newcastle Polytechnic. In his unavoidable absence today—he would have liked to be here—I shall raise some points that he would have wished to make in the debate, upon which I should be very grateful if the Minister could perhaps reply to my noble friend direct. My noble friend will certainly be reading Hansard.
May I begin by paying a warm tribute to the very able way in which my noble friend Lady David has encompassed the three main concerns, and not just that of the student body. I think we have to be quite clear that, although students are at the sharp end of the punishment which is the net result of these changes, it is not only students but also communities and parents, and ultimately our nation, who are going to be damaged.
I want to give one or two illustrations to the Minister which I hope he and his advisers will take away and reflect upon. Great play has been made by the Minister about consultations that took place before the regulations were conceived and laid. He knows of the very strong reaction to the meaningless way in which those consultations took place and we now have, as my noble friend Lord Mulley said, some pretty hard evidence about the dire consequences of the situation.
I want to give the House some illustrations which my noble friend Lord Glenamara has given to me and which were given to him by the Newcastle Polytechnic. Let us consider this primarily in respect of the impact of the changes in the travel award. There is the case of a second-year student who is undertaking a BA government and public policy course. The cost of public transport from his home will be £296·80. The remarks column of this document states that he is a mature student with a family. If he moved to Newcastle he would claim a two-homes grant of up to £590, but his family life would be severely disrupted. The calculations exclude vacation journeys to the polytechnic library.
I have here another case of a student doing a BSc in mechanical engineering and he, too, is a second-year student. If this student used public transport it would cost £400 and his working day would be from 6.30 a.m. to 7 p.m. He would have to move to Newcastle and claim the higher grant. In the case of another student in his first year undertaking a course for a BA in accountancy, his public transport costs are £300. He would have to move to Newcastle and would claim the higher grant. Another student in the first year of a BA business studies course has public transport costs of £550. This student's wife works in the home town. He would not be able to continue his course.
Another BSc student in the second year of a course in mechanical engineering has public transport costs of £414. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that this is against the grant of £110. This is based on the £160 limit. This married mature student would lose £7 a week and could continue on his course only with a considerable reduction in living standards. He could

289
not really consider a second home in Newcastle. Those are some illustrations.
It may very well be that the Minister and his advisers are not aware of them, but if they are aware of them it is no good the Minister saying that there are swings and roundabouts and that most students will benefit. If you are one of the students whom I have listed, no matter who else benefits and by how much, such a change will have very serious consequences. I should like to tell the Minister what I am told by the Newcastle Polytechnic is likely to happen in those situations. Many students will move to Newcastle and claim the living away from home grant, costing the local authority an additional £385, which I am sure the Minister would not want. Alternatively, they will claim a two homes grant of up to £390 or will leave their courses midway, wasting not only their own considerable effort, commitment and skills, but also the LEA money.
I simply say to the Minister that, if what he has been setting out is a more equitable means of using a limited sum of public money, surely individuals who are as hard-pressed as students undertaking a course ought not to undergo any worsening of their existing position. I am not talking about feather-bedding or public largesse. I am talking about a group of people who, by and large, are not having it very easy. Is the Minister setting out to create some kind of obstacle course over which the dedicated, committed student has to jump until, finally, he becomes qualified and better able to lead our nation?
The Minister has an opportunity in this debate to make some reassuring noises and statements and if he will undertake to look very carefully at hardship—and it ought not to be too much of a hardship for him to do that—and will say something that is helpful either to local authorities or to students who are placed in an impossible situation, then I will be very grateful and I know that my noble friend Lord Glenamara will be grateful too.
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for raising in this place an important area of education policy and one which we have not for some time had the opportunity to discuss as fully as we have today. May I first apologise for the delay which the noble Baroness quite rightly mentioned at the beginning of her speech. I shall try to explain the reasons why these mandatory grants regulations were not laid before Parliament until the last minute.
They are dependent upon the supplementary allowances. The supplementary allowances cannot be calculated until the DHSS rates of supplementary benefit are published and, in fact, it was not until mid-June that the supplementary benefit rates became available this year. However, there was some improvement in the 1984 timetable for the announcement of the supplementary allowances. This occurred because the link with the DHSS rates was broken in the case of certain important allowances, including that for extra weeks of study, making it possible to announce them as part of the 16th April package.
290
In fact, the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1984 were formally laid before Parliament on 1st August 1984, and this was an improvement on last year, when the equivalent regulations were laid on 9th August 1983. Of course, I acknowledge and accept that the date of our rising for the Summer Recess was not a great deal of help. We cannot, I am afraid, give a commitment for next year, except to say that we will do our very best. But I am, of course, particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me an opportunity to explain to noble Lords the Government's record in this key area since we came into office.
The system of mandatory awards which we are discussing today came into operation in 1962, following the report of a committee of inquiry established by the then Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland under the chairmanship of Sir Colin Anderson. Previously students did not enjoy a statutory right to maintenance support. But as a result of the Anderson report, this assistance was granted to them by a Conservative Government as part of the Education Act 1962, and it is a privilege that they still enjoy today.
Since the Anderson Committee reported, successive Governments have continued to give effect to the principles set out in the report and this Government are no exception. In a period when the Government have sought to reduce public spending over a wide range of areas as part of their general economic strategy, they have continued to find the resources necessary to maintain the mandatory awards scheme. Indeed, more students benefit now from public support through the awards system than ever before. Since we came into office, the number of full value award holders has risen from 369,400 to the 439,500 we estimate this year—an increase of almost one-fifth.
This is hardly the erosion of our education system to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred in his speech. May I say to him on books, since I have mentioned his name, that there is in fact a notional sum within the grant for books. But the NUS survey evidence, which has been brought to our attention by all speakers this afternoon, suggests that the students spend that sum not on books, but on other things.
So far as VAT on books is concerned, the Government are committed to shifting the burden of taxation from taxes on earnings to taxes on spending. This means that the indirect tax base may have to be further extended so that income tax can be further reduced. But the Government have no set views at present on how this might best be done.
Furthermore, our awards system is extremely generous and is regarded with envy by many overseas. No other country in the western world provides statutory grant support at the level we do—and for such a wide range of students. This year total public expenditure on fees and maintenance is forecast to be some £706 million. Most other western countries include a loans element in one form or another in their student support arrangements, but here students receive the majority of their maintenance support by means of a non-repayable grant. No wonder, then, that students abroad, as the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, said, look enviously at the British award system and seek, where they can, to take advantage of it.

291
It is of course very easy for noble Lords sitting on the Benches opposite to say that we have not done enough, or that we have not been generous enough, or for them to concentrate on one or two areas where they believe the Government have not been as generous as they should have been, or as they would have been. But I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will take note of what the Government have done under the very real constraints under which they must work—constraints which of course do not apply to noble Lords opposite.
I should now like to say a little about each of the changes introduced under the regulations which we are debating today. I shall start, naturally enough, with grant rates. These, as we have heard, have been increased by 4 per cent. That increase represents, as it has always done in the past, a compromise between students' aspirations, their needs and the total sum it is reasonable to expect taxpayers and ratepayers to provide for the maintenance support of a privileged group of young people, many of whom will go on to earn enhanced salaries after graduation as a result of their publicly funded studies. I appreciate that the increase was not as generous as some students and their representatives would have liked, though I am sure that very many students appreciate that the taxpayer—including of course their own parents—does not have a bottomless purse and that this year's settlement is reasonable. Moreover, I am sure that students understand that they, in common with other groups in our society, cannot expect to be insulated from the harsh economic realities of life.
Given our success in reducing the rate of inflation, then, this year's settlement is I believe a fair one—for students, whose needs should continue to be met for the period which the grant covers, and for parents and for taxpayers and ratepayers who foot most of the bill.
Turning now to parental contributions, again the Government have sought to provide a fair settlement. First, the parental contributions scale has been indexed so that about the same number of parents will be assessed for a contribution this year as last. We have also sought to protect families earning less than around the average income from the real increases resulting from the steeper scale we have introduced. We have done this by retaining the lower part of the scale at its previous rate. We have, however, chosen to steepen the slope of the scale for families earning more than average income, thereby increasing their parental contribution in real terms.
Ministers have also decided to halve the minimum award from £410 to £205. At this point I should like to satisfy both the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, by denying categorically that any decision has yet been taken to reduce the award of £205 for next year.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, will the Minister convey to his right honourable friend the point that we should very strongly object if further consideration of the award meant that it was to be reduced?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I shall certainly do that. I regret that this story has appeared in some sections of the press. So far as I know, there is absolutely no truth in it. Ministers also appreciate that
292
this decision has led to unease on both sides of the House, but they have concluded that it would not be equitable to insulate higher income families from increased contributions when larger contributions would be assessed from parents whose incomes are lower.
I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that these decisions were not taken lightly. The savings resulting from this measure form part of a package which was necessary to keep public spending within the limits we had set. Faced with the need to make savings in higher education, Ministers—unlike noble Lords opposite—had to decide where savings should be made. They judged it preferable to make these savings on student awards rather than in other areas; for example, in the provision for the universities or for science.
Ministers were also faced with the equally difficult decision of how to achieve those savings. One possibility would have been to have kept down the main rate of grant. Ministers rejected this option because it would have been regressive and hit students from least well off backgrounds hardest—I am sure that this is something which appeals to noble Lords on the other side of the House—and because it would have run counter to the Government's general policy of encouraging wider access to higher education from all social groups. Ministers therefore concluded that the most equitable way forward would be to introduce the new scales incorporated into the regulations we are debating. I commend this difficult decision to noble Lords.
We have heard that these changes will result in more students suffering hardship, due to their parents' failure to make up their assessed parental contribution in full. This is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, made very forcefully. At this stage this is merely conjecture, but I urge all parents—as Ministers of successive Governments have done—to make up their assessed contributions in full. They should not overlook the help which deeds of covenant can offer in this respect.
Ministers were pleased to learn from the NUS survey that non-payment of assessed parental contribution is a less widespead problem now than it was a decade ago and they hope that this trend will continue. But this certainly does not mean that Ministers—in particular my right honourable friend—are complacent. I hope that publicity will be drawn to this point and to the fact that parents should pay their contributions in full. But it would be idle to pretend that the Government could solve the problem altogether by simply abolishing the parental contribution system. We estimate that the cost of doing this would be some £250 million per annum. It would therefore not be possible to contemplate abolition now or in the foreseeable future, just as it has not been possible for successive Governments to contemplate it in the past.
I now turn to the new arrangements which we have introduced to deal with students' travel and which have taken up a large part of our debate this afternoon. I recall, of course, that these proposals were criticised by several of your Lordships earlier in the year. I responded to those criticisms at that time and I remain convinced now that the changes which we have made are right.

293
The former method, under which students were able to claim reimbursement of expenditure which they had incurred in travelling to and from their place of study, was administratively cumbersome and inefficient and therefore inherently expensive. It gave no incentive to students to seek the most economical way to travel, as they knew that the taxpayer would ultimately foot the bill. Furthermore, the old arrangements implied an open-ended commitment to public expenditure and to a significant amount of public spending. Noble Lords may care to note that this year the department will be spending some £39 million on students' travel—not an inconsiderable sum.
I am sure that noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently on the new arrangements hold no brief for an inefficient and expensive system. I am sure, too, that they would agree that the Government must guard the taxpayers' interests and ensure that public money is disbursed as wisely as possible and that this area of expenditure should be kept under as close control as is possible.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am sure that this House would not countenance administrative inconvenience. I am also sure that the House accepts that this was one of the prime reasons for the change in the system by the Government. If, however, one of the consequences of the change is to cause the kind of hardship which I have illustrated, the Government must surely recognise that change for purely administrative convenience may drive away good students from universities or, as my noble friend Lady David pointed out, induce students to look more closely at universities which are nearer to where they live, though they may not be the right universities for the kind of studies they wish to pursue.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will bear with me for a minute, I hope to be able to offer a fairly satisfactory answer to his question. Inevitably any change in the system of reimbursing actual cost to a more broadly based approach will mean that while some students will gain, others will lose. Ministers understood and acknowledged this when they first put forward their revised proposals, but they were aware, too, that very many more students would gain under the new proposals—by the increase in the grants to which I have referred—than would lose.
Some 56 per cent. of full value award holders—around 235,000 students—made no claim for excess travel reimbursement in 1982–83, the latest year for which we have data. All of these students will gain either £50 or £110 under the new arrangements, depending upon whether or not they live with their parents. Those claiming less than £50 or £110 respectively will gain, too, reducing the number of losers still further.
Ministers were also concerned that the interests of particular groups of claimants whose travel requirements could not be easily catered for under a nonreimbursement system were protected. Special provision has therefore been made for those studying abroad or away from the main place of study and, I am glad to say—for noble Lords will know that this is a
294
subject very close to my own heart—for the disabled. Furthermore, in response to the representations made to them during the consultative period earlier this year, Ministers have made special arrangements for those who were on courses before 1st September this year and who face unavoidably very high travelling expenses. So, while I accept that some students will be made worse off under the new arrangements, again the effect of the change must be viewed in its proper perspective.
A number of noble Lords have spoken forcefully both today and before the Recess about students whom they expect to be made worse off and about particular local problems of which they have specialist knowledge. Here I would say that nobody has made these points more forcibly than the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
Ministers acknowledge that some students will find themselves worse off than they are now if they continue with their existing travel arrangements—though one of the aims of the new system is to encourage students to seek the most cost-effective means of travel, where they have not done so in the past. Ministers understand, too, that in some cases the scope available to students to change their travel patterns may be limited. But they believe that in many of the cases which have been put to them students will be able to find solutions which will reduce their present levels of travel spending and not leave them significantly worse off than they were before.
Noble Lords will understand, I am sure, that it would not be sensible to try to tackle local problems, if they do indeed arise—and I am sure they do—by an across-the-board increase in the provision for travel. That would involve an enormous deadweight cost and would be an inefficient way to disburse taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. They will understand, too, I am sure, Ministers' natural reluctance to contemplate any change which would make the present regulations more complex than they are already, or would make the job of local education authorities more difficult in administering those regulations. Indeed, that would run counter to one of the main reasons for the changes we have made; administrative simplicity.
It is also reasonable, before considering whether any further amendments to the arrangements are necessary, to give students sufficient time to adapt to the new arrangements, and the new system a chance to settle down. In addition, of course, any changes introduced for the benefit of any one particular group could only be made at the expense of others.
For all these reasons, then, Ministers will be reluctant to contemplate any immediate change in the present system, but I can say—and here I hope that I can bring words of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and others—that if, once the new system has had a chance to settle, Ministers are presented with compelling evidence that some students are facing hardship as a result of the new arrangements and a means is available to overcome any such problems in an administratively efficient way, they will look at them again. That, I am sure all noble Lords will acknowledge, is reasonable, sensible and generous.

295
I turn now to the three other improvements made in this year's regulations, which are important and about which—perhaps not surprisingly—we have heard nothing this afternoon. Ministers have listened sympathetically to the case made—particularly by medical students, but of course applying to all students in both universities and the public sector who study on longer courses—for an increase in the allowance for extra weeks of study. While they do not accept that the weekly rate of grant for extra weeks should be equivalent to the average weekly value of the award, Ministers decided that, in addition to a 4 per cent. increase in line with main rates of grant and the incorporation of an amount pro rata to the new flat rate travel provision, the extra weeks' allowance should be increased. A significant real increase of £2·80 per week is therefore incorporated into the regulations.
Ministers have also listened sympathetically to representations that all periods when a student was either in, or available for, work should be counted for the purposes of establishing independent status under the awards regulations. The regulations before us today have therefore been amended to give effect to this.
Finally, the regulations have been amended significantly to increase the sum a student may receive by way of sponsorship from his employer or prospective employer without losing grant. Indeed, the allowance has been more than doubled from £540 per annum to £1,200, and for students under the National Engineering Scholarship there is an even larger increase—from £795 to £1,500. Students may now receive a total of £1,600—or for National Engineering Scholarship students £1,900—by way of sponsorship and other income before their grant is affected. It is to be hoped that these increased sponsorship levels will help to attract able students to courses related to the wealth-creating parts of our economy—including courses leading to careers in vital new technologies.
My Lords, in conclusion, I commend the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1984 to you.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I was particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, mentioned books and the threat of VAT; but I am not so reassured by what the Minister had to say on that subject. I thank the noble Earl for his spirited defence of the regulations and for saying that the Government will pay attention if there is evidence of real hardship.
The Minister did not really answer my question about monitoring, but we hope that there will be monitoring and some research into how these new regulations affect students; that is very important. And, although one can congratulate the Government on having more students at the higher education level, that is partly because there are more in that age group at the moment. But it is not much use their being there unless they have the wherewithal to make a really profitable thing of their three years in higher education, and we fear that that may not happen under these new regulations. I particularly hope that the travel arrangements will be thoroughly monitored.
296
The Minister did not say whether there will be any review of the whole grant system. This is one of the most important points of all. But we have had an opportunity to have a good discussion on the new regulations—and we have not discussed regulations for some time—and I look forward to having the regulations before us rather sooner next year, so that we may debate them before they come into force. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Hong Kong Agreement
4.26 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary about developments during the Recess in the negotiations between the British and Chinese Governments on the future of Hong Kong. The Statement is as follows:
"During my discussions in Peking with Chinese leaders in late July, I was able to resolve most of the major issues outstanding in the negotiations. I gave a progress report in a statement in Hong Kong on 1st August: copies of that statement were placed in the Library of the House on the same day.
"Negotiations continued on the remaining unresolved issues and were brought to a successful conclusion on 22nd September. As a result, a draft agreement, consisting of a joint declaration and three annexes, was initialled on 26th September by the British Ambassador in Peking and the Chinese Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Zhou Nan. It was published on the same day in a White Paper in London and Hong Kong and laid before the House.
"I should like to draw the attention of the House to the following important features of the draft agreement:
"It constitutes a formal international agreement, legally binding in all its parts. This is the highest form of commitment that can be given by one sovereign state to another;
"It deals in considerable detail with Chinese policies towards Hong Kong after 1997, and thus provides a framework in which the people of Hong Kong can plan and work for a secure and prosperous future;
"It thus provides for Hong Kong's distinctive economic and social systems, freedoms and lifestyle to continue unchanged;
"It makes clear that the policies which it spells out for Hong Kong will be stipulated in a Basic Law to be passed by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, and will remain unchanged for 50 years after 1997.
"It is now for the people of Hong Kong to give their views on the draft agreement. The House has already been informed of the arrangements which have been made to enable them to do so. Over 2 million copies of the White Paper have been distributed in the territory.

297
"I am very glad to be able to tell the House that the Executive Council of Hong Kong has felt able to recommend the draft agreement to the people of Hong Kong—in the words of the senior unofficial member—'in good conscience'.
"The House will also wish to know that, at the conclusion of their debate last week, the Hong Kong Legislative Council gave the draft agreement their overwhelming support and similarly commended it to the people of Hong Kong.
"Beyond that, I have been encouraged by the favourable reactions which have come from many other public bodies and individuals in Hong Kong and by the wide international welcome it has received.
"The House will in due course wish to know the extent to which the draft agreement as a whole is acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. It was made quite clear in the White Paper that the draft agreement itself cannot be amended. But the views expressed in Hong Kong on all parts of it will be of value in our continuing discussions with the Chinese, particularly in the Joint Liaison Group. I am sure the House would wish me to urge everyone in Hong Kong to submit their views on all these aspects to the Assessment Office.
"The report of the Assessment Office, together with that of the monitoring team, will be published at about the end of November. The House will of course attach great importance to these reports when it debates the draft agreement, and I know that my right honourable friend will be seeking to give the House an early opportunity to debate the matter after the publication of these reports.
"It would not be right to anticipate that debate. But the Government have made quite clear their own view that the draft agreement provides the assurances which are necessary if the people of Hong Kong are to face the future with confidence. In the words of the White Paper: 'Her Majesty's Government believe that the Agreement is a good one. They strongly commend it to the people of Hong Kong and to Parliament.' "
My Lords, that is the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Having studied the draft agreement and its annexes and heard the Statement, I should like at once on behalf of my noble friends to congratulate the Foreign Secretary, and all those who were concerned in the long, complicated and hard negotiations which have taken place, on bringing them to a successful conclusion.
It was clear from the start—was it not?—that after 1997, when the lease of most of the colony expires, the Chinese Government were not prepared to allow the status quo to continue and that the peaceful and successful future of the colony depended upon agreement being reached between China and ourselves. In the event, I believe that in the circumstances, provided the terms of the agreement and annexes are carried out, there are good prospects of achieving this.
298
The first of the important features of the draft agreement to which the Statement drew attention was this. It constitutes a formal international agreement, legally binding in all its parts. This is the highest form of commitment that can be given by one sovereign state to another. I agree. Do the Chinese Government accept this, and is there not every reason for assuming that they do? At the end of the day, of course, much depends on the good faith and honour of the Chinese Government and ourselves, which will be at stake in the coming years.
We believe the agreement will, of course, provide benefits to China in many ways; not least by attracting the foreign trade and investments that China needs. We, too, may gain a great deal from the agreement; notably the Chinese commitment to retain the present social, economic and legal system in Hong Kong which has brought it prosperity and stability for so long, and to be largely unchanged for 50 years after 1997.
Can the noble Lord tell the House what will be the position of the 2½ million holders of British dependent territories passports? What will be the position of the children of those passport holders? Can he say a word or two about the joint liaison group which is to monitor the agreement? Is there any danger that this will have political consequences which could have effects upon the development of the agreement itself—for instance, by perhaps interfering in Hong Kong's international affairs?
Without going into the detail of the agreement and annexes may I particularly welcome certain parts of it, especially the assurances about freedom of religion and education and the right to handle external economic affairs. I conclude by wishing Hong Kong and its talented and industrious people, among whom many of us have many friends, a secure and happy future.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Minister for repeating the Statement. I think that Her Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government are entitled to considerable credit for the successful negotiation of this agreement. In its style and content the agreement shows admirable sensitiveness to the fears and hopes of the people of Hong Kong and also to the very different ideological standpoints of China and the United Kingdom.
I ask the noble Lord three specific questions. Obviously it is important that when the time of the changeover comes there should be a greater degree of self-government within the terms of the agreement than there is now. What proposals do Her Majesty's Government have for political development in the colony during the interim period? Second, can he give the assurance that representations made to the Assessment Office are completely confidential? When I was in Hong Kong earlier this month a number of people were worried that representations they made to the Assessment Office would be kept indefinitely and might even become known in the future to the Chinese Government and other authorities. Can the noble Lord give a complete assurance that representations made to the office will be completely confidential and that the papers will not be kept? I see no reason for keeping them beyond the end of November.

299
Finally, may we have the assurance that when the changeover takes place Her Majesty's Government will accept full responsibility for the admission to this country of at least certain special categories of Hong Kong citizens? I particularly have in mind those concerned with security and the police.
We must all hope that the agreement will be carried out in the same admirable spirit in which it has been negotiated. Hong Kong is a phenomenal success and we on these Benches wish it well in the future.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords——
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise for being a little slow to rise to my feet. I very much appreciate the reception which the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord have given to this Statement. The Chinese Government have certainly accepted the position which I outlined in the Statement about the status of the agreement which we have reached.
The noble and learned Lord asked about the position of non-Chinese nationals born in Hong Kong to parents with the right of abode in the special administrative region, as it will come to be called. I can say that they will acquire the right of abode through their parents and will retain the right of abode after the age of 21 if they have lived for some time in Hong Kong, for a continuous period of seven years, and have taken Hong Kong as the place of permanent residence. I hope that answers the point raised by the noble and learned Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked what interim developments might be made in the governmental system in Hong Kong. I know that this is a matter which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is thinking about at present and I believe that some changes will be made; particularly there is the possibility of introducing in the colony some form of elected representation, which the noble Lord will be aware does not exist at present.
On the other point made by the noble Lord, I can say that our aim was to obtain arrangements which would provide a secure future for Hong Kong people in which to continue to live, work and raise their children. I am confident that we have achieved it. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has the power, of course, to exercise his discretion in respect of applications for admission to the United Kingdom and certain other applications under the nationality legislation. Applications under these provisions will be considered on their merits in the future as in the past. Again, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord for the reception that they have given to the Statement.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in thanking the Minister, may I press him a little further on the assessment process which my noble friend Lord Mayhew raised but which was not answered? Not only is there worry in Hong Kong about the names being kept and published after thirty years—I hope this worry can be laid to rest here and now in this House—but cannot the Government even now consider allowing the Assessment Office to set about its task in a slightly more outgoing way by, for example, using public opinion polls—the Government of Hong Kong have a
300
well-tried mechanism for public opinion polls which is not being used in this all-important case—by setting up district offices to which people may simply come and give their opinion verbally, rather than writing formally with a signature and everything; and, above all, simply by receiving telephone calls? Why are those things not being done? They would add greatly to the validity of the assessment if they were done.
My second question is this. What has this Parliament left to do in the matter? What stages still face us? Do we expect a Bill amending the nationality legislation to look after people who would otherwise be stateless? There are a lot of people: not 2½ million but 7,000 or 8,000. What steps must Parliament take to enshrine in legislation the transfer of sovereignty in 1997? When will those steps have to be taken to fit the schedule agreed with China?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for not answering the point that he put to me about the assessment procedure and what may happen to the records that are prepared there. I can see no reason why the records need to be kept longer than is necessary for the Assessment Office to form its views. We hope that we shall get its report by the end of November. If I am wrong about that, perhaps I may be allowed to communicate with the noble Lord. But, as I say, I am not aware of any plans other than the ones to which I have referred.
As for the question of conducting opinion polls among the people of Hong Kong, speaking for myself I have a fairly narrow respect for opinion polls. I think the results depend very much on the questions asked and the people involved in conducting them. Although I do not for a moment doubt the good intentions of the Hong Kong Government in conducting any such poll, I am not necessarily convinced that it would be the best way to proceed. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is aware, it is necessary to proceed with reasonable dispatch over producing the results of the assessment procedure. I believe that the arrangements that we have set out are the best that can be devised in the circumstances. The noble Lord may be aware that in addition to the Assessment Office there are two monitors at work in the colony at the present time. One of them is Sir Patrick Nairne, who is a former very distinguished civil servant in this country; the other is a Judge Lee, who is of course a judge of Hong Kong origin.
The noble Lord also asked about the possibility of anybody becoming stateless as a result of these arrangements. As he will be aware, there are international obligations upon us to ensure that we have regard to people who may, unfortunately, arrive in that circumstance. He is right to say that the numbers, if any, are likely to be very small indeed. The Government will certainly be bringing forward legislation to meet that case in due course and certainly in good time for 1997.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, most generous congratulations have been given to Her Majesty's Government and to the Government of the PRC in regard to this agreement. I think that that includes the officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (I dare not mention names) and equally the officials within the

301
PRC. I believe that very warm and generous appreciation should be expressed to the Governor, Sir Edward Youde, and especially to Sir S. Y. Chung, the senior member of the Non-Executive Council in Hong Kong, who have lived under considerable strain for some two years, with full knowledge and yet having to remain silent. I am delighted that they and the Legislative Council have been able, after full consideration, to give their support to this agreement. I hope that that will be seen as a very strong lead to the people of Hong Kong.
Does the Minister agree, however, that this is only the first hurdle in retaining the confidence of Hong Kong? What will count now is how we move forward within Hong Kong in the implementation of the agreement. I was delighted by his reaction to the question about those who are stateless. It is a very small number, but that situation adds to the uncertainty and anxiety. I think that the noble Lord's second contribution will help us in that respect.
There is a wider field in terms of right of abode or a place to go to, although I think that this is not the occasion to raise that. But I hope that the Minister will be open to see some of us. There is genuine anxiety and difficulty for some—again a very small number. I believe that it will facilitate the change (which will be very considerable) that is required under the agreement in a relatively short time. I hope that Ministers will be willing to see some of us to look at these particular cases.
I have one last thought to put to the Minister and the House in regard to the Statement. I hope that proposals for change within Hong Kong—which will be required, and it will be very clear to the Government what they are—will not be put forward too dogmatically. I do not know whether in Hong Kong there is a Green Paper procedure, but I would commend that—putting forward proposals for discussion and consideration, as opposed to their being seen as a diktat from either Her Majesty's Government or the Governor. I think that we are in for a period of sensitivity in Hong Kong. I apologise for speaking for longer than I should. All the signs are that the agreement has been well received in Hong Kong. However, confidence is brittle, although, I am sure that we can retain confidence. This is an agreement that I should never have expected five or even three years ago. All parties and all others who have participated are to be congratulated.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I entirely agree with him that the way forward now is to secure the consent and confidence of the people of Hong Kong. I believe that that can be reflected through the machinery of the joint liaison group which is to be set up under the agreement. We shall certainly ensure that Hong Kong is appropriately represented on that.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, may I ask two brief questions arising out of the constitutional position in respect of the Basic Law to which my noble friend has referred? As a preliminary question, may I ask him whether he is aware that the felicitous tribute to the Foreign Secretary paid by the noble and learned Lord
302
on the Front Bench opposite reflects and reinforces a similarly handsome tribute by the Opposition spokesman in the other place? As I am sure he is aware, all of us on all sides of this House are gratified to hear the tributes and share in the enthusiasm and gratitude that they express to the Ministers concerned.
The Basic Law provisions are set out in Annex I to the draft agreement. My first question is this. The Government of the People's Republic of China express the intention that:
"The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China shall enact and promulgate a Basic Law,"
making Hong Kong a special administrative region. For those brought up in the traditions of this Parliament on the basis of the sovereignty of Parliament, is it not a curious concept that a government should be able to bind a legislature, especially at such a distant point of time? Do the Government here see any difficulties or hazards in the implementation of this undertaking?
The second question arises also on Annex I, where the Basic Law is to provide that the socialist system and social policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and that Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and life style shall remain unchanged for 50 years. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that those are admirable sentiments but would be a challenge to draftsmanship of no mean order? Can we expect further and better particulars or more precise content of these praiseworthy provisions?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not ask me for a precise recitation of the parliamentary procedures which are followed in China. I am bound to say that I should need to pause and reflect a while before offering any such thing!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, would it be wrong to suggest that those parliamentary procedures in the Republic of China are very brief and very short?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, brief and short they may be, but I suspect that they are effective as well! To provide my noble friend with a serious answer to his important question, the Government are satisfied that the Chinese Government will be in a position to deliver the Basic Law, as they have undertaken to do in this agreement. It is of course some years off, as my noble friend rightly says; but the principles which are to be set out in that Basic Law are enunciated in the draft agreement which the Chinese Government have initialled. It is for that reason that the Government have complete confidence in them.
The drafting of the law is for the Chinese Government themselves. However, as I say, the principles which they shall follow in that drafting are set out in the agreement. The Chinese have made it clear that the people of Hong Kong will be consulted.
As for the further point made by my noble friend about the maintenance of the existing capitalist system in Hong Kong, I think one ought not to lose sight of the fact that the existence of that system, which is very different from the system that applies in the rest of China, is of some benefit to the people of China. For example, the Chinese earn large sums of foreign currency through Hong Kong at the present time. I do

303
not think that they would like lightly to turn aside the benefits to them of maintaining the present system in Hong Kong.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I put two brief points to the noble Lord? I preface what I have to say by adding my congratulations to the Government on this remarkable achievement; to our Foreign Secretary for his arduous work and massive contribution and of course also to the representives of the Chinese Government for their so generous, sincere and worthwhile response. May I please ask the noble Lord if he can give the House an assurance that the policy which the Government have already adopted of keeping as many of the ordinary people of Hong Kong as possible involved in these negotiations will continue? Secondly, can he say, with regard to the joint liaison group, to whom it will be reporting and how often? Also will there be discussions on the reports of the joint liaison group?
Lastly, the question of nationality is going to be very important. Can the noble Lord give some indication as to how it might be tackled in the years to come?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord asked how the people of Hong Kong could be involved in this matter. I think I can principally point to the assessment process on which we have embarked. No less than two million copies of the White Paper have been distributed in Hong Kong, most of them I believe in Chinese. Happily, this one is not! Therefore the people of Hong Kong, most of whom speak Chinese, will be able to determine what is proposed and express their views upon it.
As for the joint liaison group, that will report to both Governments from time to time. I am not quite sure with what frequency it is proposed that that group should report. However, if I can find any more information about that, I shall certainly let the noble Lord know.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I fully support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, regarding the result of this very excellent agreement over the future of Hong Kong?—although perhaps I do not share in total the euphoria expressed in some quarters.
I want to ask the Minister two brief questions, one of which he may be able to answer and the other which he may not. What is going to be the situation regarding the judiciary in Brunei, which at the moment comes under the judiciary in Hong Kong? Will they continue to be administered from Hong Kong up to the time of the treaty taking effect in 1997, or will there be special arrangements made?
The second point relates to the position of the Brigade of Gurkhas. The battalion of Gurkhas which is stationed in Brunei is administered and run from Hong Kong. What will be their position in the future? I ask this question because my noble friend is a Minister in the Ministry of Defence and I thought that this might be an appropriate time to raise the subject of the Brigade of Gurkhas.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is clear from the agreement that the question of the defence of Hong
304
Kong will pass to the Chinese Government in 1997. So there will be no question of the Gurkhas remaining in Hong Kong after that time.
As regards the judiciary, I am aware that there have also been some changes in Brunei recently. I therefore suspect that the arrangements after 1997 will be different from what they are now. However, I fear I was caught slightly on the hop with that question. If my noble friend will allow me, I will see what additional information I can find and convey it to him.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, having been in the People's Republic of China during the final stages of these negotiations, and indeed at Shanghai at the time of the initialling of the text, is my noble friend aware how remarkably well this joint declaration was received, not only by the mainland Chinese but also—as I have found in Hong Kong—by many of our friends there who had perhaps been doubtful and anxious at the outset? I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of this, but it was very striking that in the course of the protracted negotiations with Chinese corporations they were constantly referring to the entrepreneurial ability of the British in Hong Kong and the British in this country. I hope the Minister is aware of that. It struck me very forcibly that both sides to this agreement seemed to receive it remarkably well.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I think his remarks underline what I said earlier, that there are some advantages to both sides in the agreement that has been reached.
Lord Caccia: My Lords, as an old China hand, having served there over 50 years ago, may I from these Benches, add my words of congratulation upon the agreement that has been reached and to the people who have been engaged in it? It is a remarkable agreement. I cannot speak for those on these Benches but I should not want them to remain silent on such an occasion.
Lord Soames: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a great achievement for the diplomacy both of Her Majesty's Government and of the Government of the People's Republic? As to the longer term future, this must surely depend upon the awareness of the People's Republic of China of Hong Kong's importance for them as well as for the people of Hong Kong. Her Majesty's Government will have a considerable part to play in the next 10 or 15 years in assuring that awareness.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that observation. It is indeed a great achievement for British diplomacy. I fancy it is almost as great an achievement as the one four years ago in which my noble friend played such a distinguished part.

Buses
4.59 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are proposing to take following the publication of the White Paper on Buses (Cmnd. 9300).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the outset, let me say that I am very grateful for the fact that, as is usual in your Lordships' House, we shall during this debate have the benefit of the wisdom of noble Lords of all persuasions and interests.
Road passenger transport is a very important subject. The White Paper merits a formal debate rather than an Unstarred Question such as we now have before us. Nevertheless we are starting at a reasonable hour, although there were moments when I was wondering whether we were going to. However, there again, your Lordships have been discussing a most important Statement. I should also like to say that I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lord Brabazon, who is cutting his teeth on a subject to which he is new. I look forward to his winding-up speech. I would add that I am grateful to him for discussing matters beforehand.
There is no need for me to introduce myself on this subject. For many years I have been closely connected with the bus industry. I have also taken account of views expressed by users, local authorities, bus operators and their associations. To add a final note to this brief introduction, I can fairly say that I have been involved with no White Paper arousing such controversy without prior consultation by way of a Green Paper. The fact is that the whole provision of bus services in the country is likely to be stood on its head. This makes it all the more vital for Parliament to consider the White Paper and its implications in some depth.
I would at once like to make it clear that there is much in the White Paper with which I agree. It is right that we should direct our minds to the needs of the public and should strive with compassion and within reason to satisfy these needs. The opening paragraphs of the White Paper clearly demonstrate these objectives. We must also welcome moves to maintain and to tighten control over quality and safety. That is in the interests of bus users and indeed other road users.
It is also important to ensure that available resources are used wisely and that, through striving to increase efficiency, the bus industry should extend the level of service it can provide from the revenue derived from fare-paying passengers. In this respect the introduction of competition is extremely relevant. Concessionary fare schemes were introduced for the benefit of the user, not of the bus company. That, again, is a right perspective. However, it is easier said than done to ensure that all operators will participate in these schemes on an equitable basis. While one believes that a professional bus service is the most desirable way of meeting public need, it cannot be denied that there are areas where this is not possible and the use of alternative transport must here be welcomed.
Having said that, there are aspects of the White Paper that give me cause for concern. Not least is the way in which the historic background has been presented—even distorted—to support policies put forward in the paper. It may be thought that if the premises upon which the arguments are founded are inaccurate, the solutions may themselves be
306
inaccurate. This is something that I should like to consider.
In the first place, the system of road service licensing introduced in the 1930 Act is described as "highly restrictive." I would suggest that it is not nearly as restrictive as the bureaucratic control now applied in the Hereford trial area. Far from leading to neglect of the best parts of the market, the licensing system encouraged operators to look for new and interesting destinations which would not otherwise have been served, rather than to seek to indulge in the undesirable practices of the 1920s when competing on established routes. I put it to your Lordships that this licensing system was the reason why Great Britain developed a network of bus and coach services that became the envy of all other countries.
No system is better than the men who administer it, and the human element has at times been less than perfect. But, from my own experience, I doubt whether any operator who cannot obtain a licence under the present somewhat modified system of road service licensing is really capable of providing the sort of service upon which the public can depend. The rule is that an operator must be given the licence that he applies for unless that is seen by the impartial traffic commissioners to be against the public interest. That is hardly restrictive and the process of preparing a licence application has ultimate benefits for all concerned.
Next, my Lords, I would consider the claims made for deregulation of all bus and coach services, other than local bus services, under the Transport Act 1980. My purpose is not to object to deregulation in the commercial areas of coach operation—although there is danger in making comparison with the bus operations of the industry which are essential for many people and include a considerable element of social service. Many routes, both urban and rural, can never be fully self-supporting. Yet the praise accorded to the 1980 deregulation reflects only a part of the picture. Undoubtedly, more passengers are travelling by express coach now than in 1980. The decline during the second half of the 1970s has been reversed. But the number of passengers carried has only been restored to what it was in 1975.
Moreover, much of this gain has been at the expense of British Rail. That has actually concealed the loss of express coach services from some minor cross country routes and from a large number of smaller intermediate towns on trunk routes. Operators could not commercially justify serving these towns with the revised pattern of operation while their energies were concentrated on the main routes. Let there be no doubt that whatever the gains, the new pattern of express operation did deprive many people of services they had previously enjoyed. That, however, is less important than would be the case with the more immediate needs of bus travellers.
Even accepting the benefits, the claim—or rather suggestion—made in the White Paper that between 1980 and 1983, 700 new express services were introduced is absurd. The figure relates to notifications of express services under Section 3 of the Act, now Section 2 of the consolidating Act. Many notified services were never operated at all; many were soon withdrawn; many were variations of existing routes or

307
timetables; many were changes of operating company within a group. What is the true figure? I would suggest that no more than 10 per cent. of this 700 are genuine new routes opened up since 1980.
Perhaps it is even more important to note that deregulation did not lead to competition between coach operators. As those with experience predicted, the big battalions have dominated the scene to an even greater degree since deregulation. Some new passenger markets, such as the student population, have been developed, but the real competition has been with British Rail. There is a lesson to be learned here.
There are other matters arising from the 1980 Transport Act about which one could be critical—such as the functioning of operator licensing—but time does not permit. However, the third historical area on which I must comment is also the outcome of that Act. This is the way in which the White Paper deals with the trial areas. It is curious that the claims of success in Chapters 1 and 4 of the White Paper are in no way justified by the analysis in Part II of Annex 3 of the same paper.
Moreover, the long awaited survey by the Secretary of State's own Transport and Road Research Laboratory clearly shows that it is too early to use any of these trial areas to justify the major changes proposed in the White Paper and yet claimed to be supported by experience in these areas.
As I have said, we have only just received the long awaited study from the TRRL. One had wondered if it was to be suppressed. So, with a deep thirst for seeing things for myself, I have visited and studied the Hereford trial area—which is claimed to be the gem of the three. In its own way, it is an interesting experiment and, to be fair, my visit to this delightful part of the country upset my preconceived ideas. But, looked at as a prototype for the rest of Britain, scrutiny of this gem shows that it is no more than paste.
I have held discussions with the county council, with the City of Hereford, with representatives of the users and with operators from the public and private sectors. I saw with my own eyes the traffic congestion in the city at the market day peak. Whatever statistics may seem to show, the public has not really gained from two buses running at the same time, from "leap-frogging", buses taking short-cuts on unauthorised roads and other malpractices rife before road service licensing was introduced. There are not enough passengers to justify the number of buses which fill the narrow streets of Hereford, upsetting the shopkeepers and others. It is perfectly obvious that there is wasteful competition. The position is unstable and it must be a matter of surprise that it has continued in this way for so long.
The city council regard the trial area as a disaster and explained their problems to me with great courtesy and in detail. Their concern about safety has been reinforced only this week when one operator had two of his five buses put off the road with brake and steering defects. Three out of the four new operators have at some stage had their licences revoked.
When I met the Hereford Federation of Women's Institutes, the ladies, drawn from all parts of the old county, were grateful for the increased level of service
308
and the lower fares, but they were fearful that city fares reduced from 35p to 10p were rumoured to be on the point of being increased to 50p. Present joy, but future foreboding.
The only others who were enthusiastic about the trial area were the county council, but even there Mr. Carrington, chairman of the transport committee, told me that it was essential that services put out to tender should be controlled by the county. In other words, he denied the possibility of tenders for services being allied with total deregulation. What is more, all operators were of the opinion that this control by the county was bureaucratic and more restrictive than that formerly experienced under the traffic commissioners. In any event Mr. Carrington, with his experience as the pioneer of trial areas, has brought us face to face with the conflict of the White Paper. Tendering for services will not work with deregulation. Both are ways of introducing desired competition, but—as one was taught at school—a positive and a negative make a negative.
Let me take a simple example, the county seeks tenders on the amount of subsidy required to run a particular service seven days a week from 6 a.m. till 11 p.m. It has been paying £5,000 a year in subsidy but I win the contract with a tender of £4,000. Then another operator, who has a vehicle on contract work from 10 a.m. till 4.30 p.m., decides that he can make a profit by running this bus on my route, at lower fares, during the peak—7.30 to 9.30 a.m. and 4.30 to 6.00 p.m. As a result, my revenue falls by £5,000. Either the county must pay me an extra £5,000 to keep going or I must take the service off. If the county has the money—which is also very unlikely—it will be £4,000 worse off under the new system. If it has not, the public will be left with a far worse service.
The example may be over-simplified but it demonstrates the point—a point, I must add, of major concern to the associations of both county and district councils. The result is negative. It is bad. It is a waste of public money, and for that reason it is not to be compared with commercial competition as, for example, between two butchers. We have only one butcher in this case.
Another visit that I made was to Manchester, at the invitation of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. This was a valuable experience. Not only was I given a professional overview by the men at the top, but it was arranged for me to be taken around, early in the morning, to see their operation at work.
If I can digress for one moment, if any of your Lordships wish to view a transport or bus operation in action, it is important to see a bus garage going to work and then to be taken around the areas where the passengers are waiting at the bus stops and to come back and view the traffic at the peak period. After seeing that you can with justification have some breakfast—even a large breakfast—and you have deserved it.
The Greater Manchester PTE has a fleet of over 2,000 vehicles and co-ordinates with British Rail. Its statutory duty is to secure or promote the provision of a properly integrated and efficient system of public transport to meet the needs of the area. As far as

309
Manchester is concerned, I can see that they have done exactly that. They must also have regard to town planning, traffic and parking policies. Now, with reorganisation and the emphasis on deregulation, everything seems to be heading full speed astern. What none of us wishes to see is the deterioration of service—that could add even more to traffic congestion. There is another area which gives me great concern; namely, the quality of service. Remember Hereford, my Lords.
I come to the main issue. If we are to have deregulation we must forget all about tendering for meaningless contracts. Services will run only where there is commercial advantage, and the cohesive network—which is fundamental to the very first sentences of the White Paper—will inevitably be put at risk. No, my Lords, we must not sacrifice the co-ordination introduced by a Conservative Government through the Local Government Act of 1972 (1973 in Scotland). Rather, we must follow the White Paper by introducing competition through tenders for subsidised services—but into the co-ordinated network. We must retain a necessary degree of regulation if we are to retain necessary services.
There is just one other major point on which I must dwell. I am referring to what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State describes as the "vice" of cross-subsidy. If it be a vice, then it is one practised—at least—in every service industry. When I stick a postage stamp on an inland letter it has the same value be the addressee one mile or 500 miles or more away. The busy shop assistant has periods standing around in any empty shop. There are many forms of cross-subsidy.
For the bus passenger the problem is that for every £1 of subsidy from central and local government, the industry itself provides some £3 in cross-subsidy. If the Government reduce their support to counties and regions—and they have clearly indicated this intention—that will be nothing to the deficits created by the loss of cross-subsidy in a fully deregulated market. The county losing £2 million in Government support might find it needs £5 million or £6 million to maintain existing bus services—allowing on the one hand for increased efficiency and on the other for "creaming" on subsidised services—we are back to the problems of the predominantly Conservative associations of county and district councils.
What a tragedy it would be if the benefits accruing from some of the proposals in the White Paper entitled, Buses should be put at risk by an excess of zeal. There are many people in the country who inescapably depend on the bus; there are others who would suffer from its loss. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to think again, to look at the points raised on all sides and not leave too much work to be done when a Bill comes before your Lordships' House. Let us all seek genuine improvements in the health of the bus industry, but let us make sure that we do not prescribe a cure based on a false diagnosis—otherwise the patient will get worse, not better.
My Lords, I have spoken for long enough. I have not the time to cover all aspects of the White Paper. Sadly, there has not been time for me to discuss the merits or
310
demerits of dismantling the National Bus Company, which has become a highly efficient and competitive force—that will be for others to do. What I have tried to do, however, is to set a platform for your Lordships to follow your own particular interests. My final message is that, whatever happens, the needs of the public must come first and here I echo the National Consumer Council, in their response to the White Paper, by saying that there are considerable practical difficulties involved in implementing the Government's proposals. If when my noble friend comes to wind up he can answer the queries raised by the untried trial areas and if he can show that the Government are really alive to the practical problems, I shall be a happier man.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, not only for having put down this Unstarred Question which enables us to discuss the White Paper—and it may be the only chance that we shall have—but also for the way in which he has presented it. I am certain that he has put forward some very formidable arguments for the Minister to deal with. Frankly, the White Paper is putting back the clock. Proposals for deregulation, the abandonment of the principle of cross-subsidisation, the break up of bus operations of the passenger transport executives and the municipal undertakings and the destruction of the National Bus Company—none of these has anything to do with the provision of effective public transport. They have to do with the regrettable adherence of the Government to their belief that market forces can solve everything, that privatisation can solve everything, and they have little regard to actual public needs. I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, stressed the matter of public needs. This is to be followed by changes in the transport supplementary grant administration which have a great effect on public transport.
As the noble Lord has said, the Government assured everyone that the changed criteria for granting road service licences under the 1980 Act was what was needed. As he said, it placed a duty upon the traffic commissioners to grant a licence unless it was against the public interest. What would be the position of those operators who were refused a licence on the ground of it being against the public interest? Under deregulation what happens to them? Apparently they can be included, provided that they can fulfil safety and other requirements.
Why are the Government now going for deregulation, in the light of their own provisions in the 1980 Act; or are the Government telling us that their own proposals in the 1980 Act are not working? I wonder whether the real reason is not to be found in the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's own Report No. 1098, which deals with developments from the 1980 Act. I should like to quote two conclusions. Conclusion 4 says:
"Few new examples of private versus public sector competition had emerged in any of the sample areas"—
and there were six areas—
"and when it had public sector operators had usually retaliated with fares reductions or increased local provision. No major incursions into urban territory had occurred".

311
Conclusion 8 states:
"Overall it seems fair to conclude that there were relatively few significant changes in fare levels or policies between October 1980 and January 1983 that were directly attributable to the Transport Act".
Those are the TRRL's own conclusions upon what happened under the 1980 Act.
The Secretary of State first declared his intentions at a dinner of the Bus and Coach Council. I was present at that dinner, and, frankly, I was rather amazed that a man who had only just got his feet under the table should so soon be making statements as to what he intended to do with bus transport. One can only assume that he had some polemical arguments that he wished to follow. Then, as with other legislation, the White Paper was cobbled together to justify the aims which he wanted to achieve.
The Bus and Coach Council represents 98 per cent. of all bus operators in this country—private, independent, municipal, PTEs, the NBC and so on—and, incidentally, two thirds of the coach operators. What have they said? They have said that,
"Abolition of route licensing would mean that many people who depend on buses"—
and they point out that 39 per cent. of households have no car—
"might be left with a worse service or no service at all".
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred to the views of local councils. Time does not permit me to mention them all, but two of the associations—the AMA and the district councils—strongly oppose deregulation. The county councils are neither for nor against, but they have expressed very great concern at certain aspects of deregulation and of tendering, saying that there seems to be no protection against creaming off. The Association of District Councils said to the Secretary of State:
"No evidence has been put forward to demonstrate the need for any further general de-regulation of stage carriage bus services. The vast majority of operators … are firmly opposed to what appear to be ill conceived proposals based on flimsy ideas of what is desired or possible".
The AMA, of which I am president, expressed similar views, but I have quoted the organisation with which I am not associated.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred to the consumers. Perhaps we can see what they actually said. The chairman of the National Consumer Council's transport working party said this:
"There is a chance of very real threats from de-regulation. It has not been thought through: there is a great deal of dogma. Those making the decisions are not in touch with the real needs of the people".
The first question must be: will the Government take heed of everything that is being said about the White Paper? As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said, it is regrettable that there was not first a Green Paper on proposals before the Government declared their intentions. Also, if deregulation is the panacea for all the transport troubles, why is the whole of the London conurbation being left out? The Government have complete control there under London Regional Transport, and we argued that in the last Transport Bill.
The Government's justification is based on trial areas, and the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred to
312
this. He also referred to the fact that the Transport Road Research Laboratory's Report No. 1131 was published on 26th September, after the White Paper, but we understand that the Secretary of State had knowledge of what was in the document before he produced his White Paper. I should love to read out the whole of the document, but I do not suppose that noble Lords would wish me to do so. Perhaps I may quote from two conclusions in the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's Report No. 1131, which was published on 26th September this year. One of them states:
"Any conclusions drawn from experience in the three Trial Areas must be qualified by the fact that they are based on a limited set of largely rural areas over a limited period of time. Furthermore, the trial areas have not been isolated from economic factors (e.g. pressure on financial resources, declining demand) which have influenced the provision of bus services everywhere".
The last conclusion says:
"It is clearly too early to determine whether the public will benefit in the longer-term. Under present conditions, de-regulation in itself may not be sufficient to allow small operators however efficient, to compete successfully with established operators with greater resources".
The Bus and Coach Council's president has said that his council rejects the evidence of the trial areas as a basis for countrywide deregulation.
It must be pointed out that the largest city in any of the three areas was Hereford, with a population of 47,000. Yet because of what happened in Hereford—which we say was a disaster—the Government say that this could be applicable to Sheffield, with a population of half a million, Manchester, and so on.
I wish it was possible to give many quotations, but time will not allow. However, there is certainly not the case for deregulation which the Government claim. The overwhelming majority of subsidised routes are through the networks—either the networks of the passenger transport executives in the conurbations or the regional subsidiaries of the National Bus Company, partly from cross-subsidy from profitable routes and partly from revenue support. It may be useful to quote what the National Bus Company said. It is far better if I give quotations rather than say what I think; let other people who are experienced operators say what they think. The annual report of the National Bus Company, which was published recently, says that the company is,
"concerned that proposals that would remove the requirements for some form of road service licence"—
that is, route licensing—
"would seriously undermine the established structure of bus networks, particularly in the urban areas".
It goes on:
"Clearly any relaxation of licensing which allowed operators to compete on the profitable routes without any obligation to plough back some of the profits into loss making routes would undermine the network to the detriment of all.
"A study which NBC commissioned into the subject and carried out in 1983 jointly with the Institute for Transport Studies of the University of Leeds has identified the important role played by cross-subsidy in maintaining networks of bus services".
I hope that the Minister will not criticise what I have said about the NBC's report, because all Ministers have praised the National Bus Company for its splendid efforts and the results it has achieved in reaching its financial margins, and everything. But it is

313
to be rewarded by being broken up into small pieces as is suggested in the Government's White Paper, and then it is to be sold to the private sector. No real case is advanced in the White Paper as to why the Government are interfering with the National Bus Company, or why, as the National Bus Company itself says, they are prepared to risk breaking up this network of integrated services.
Without service networks, cross-subsidy is virtually impossible, and that is admitted in the White Paper. In paragraph 5.1 they say that only 8 per cent. of stage carriage mileage is by private operators. In the following paragraph, paragraph 5.2, they say that most of the private operators have only five vehicles or less, and you cannot run a network, you cannot run cross-subsidisation, on five vehicles or less.
Everybody agrees that with deregulation there will be private operators who will try to skim the cream. We know that there are good operators. There are at least one or two good operators in Hereford. The National Bus Company at Hereford recognises there are good operators. But the Government have suggested that all subsidised services shall be subject to competitive tender. If it is desired, there will be no necessity under those arrangements for the National Bus Company to recognise any social obligation to cross-subsidise. That would obviously affect parts of its network.
The policy would also destroy the network of services of the passenger transport executives in the conurbations. Even the White Paper, in paragraph 3.5, recognises that to carry out what they want in the PTEs they will have to change the duties laid on the PTEs under the 1968 Act.
Seven consultation papers have been issued. The one on tendering says that where possible each service should be put out to a separate tender. They suggest that a number of contracts should come up each year, and they envisage contracts of three or four years' duration, although for experimental ones annual contracts may be desirable.
A local authority has to invite the contracts. It may want to invite for a complete service; it may want to invite tenders only on certain days, or at certain times, because there are routes which are profitable at certain times of the day and on certain days but not at other times. Therefore the local authority has a job to do. But how does the White Paper suggest that local authorities shall face up to this? It is thin on the mechanics involved. All it says in paragraph 3.7 is:
"Some additional staff effort may be required to administer the new arrangements."
It is not even admitting some additional staff—just additional staff effort.
The local authorities will have to identify the services for tender. This alone will be a massive task. If they want value for money they will naturally be concerned with the levels of fares; they will be concerned with the frequency of services at peak and off-peak periods; they will be concerned with what is being provided on weekdays and at weekends.
Having selected the services to go to tender, having awarded the contracts, every local authority which does this, if it is doing its job properly, will want to monitor what is happening and to have enforcement.
314
What do the Government say? They say that there may have to be "some additional staff effort" to deal with this. That is all they say. There is no idea as to how the local authorities are to carry out this job at all.
It will mean a lot of bureaucracy and a geat deal of administration. I hope that the Minister recognises that it will inevitably mean that there must be an increase in the inspection staff. Unless there is, then these matters cannot possibly be monitored effectively.
There was criticism in Hereford, which was part of the trial area, that published timetables were being ignored, buses were running short of route, and even turning short. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has explained a visit he made to Hereford. He was able to carry out far more inquiries than I was when I visited Hereford, but I too saw the congestion in a small city centre. I also heard the criticisms to which I have referred, that the county council seemed to be unable to enforce even conditions to which they had agreed.
We had the concentration in Hereford on the more profitable routes at the best times. There was concern in the city, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, says about congestion in this rather small city area. I went around a housing estate. There was an NBC bus in front of us, a Midland Red; behind us an independent bus was running. We missed him. He disappeared because he had gone off-route. Possibly he had been told that there were two women waiting around the corner and so he decided to go round and take them. If Hereford is a guide, tendering will result in a number of operators coming on the best routes, but off-peak and on Sundays either just a single operator—often a different operator—and, if NBC decide not to carry on services on unprofitable routes and cross-subsidise them, there will be no operator at all.
The Government issued a consultation paper on tendering. I quote what it says on one point:
"Matters such as wage rates or working practices, or indeed any stipulation not related to the service to be offered would not be permitted."
It states that normally the authority must accept the lowest tender.
This is an encouragement to lower standards. I would remind the House of an amendment I tried to move to the provisions of the Employment Bill on contracts for councils, and of what we were told. My noble friend Lord Carmichael moved at Committee stage, at Report stage and at Third Reading, amendments to lay down wages and conditions in tenders that the LRT would have to issue under the London Regional Transport Bill. What were we told by the Government? At Committee stage we were told: "More tests in any way will hinder progress". At Report stage it was said that this, "would frustrate rather than encourage competition" Then, at Third Reading they said, "We are not anxious to insert unnecessary obstacles".
We are likely to have a complete deterioration in standards. I hope that the Minister has seen and read all the words of the three appeals by independent operators in Hereford. I have. I hope that the Secretary of State has read them. As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, says, over the past two years three of the four independent operators there had their licences revoked. Two were restored on appeal to the Secretary

315
of State, but the number of their vehicles was reduced to three and their periods were also limited.
One operator whose licence was revoked used a layby as the operating centre. There were woefully inadequate and disgraceful maintenance standards. There were 47 defects and 27 immediate defects, which means that the vehicle could not be put on the road until they had been dealt with. These are ageing vehicles. They are not buses, they are coaches. There is also evidence in here of scandalous wages offered to drivers and fitters to carry out some of the work.
I hope that noble Lords saw the Guardian yesterday. Another firm at Hereford is before the Commissioners for disgraceful maintenance conditions. I hope your Lordships all read it so that I can save time by not doing so. There are few maintenance problems regarding the subsidiaries of the National Bus Company; there are few maintenance problems with the passenger transport executive bus operations or with the municipal undertakings because they have other interests.
In July 1982 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission considered the West Midlands PTE buses and the Bristol and Trent buses of the National Bus Company and looked at the Cardiff municipal bus undertaking and, by and large, gave them a clean bill of health on these matters. But if Hereford is an example, the problem of inspection and monitoring will be an immense task and the Minister must tell us how it is to be done.
I must not speak for much longer. We recognise that we can use unconventional means of transport: the minibus, the community bus, the post bus; all these would help. The White Paper seems to suggest that only one third of the minibuses are now used as passenger service vehicles and there might be an increased use of them. I hope that the Minister understands that economic factors and not legislation often prevent the wider use of minibuses on stage bus services. I am not an operator, but I have spoken to operators and I know that reliable operators will say that it is not always economic to run a minibus. A big bus can be flexible; a small bus cannot. One cannot push 50 people into a minibus at peak hours when they are leaving work. Therefore the answer is not only the minibus; there are other factors.
I have mentioned the measures to destroy the National Bus Company. I do not want anything done in Scotland. It is rather interesting that nothing is being done to the Scottish bus group. That is being left completely, and yet it is functioning in Scotland, just like the National Bus Company elsewhere. It is strange that when the Government want to hit the National Bus Company they use certain arguments, but when they want to praise the National Bus Company they compare its costs in the public Passenger Transport Executive with the cost of the PTE's bus undertakings. District undertakings are to be interfered with—those in the municipal areas; some 50 of them. They will be prevented from receiving local council subsidies to meet deficits. In the six metropolitan counties the PTE bus operations are to be broken down into smaller units; turned into companies with the same restrictions on financial support. There is even
316
encouragement in the White Paper for districts to secede from the PTE bus operations.
PTEs are responsible for developing integrated services. That is laid upon them under the 1968 Act. An organisation along the lines of a PTE bus operation as well as PTEs in general are essential if we are to develop the Section 20 grants towards rail services which play a great part in the conurbations. The PTEs, with the National Bus Company, are the base of training in the bus industry, and that will go. Services for the disabled and other special groups are in the main provided by the public undertakings, for obvious reasons. The costs that would fall on a private undertaker would be fairly big. The major public operators in the large conurbations undertake major developments of integrated transport systems. All this is at risk. I repeat what I said before: if London is to be excluded, why not exclude all the big conurbations from the deregulation proposals. The same arguments apply there.
There is no reference in the White Paper to the railways. There is no reference to integration or co-ordination of services. Yet the railways play a big part in the conurbations, as well as elsewhere. There is no reference to planning and land use and the relationship with transportation. There is no word about traffic management schemes organised by the local authorities. There is no reference to the fact that what is proposed is breaking up the transport policies and programmes of the county councils. I hope that all these matters raised in this debate will be considered by the Government. May we hope that they will listen and either drastically modify their proposals or leave this terrible menace to our public bus company out of their next year's programme?
5.46 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I, too, must thank most gratefully the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, not only for having placed this Question on the Order Paper but for the quite remarkable speech that he made in asking his Question. I was deeply impressed by what he said and, coming from the Government Back Benches, although it was addressed courteously to the Government Front Bench, I am sure that the Government ought to take very seriously what he said because it struck me as being a devastating speech from the Government point of view.
May I also take this opportunity, which I have not had before, of welcoming Lord Brabazon of Tara to the Front Bench. I feel sorry for him that he has had to step into this particular maelstrom as his first baptism of fire—to mix my metaphors rather gloriously. May I also take this opportunity of wishing all the best to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on his departure for higher things. I am sorry that he is not in his place at present but I am sure he will read what is said. Over the period of time we have trained him in transport matters—or at least the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has—and we had a really quite interesting three ring circus going. I hope that we can continue it with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon.
There is a great temptation to make a Second Reading speech on a non-existent Bill on this occasion because the items contained in the White Paper are so provocative. I think that one would like to make a

317
Second Reading speech in order that one does not have to make a Second Reading speech; in other words, so that the Bill will never emerge in the form which appears possible.
One of the worrying things is, as has already been said, the time table for this whole process. Once again the Government have introduced a White Paper immediately before a Recess. Once more there is immense pressure for consultation to take place and when it cannot take place in the very short time scale they extend the period of the consultation. Nevertheless the Queen's Speech is due next week and one suspects—though I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, to be able to comment on this because I am sure that he has not yet seen the Queen's Speech—that we shall find ourselves with something related to the White Paper in the form of legislation long before the consultation process has been completed. On this issue that would be most unfortunate.
Having said all that and having agreed entirely with what has been said by the two previous speakers, it is probably worthwhile and proper to go on record to say that it would be foolish to suggest that all is well in the stage carriage business in this country. There is no doubt, as the White Paper points out, that while the travel market has increased by 150 per cent. in the past 30 years bus usage has halved; from 1972 to 1982 costs have increased by between 15 and 30 per cent. in real terms and revenue support has gone up by 13 times. I should be the last to pretend that in that situation we can be complacent about the state of the buses in this country, although on the financial side it should be noted that most of the increases in cost were in the 1972–75 period when the system was being set up, and that the increase from 1974 to 1982 was only 15 per cent. in real terms. One can play with statistics and point out that the increase between 1980 and 1982 was 57 per cent., but most of that was in the metropolitan counties and the GLC and we have been round that bit of the track several times already in the past. One can also point out that the support for the English shire counties fell in the 1973–80 period and in 1982–83.
Nevertheless there is a need for review and change. I hope to make some positive suggestions at the end of what I fear will be a largely critical speech. From the doctrinaire point of view there is a danger on the one hand of falling over into a belief in total planning. There may be areas where we have had far too much of that and the whole thing has become extremely bureaucratic and increasingly inefficient. I am sure that some members on the Government side will point to that. Similarly people on this side of the House will point out that the total free run of market forces will not succeed either, and I fear the Government have fallen into that trap in their White Paper.
The whole concept of planning for the future has changed in recent years. I think that I have said this before in your Lordships' House, and I shall say it again, in industry planning is no longer regarded as a question of predicting the future. There was a time when planning was a question of forecasting numbers, putting them into a computer and then the computer would tell you what you have to do. That, fortunately, in industry is no longer acceptable. Industrialists now
318
talk about planning for an uncertain future. The future is not predictable but you can plan for it. And it is the lack of planning in this document which is the worrying thing.
Certainly the sort of unbridled competition which one feels runs as a thread through the document is not the answer to the problems of the buses. There seems to be a naive and pious assumption that market forces alone will provide the services that the consumer needs, will provide information to the consumer, will provide the interchange facilities and many of the other things which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned. They will not. But perhaps it is that the Government do not care if they do not.
Let me talk briefly about the situation in the conurbations. We are faced with the abolition of the metropolitan counties, however much resistance may come from noble Lords on this side of the House and in another place; and transport is one of the things which are being put in the hands of joint boards made up of district council nominees. But if we look at paragraph 5.13 in the White Paper we see, set out in black type, a positive encouragement for district councils to secede from those joint boards. How will it be possible, if those joint boards are not composed of all the district councils involved, for an urban-wide service to be provided, for any system of through ticketing to be provided, for any comprehensive timetabling to be provided—and timetabling is something to which I should like to come back—and how will there ever be the possibility again to build the sort of new interchanges like the Bradford bus/rail interchange? And how will it be possible for a single operator to afford to do many of these things?
The problem in the conurbations is that passenger journeys do not fit into district boundaries; 50 per cent. of them are cross-boundary; and that is in a typical PTE. Some 10 per cent. of the journeys are single bus and train journeys across the conurbation. By all means let us decentralise the PTEs but let us keep strategic control over them in the hands of some democratic overall authority. I am not opposed to decentralisation if it provides more creative, more competitive, more efficient operation; but there must be some co-ordination of their activities, otherwise, as we have said during proceedings on the London Regional Transport Bill, this is a recipe for disintegration.
Let me come back to the question of passenger information. The operator is obliged to register timings and routes with the vehicle licensing authority. But some of these vehicle licensing authorities are vast areas. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who knows the Isle of Wight very well, and my honourable friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, who is our transport spokesman in the other place, will be aware that it is controlled by an area which includes Oxfordshire and Kent. In a situation where there is going to be a lot of movement, a lot of flexibility, a lot of operators coming and going and a lot of changes of timetable—how on earth in an area as vast as that can the public possibly be kept up to date with the timetabling within their area? And who is to be responsible for publishing those timetables? The White Paper is silent on this. I believe that with so many operators in such large areas, the information to

319
the public is going to be absolutely minimal. We face the same sort of fragmentation to which we referred during the passage of the London Regional Transport Bill as being a danger, and, indeed, the danger here is greater because of the reasons referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
The White Paper proposes that large public undertakings should be broken up. I, too, was fascinated to see that the Scottish Bus Group have been left out of this great carve-up and I just wondered in my mind whether this showed that the Scottish Office was a greater centre of power than the Department of Transport. I do not know. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, were here he would disagree with me but I think that there is some sinister activity at work there.
Again, to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, the London position is now totally inconsistent with what is contained in the White Paper. Under the London Regional Transport Bill, the private operators only receive a subsidy if they enter into an agreement with the LRT. So the Government go some way to believing in integration but apparently only where they are responsible, as in the case of London.
Let me repeat what I have said before: that in a healthy community transport goes hand in hand with a number of other things, with land-use planning, with housing developments, with recreational and cultural activities. Buses link one part of the city with another, buses link one part of the family with another part of the family, they link the villages with the towns, the villages with the railheads, with the hospitals and with the post offices. And when the Government have allowed sub-post offices in rural areas to be removed, then how are pensioners going to collect their old-age pensions if they cannot get a bus to go into the nearest town? These things are all far too important to be left to chance or to be left to market forces. I say again that I believe that it is a recipe for chaos; I believe it is a recipe by which more people will be forced into using motor-cars and we shall have a further downward spiral in the use of public transport. And, of course, those without cars will have to stay at home.
There is no time to deal with many aspects of the White Paper. We have already had a wide-ranging discussion and this is Thursday night and many people wish to get home. My noble friend Lord Attlee will deal with two of the most important aspects which have already been mentioned; that is to say, deregulation and cross subsidy. Suffice it to say from my point of view that I simply do not understand the removal of cross-subsidisation when, at the same time, local government is being controlled by rate-capping. It seems to me that many of the services which at the moment are partly subsidised from the taxpayer and the ratepayer and partly from cross-subsidisation will be squeezed on both sides under the provisions of the White Paper. On the subject of de-regulation the whole conflict between safety and maintenance and many things that Lord Underhill has mentioned are relevant.
In addition, there are the problems of unfair competition, the question of people maintaining in
320
lay-bys, the lack of training for operatives, the lack of unionised labour—all these may reduce costs but they will produce unfair competition. When that is put alongside the tendering provisions, we see what a nonsense it is. The efficient operating of buses depends on the maximum utilisation of those buses over a whole range of different services. Proper maintenance of buses is simply not economical on a small scale; and there is no guarantee that an operator on an unprofitable route would not face further unfair competition under the tendering system. Further, the duration of the contracts is unclear. Short contracts will discourage investment in new buses. Finally, tendering and de-regulation simply do not go together. If the Government take no other message from this debate or from the papers that have been submitted to them, I hope that they will ponder on that which I believe is a fact.
There is another minor item to which I shall refer. It is the commercial operation of bus stations. It is probable that on a cost basis bus stations have never been commercially viable. Therefore, in this situation their existence is threatened. The idea that private operators will construct bus stations seems to me pretty unlikely: the kerbside is an awful lot cheaper.
There are many, many other problems. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, if I correctly heard what he said towards the end of his speech, we on these Benches would favour a different approach, which would be to take the existing stage carriage services as a starting point. Many of them have been tailored to suit needs and fairly closely match what the market really needs. And instead of destroying the bus service network, it seems to us it would be preferable that the services should be open to tender on a network basis so that any reputable operator who has an operator's licence and sufficient financial and management resources should be open to tender for the network or for appropriate parts of the network. I think it is down that route that we should be looking rather than towards the fragmentation which is inherent in the Government's proposals.
I am deeply worried by the White Paper as it stands. I am deeply worried that it is a recipe, as I have said before, to push people back into motor-cars, to increase congestion on our roads and to continue the downward spiral which is damaging bus services in this country. I do not pretend that nothing needs to be done with bus services—clearly it does—but this White Paper is not a starting base. I heard a quotation the other day and I am sorry that I cannot tell your Lordships where it comes from; but somebody said of this White Paper that because it was a recipe for the destruction of the bus network, and because it was a recipe for the imprisonment of people in both urban and rural houses who do not have motor-cars, it should be regarded as a White Paper with black edges.
6.2 p.m.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I, too, should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for providing us with this opportunity to discuss the White Paper on Buses this evening. I should also like to take the opportunity of welcoming, as other noble Lords have done, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who is to answer our

321
various questions. If I may digress just momentarily, when I was learning to fly many years ago I remember looking with absolute awe at the car of the noble Lord's grandfather which bore the number plate FLY 1—because he held the first licence for flying an aircraft in this country—and thinking how many people had obtained licences from that moment until the moment that I was making my attempt and wondering whether I would in fact pass. I am sure that the noble Lord will do every bit as well as his grandfather.
I should like to start by saying that on many, many aspects I support the Government's overall policy of competition. So long as it remains a principle it may be challenged, and with all good principles, I believe it is important to ensure that the actual application will be for the benefit of our society in each specific case. Thus, I think it is proper that we should interrogate this White Paper since this would appear to be the only point in time that we are going to have the opportunity. Having done so, I am sorry to say that I feel that while in theory it may be academically beyond reproach to some, in practice if it is brought forward as a Bill it may be a total catastrophe.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who is so well known on transport matters in your Lordships' House, I am not necessarily known in that way and so perhaps I should say that for a good number of years I have in the past been a lay traffic commissioner for Scotland, and within the realms of local government I was responsible for the Border Region Transport Committee's activities from the time of the reorganisation of local government until mid-1980; and in the latter capacity I served during the whole of that period as a member of the Transport Committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. So it is against that background that I speak, and it is in the knowledge, too, that I have never lost contact over the past two years with those with whom I previously worked.
I speak necessarily from a Scottish point of view and also to a very large extent from a rural point of view, although I have to admit that I seem to have found on investigation that much of what I have to say has common cause south of the border. So within the time available, I would turn now to the interrogation of the White Paper, and first I should like to speak from the point of view of local government in Scotland. A basic difficulty in the proposals appears to be that they will cause inherent instability. The White Paper states that the proposals:
"will create new stability and confidence in the provision of rural bus services".
So perhaps it might be worthwhile having a look at a number of difficulties which may in practice manifest themselves along the road.
First, the services which an operator finds to be viable depend very much upon the activities of competitors. The services which are viable at one particular time may be forced into a loss without warning by the introduction of a rival service. The price that a tenderer may bid for a subsidised route may become wholly untenable if a new service is operated over just a small part of that same route. If I may, I am going to be parochial and use the names of towns in my part of Scotland and I ask your Lordships
322
to accept that there will, throughout England and Wales, be exactly similar examples which your Lordships can draw from your own experiences.
So as an example I shall take the service between Galashiels, a community of some 18,000 or 19,000 people, and Earlston—we call it a village but it is really a great deal larger than that. The service between those two communities is at present just viable to Eastern Scottish, which is a subsidiary of the Scottish Bus Group. But new competition for traffic between any intervening community between those two areas of population would instantly push the service into a loss overnight. The service to Earlston would then require subsidy, and a contract might be let for that route. Then the introduction of any new service between, say, a little village—there is nothing to stop it—and Melrose, which is the first intermediary town, could destroy all the revenue calculations which the successful tenderer had made, forcing him to re-price or, worse still, to withdraw from the contract. Equally, the cost of operating a service may depend upon the existence of other work for men and vehicles. The loss of this work through a lost tender could result in remaining contracts becoming unworkable. So it seems to me that the proposals, very far from creating new stability and confidence in the provision of rural bus services, will introduce a great deal of instability into our own buses in the rural areas.
Secondly, in some rural areas the real competition on tenders may be very limited. In particular, the efficient operation of many long-distance routes will require an operator who has vehicles available at both ends of the route. In these circumstances, one operator may have such a clear advantage over any possible rival as to be effectively free of all competition, which means to say that he could run a service where he wanted and charge what he wanted. At least it can be said at the present moment that the Scottish Bus Group's profit, as determined by the Government, is limited to 4.5 per cent. of its capital assets.
Thirdly, in abandoning the network approach there will be less efficient use of men and vehicles. Of that there is no doubt. At the time of SCOTMAP, many deficiencies were identified in the initial "demand network" and additional services were specified by the council. Instead of simply adding these extra services onto the original proposals, Eastern Scottish, with whom we on the Borders work incredibly closely, redesigned the network as a whole, designating each journey to be operated by the man and vehicle best placed to do it. The marginal cost of covering the council's additional requirements proved very low indeed by using this means. As a result, very few routes in the Borders region are operated throughout the week by only one depot, and there will have to be substantial changes in the services provided if viable and non-viable services are to be separated. The separation could, in our view, lead to much less efficiency.
Fourthly, in creating increased competition the Government explicitly intend to abolish the practice of cross-subsidisation which has already been frequently referred to and which currently takes place. The White Paper estimates that the value of internal cross-subsidy is between three and five times the value of the local authority revenue support. Yet the paper

323
suggests that the disappearance of the whole of this hidden subsidy will be offset by greater efficiency. That is the argument—greater efficiency. It is interesting to me that it comes at a point in the paper where there is the assertion that, in the assessment of whoever wrote the paper, the Scottish Bus Group, thanks to SCOTMAP, is already exceptionally efficient! So we find ourselves a little bamboozled by that. It seems likely that the effect of eliminating cross-subsidy may be a higher subsidy requirement for the remaining rural services, at least in the area for which I have been responsible in the past. I am not suggesting that over the seven years when I was responsible for these matters we were perfect. No, my Lords. But we achieved something which was workable, good and understood—and it still is—and to see it ruined would be a great tragedy.
Fifthly, the White Paper spends some space in analysing the services which may cease to be viable following the erosion of internal cross-subsidy. As well as rural services, the paper identifies evening services, Sunday services and even some peak period school and work journeys as being most at risk. It is more than likely that on many routes contracted journeys would operate in between commercial services, not necessarily both provided by the same operator. There are also bound to be areas of overlap between two services serving different ultimate destinations, as well as services upon the same road in open competition. No operator is likely to choose to provide information about his competitor's services, so a comprehensive timetable is not likely to be compiled unless it is compiled by the local authority.
Similarly, no operator is likely to make his bus station available to his competitors. The Government recognise this problem and are very frank about it. They conclude that:
"bus stations should be operated whether in public or private ownership on a commercial basis … which will provide for all operators to have equal opportunity of gaining access".
In practice, since it is highly unlikely that we would ever be allowed to charge operators landing fees for the use of a bus station, I think that they will use the streets instead and bus stations, except perhaps for the most prestigious bus stations in big cities, may become a charge on the ratepayer or be abandoned.
Finally, on this issue the White Paper recognises that in some areas a network of services is invaluable to the bus user, allowing connections to be reliably provided and through-fares to be offered. It has been an essential aspect of the "social network" of services specified by the local regional councils in Scotland, through SCOTMAP, to secure a large number of connections throughout all and each of the regions. By this means a village, which may have only half a dozen buses a day, may nevertheless have access to a wide range of destinations. The White Paper concedes that through-fares may become impracticable, but suggests that operators might arrange connections for the benefit of their own patrons. There are many circumstances where an operator might well prefer not to do that. For example, an operator who operates his own service from the Borders to Edinburgh once a week may well prefer not to provide connections into a rival's service on the other six days. The experience of my region in
324
recent years is that many important connections have been secured only by the council's insistence that the operators must provide a co-ordinated network.
In conclusion, the White Paper admits that the proposals are likely to give rise to additional work for regional council staff, a point which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. They will be required to determine local transport requirements not met by the free market, specify routes for tender, evaluate the bids and monitor the services. This will be a continuing process as the pattern of commercial services changes and contracts fall due for retendering. That is going to cost money. I do not know how much, but it is not going to be cheap. Since local government has been told to keep numbers down to the minimum there is not a great deal, if any, spare time on the hands of those whom we employ. How they are expected to take on these additional burdens I do not know.
Those are the local government problems in my region which, I admit, is a rural part of Scotland. I can tell your Lordships that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are in agreement with practically everything that has been said on behalf of the Association of County Councils and District Councils in England. They do not like this White Paper. I do not know whether their response has been received in London. However, I have seen a draft of their response; they do not like the White Paper.
In addition to the fundamental difficulties which I have tried to identify, the White Paper raises one or two detailed practical problems and unanswered questions. I should like quickly to touch upon them. The White Paper proposes that operators would be required to register proposed services with the Traffic Commissioners and to give notice of withdrawal, although a licence would not be required. As any routes which are proposed, or any withdrawals which are to take place could affect the extent of services which the regional council finds it necessary to secure through tender, it is in our view essential that the regional council should also have the right to be notified, as well as the Traffic Commissioners. It is also essential that adequate notice should be given as it will not be possible to arrange tenders and publicity for a change of operator without careful planning and costing. It is our belief that 12 weeks—at the very least eight—would be required for such an event, even if local public consultation is deemed to be unnecessary.
The Traffic Commissioners will have the power to withdraw from an operator the total authority to operate local services if he fails to operate a service as notified. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, very correctly made the point that the Scottish Bus Group have been left as they are at present, but it is a fearsome thought that if one of their short routes happened to fall foul of the Traffic Commissioners, then the draconian powers that are in fact held by the Traffic Commissioners allow them to take one action only: that is, to close down the whole of the Scottish Bus Group, which would mean that there would be virtually no buses in Scotland outwith the three cities and Greater Glasgow PTE. It is therefore a draconian power. I hope the Government will think very carefully about whether or not there should be a modest intermediate penalty for infringement and about whether the regional councils should be able to

325
determine whether or not the operators are at fault, because the Traffic Commissioners cannot be expected to know every single route throughout the whole of Scotland.
In view of all the problems which will arise from the proposed association between local government and the Traffic Commissioners, speaking as one who has been a lay traffic commissioner for a number of years I wonder whether or not it would be more satisfactory to give these particular responsibilities to the regional councils and perhaps to associate with it the right of appeal to the Traffic Commissioners if there is a dispute.
I have one final point to make and I have deliberately left it until last. Chapter 7 of the White Paper deals exclusively with Scotland. Nevertheless, it makes very specific reference to Chapter 3, paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2. Paragraph 3.1 states in heavy black type, under the heading "Safety":
"This system of supervision will be fully retained and reinforced".
Paragraph 3.2 states:
"For this reason it is proposed to strengthen the law to allow new conditions to be attached to licences of operators of local services … A high priority will also be given to checks of maintenance facilities and mechanical condition. Additional resources will be provided for that".
There is an element of déjà vu in that; those words were used identically four years ago and I can tell your Lordships that they are causing the Traffic Commission chairman of the Scottish traffic area the greatest possible concern. Having been guaranteed, as one would assume from the wording of paragraph 3.2, that additional funds and manpower were to be made available, he has received none. If one were to be absolutely frank about it, both he and my late associates are highly conscious of the fact that in Scotland depot vehicles are already running on the roads which have never been inspected. They do not have either the people or the time to carry out inspections.
If we are to take safety seriously, I would ask the noble Lord to ensure that the Government honour this commitment so that if this additional burden is to be placed upon the hardworking staff of the traffic area offices throughout the United Kingdom they will have the opportunity to do their duty, which we owe to society as a whole. There is something absolutely wrong about a public service vehicle carrying fare-paying passengers which has not been inspected in accordance with the law. There is something absolutely wrong about vehicles, having been weighed—as they have been since 1982—and weighed and weighed again never being inspected because it takes too long. Both the National Bus Company in England and the Scottish Bus Group in Scotland are fairly regularly inspected because their depots are known, but where they are not known there is nothing we can do about it. It is placing far too great a burden upon them. We in this House should make sure that it is taken from their backs, for in the end we are responsible for the safety of our fellow citizens.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I, too, would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Teviot both for
326
introducing this Question and for the very careful preliminary work he undertook in order to advise himself on the background to the White Paper. I would also like to welcome my noble friend Lord Brabazon who is to reply, and congratulate him on his new post. I am afraid that I have to say to your Lordships and to my noble friend on the Front Bench that, owing to a long-standing engagement and the delays which have attended this debate, it may be that I shall not be able to wait until the end of it. I hope your Lordships will forgive me.
I have been advised in particular by the Isle of Wight County Council and the National Association of Local Councils—the latter body of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. I must tell your Lordships that my advisers—as have all noble Lords who have spoken so far—fear the worst from the proposals. However, I welcome the broad intentions of the White Paper. In particular, I am impressed by the arguments in Chapter 4 that the road service licensing devised for the 1930s is now outdated, especially since motor-car usage dramatically increased in the 1950s and 1960s. I remember that in the late 1920s, when buses first started running in my part of the Isle of Wight, and up until the war—which were the early days of road service licensing—the bus services we had in those days were infinitely better than anything we have had since. In fact, the bus services are not good now.
Whether this White Paper is the best way of putting that situation right is a matter of opinion. But to go rumbling on the way we do now, because of all the fears which people have about the White Paper, seems to me not to be good enough; something has to be done. This is a good starting point. It seems to me that the experience of de-regulation of coach services leading to a 40 per cent. fare reduction and the addition of new services—and whether they number 700 as the White Paper says or 10 per cent. of that figure, which my noble friend Lord Teviot suggests is a more accurate estimate, does not matter because there are more services—is convincing. My noble friend would not make that particular point, but it is a convincing one.
Although I have not been to Hereford, the benefits as stated in the White Paper of competitive tendering for subsidy in the Hereford trial area certainly seem clear as I read it. The trouble is that noble Lords who have spoken from whatever Benches are all fearful of something new. In some cases, it is distrust and dislike of the market forces; one recognises this fear in the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, although one is perhaps surprised to hear it expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The fact is that in the market place, surely, supply will—given a reasonable hand—automatically meet demand. The fears which everybody has expressed may well be misplaced.
I am conscious that those fears are to some extent inspired by the people who will have to operate the new system. I fear that people have grown so used to the centralisation and regulation we have had imposed upon us for the past 50 years that they will naturally be against any new system and will not operate it as effectively as they should. To that extent, the Government have to think very carefully about how they do things. But I believe the basic principle behind what they are trying to do is the right one.

327
That is particularly so when one considers the care they have taken to supplement their main proposal of de-regulation with many practical safegaurds. These include tighter quality and safety standards for both vehicles and operators. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, states that for other reasons there is not enough money to pay for that. Maybe, as one sees the situation at the moment, there is not—but if the Government say this is something that will have to be, they cannot make totally irresponsible recommendations without having checked them out with the Treasury in some way. I hope I am right, otherwise they really are into trouble. I have a natural inclination to trust the Government which I support to get that sort of thing right. I would trust any Government to get it right and not just the one I support. It is perhaps over-fearful to assume that safety standards will not be achieved.
There is recognition that some services must be subsidised and that such subsidies should be competitively tendered for in order to make it as economic as possible. That seems also to be reasonable. There is recognition, too, of the need for continuation of concessionary fares. I would agree that there is a need—although naturally noble Lords who like centralisation would not do so—for greater effectiveness; that we need to split up and privatise the National Bus Company. There is a great deal of evidence that over-centralised bodies are naturally inefficient and that large bodies—whether they are private enterprise or centally controlled—are themselves naturally inefficient, too. I would have thought that was a reasonable approach to work to.
Above all, there are to be special provisions to foster rural transport including—and no noble Lords have mentioned this—encouragement of the joint use of services run by educational, health and social services and the post office. All of this is very practical and these proposals make a welcome addition to the points which appear in the White Paper. I personally think that the White Paper is on the right lines.
However, there are some points on which I would like to seek further explanation and which, if not met properly, could be detrimental to the main intentions which the Government express in the White Paper. The first of these concerns the apparent intention that county councils—while still remaining the highway authority and responsible for roads and their safety—will have a reduced role in running the new system. It is not clear to me from the White Paper just where the responsibilities of the licensing authority, the traffic commissioners and the county council will begin and end. It is rather obscure.
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made the point that it would be disastrous to have transport in the Isle of Wight run by a body which looked after the mainland, from Oxford to Kent. But I believe that since the White Paper was issued—and perhaps since the noble Lord had that information and I did, too—it has been agreed that county councils will be responsible for bus service registration and not the traffic commissioners. If that is so, it is most welcome. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to confirm that it is so when he comes to reply.
328
There are two features of transport operation which are peculiar to the Isle of Wight, with its separation by sea from England. First, our county council needs and has the powers to co-ordinate rail, boat and bus timetables; and it has powers to integrate the services of those three transport systems, which operate through four ports. As an example, the county council recently had occasion successfully to use its powers with regard to a proposed new train time at Portsmouth. As a result of the county council using those powers, the new time was not introduced, because it did not match up with the boat times. It will need to retain the same powers for the co-ordination of timetables and for the integration of services in relation to buses as it possesses at present. I should be grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench could confirm that these sort of powers will be retained in relation to bus services.
Secondly, and this is even more special to the Isle of Wight, or any island for that matter, the bus "market place" in the island is relatively small and, unlike a mainland county, competition from adjacent counties is impracticable. Thus, it is particularly important that a monopoly, unregulated operator does not develop without restraint on charges. If it did, the county council, as the greatest single passenger transport customer by virtue of the transport provisions of the 1944 Education Act, would be the greatest sufferer—as indeed, in consequence, would be its ratepayers.
Currently the overall Isle of Wight network is profitable in the summer and loss-making in the winter. Differential pricing has enhanced summer profits leading to lower winter fares and reduced revenue support. This had led to the cost of school buses being about 66 per cent. of those on mainland counties. It would be paradoxical if the Government's efforts to achieve a more cost effective bus system overall led unintentionally to increased costs in the Isle of Wight due to the development of an uncontrolled monopoly operator because, owing to the sea, it is not possible for competition to come in from outside the island. I should be grateful if my noble friend could ask his right honourable friend to watch this particular point with great care. I do not necessarily expect him to comment now.
In conclusion, by way of illustrating what the White Paper may achieve, a recent report in our local press of the views of the manager of Southern Vectis, which is the Isle of Wight local subsidiary of the National Bus Company, brought out all the fears that he naturally had about the White Paper proposals. However, the report stated that three mini-buses would soon be joining the Southern Vectis fleet, experimentally, as part of the company's moves to combat competition when introduced in 1986. Other moves reported included shutting down a bus station in one town and reducing administrative staff.
All these actions have been taken at the mere sight of the White Paper. How many more economies will result from actual legislation? All this can be only for the benefit of the customers and is a welcome forerunner for the economies that will follow. So I say, "well done!" to the Government for their proposals. There is need for something new, but when the proposals are introduced or turned into legislation I

329
ask the Government not to forget that the Isle of Wight has its own particular problems because it is cut off from the mainland by sea.
6.44 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the more one studies this White Paper the more one studies the expert, reasoned and logical arguments against some of its main conclusions and proposals. In fact, in today's debate, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as one listens to what your Lordships have been saying there is only one conclusion that can be drawn—that all the Government are doing in this White Paper is pursuing their doctrinaire and blinkered policy of privatisation which in this White Paper is masquerading as deregulation.
This will have the same dire results, I am afraid, as when the Socialists pursued their doctrinaire and blinkered policies of nationalisation regardless. The ideas in the White Paper are, for the most part, ill thought-out. Even the Government described the main document as a White Paper with green edges and my noble friend Lord Tordoff interprets it as a White Paper with black edges. The White Paper even admits that,
"systems of large-scale, planned public sector networks can indeed produce high quality services and connections".
Surely this is an amazing admission to make, especially when the White Paper deliberately sets out to destroy that very system. Does this statement not indicate, at the very least, that there were some differences of opinion within the Department of Transport?
In my view, the linchpin of the White Paper is deregulation in order to achieve the abolition of cross-subsidies. Why? Taking deregulation first, the White Paper claims, or implies, that public sector bus undertakings, and others, are wasteful, inefficient, oversubsidised, and/or artificially protected from competition. Deregulation will, we are assured, encourage and increase competition—as if, apart from that engendered by the 1980 Transport Act, there were no competition at present from private cars, local trains, both surface and underground, taxis, hire cars, cycling and even walking.
What else does the White Paper claim will be the benefits of deregulation? It claims that it will lead to improvements in service to the public and improvements in financial control—things which, given the widely varying operating conditions, will be almost impossible to achieve. The White Paper gives great emphasis to two of the trial areas of deregulation—Hereford and Worcester. It points out proudly that in these two trial areas subsidies have fallen and fares have been reduced. There has even been some innovation. What the White Paper fails to mention is that, as predicted, part of the rural network has ceased altogether to exist, that there have been poor standards of vehicle maintenance and safety and that the much-trumpeted lower fares seem unlikely to last very much longer. Those are the two trial areas that are used to show the benefits of deregulation. If the White Paper had come clean on the other trial areas I wonder how much worse would the picture have been?
330
Turning to the abolition of cross-subsidies, which is, as I have already said, one of the main aims of deregulation, why are the Government against them? The Government claim that it is because it is unfair that passengers on busy routes should pay more than necessary and have less frequent services in order to support highly uneconomic services elsewhere which are sparsely used. Quite honestly, to make such claims shows an abysmal lack of knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the importance and necessity of cross-subsidies.
If profitable services were open to competition it is true that fares would fall—at least in the short term—but with the result that the availability of cross-subsidies for supporting loss-making services would cease; and if cross-subsidies were abolished fares would vary from route to route and from time to time. This is because cross-subsidies exist even between various sections of the same route; between different times of the day; between weekdays and weekends; and, of course, between different times of the year. With no cross-subsidies children's cheap fares would be threatened, since, unlike old-age pensioners' fares, they are funded by the operator and not from local government contributions. I must admit that I am not quite sure at the moment what is the position with regard to school buses for children. Perhaps the Minister can answer that in his reply.
But these are not the only effects of deregulation and the abolition of cross-subsidies. For instance, where an operator provides a subsidised service under contract to a local authority, he will have no protection against another operator skimming the cream off that same route by operating only in those areas where all the profit is to be made. Operators will be forced to cut costs. One way undoubtedly would be to work a single-shift system, so that the buses would operate from, say, eight in the morning until six in the evening. This will affect a lot of people—and I mean a lot—as some 16 million people travel by bus. How will those people fare?
For a start, there will be no comprehensive timetables—that is if there are any timetables at all! There will be an embarrassing surfeit of competing buses on some routes, or sections of a route—those, of course, that are profitable. But outside these, and especially in rural areas, there will be little or no service, and when there is one it will be spasmodic. On all routes and in all areas a service will almost certainly be restricted in duration each day, especially in holiday and tourist areas—and that was the point which I believe was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—where the traffic is seasonal.
The travelling public will suffer in other ways. Buses will not be scheduled to fit in with other modes of transport such as trains, unless of course it happens to suit the bus operator for that to be done. The public will suffer, and so will British Rail.
Also because of competition and attempts by competitors to cream off the profitable traffic, the cash simply will not be available for investment in new buses. As a result, old type buses, usually with high platforms, several steps and difficult entry and exit will be retained, especially if their running costs are lower than those of a modern bus. That will adversely affect the elderly, the infirm, the disabled, women with

331
young children and those with shopping to take home from the shops. Equally important, and as has already been shown in the trial area and has been mentioned by several noble Lords, maintenance and safety standards will inevitably fall.
This state of affairs cannot be what the travelling public wants or deserves. The runaway success of travelcards, which provide interchange and through-travel among various modes of transport for a single payment, shows what the public wants. What the public wants is what my noble friend Lord Tordoff and I, among others, stressed time and time again when the London Regional Transport Bill was going through your Lordships' House; that is, an integrated public transport system. If the Government had deliberately set out to devise a means of denying them this, it is most unlikely that they could have come up with a more effective method of doing so than the proposals contained in this White Paper.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I, too, should like to open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for creating the opportunity this afternoon for us to debate the White Paper on buses. I found his speech most illuminating. I can only hope that it has the same influence on the Government as it certainly had on my thinking this afternoon. I am a taxpayer, a ratepayer and a fare-payer. I am a non-motorist. I use public transport, and at the end of the day, howsoever the money gets to the bus companies, I pay.
I appreciate that there is a need for the Government to obtain value for their money and to continue to seek to obtain such value, but I feel that the White Paper gives too high a priority to that factor or objective at the expense of the public need, as I conceive it. While duplication and waste exist in our public systems, and particularly in our bus systems, it is right that they should be reduced. It would be meaningless if the system, far from being enhanced, was in fact destroyed by the means which we seek to use or which the Government's White Paper suggests.
The White Paper quotes 39 per cent. of households as having no regular use of a car. I believe that in areas of Glasgow that figure rises to over 80 per cent. It is to the needs of that 39 per cent., or variously 80 per cent., that the White Paper should be addressing itself. Their need is for transport—transport to work, for leisure purposes, for education, for health reasons and for a vast number of other reasons. Their need is for an integrated public transport system, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has been saying and as other noble Lords have said before him, not just today, but on many occasions—a system that interrelates rail and road rather than fragments them (and particularly the latter) by breaking down, as the White Paper proposed, the National Bus Company and the PTEs. Systems should—in fact, must—be marketed as a whole. The product must operate as a whole. It must connect; it must have interchanges; it must be convenient to use; it must be attractive. It must be sufficiently attractive to drive people out of their cars and persuade them to leave their cars at home.
One has only to look—again as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned—at the success of the travelcard to
332
realise that, if the system is put together and sold as an entity, it will inevitably attract greater patronage and greater revenue, and thus there will be a lesser need for subsidy. One must be aware of the success that travelcards have been in London. When one thinks of London, one must then think of the guidelines issued this summer by the Secretary of State to London Regional Transport and to British Rail. He urged both those bodies to explore all opportunities for closer co-operation both in services and in fares, integrating and connecting their services and having through ticketing. They were urged to move together. They were not urged towards duplication and disintegration, which is the direction in which, I suggest, the White Paper is leading us.
The White Paper's detail on services, deregulation and tendering has already been severely criticised by almost all previous speakers. I shall not rehearse their arguments. I found myself nodding agreement on a great number of occasions. I should rather put some questions to the Minister. I accept that the White Paper is on buses, but why are there only two references to rail (one on page 13 and the other on page 23) before one gets to the annexures? Are the Government suggesting that rail and road can be treated in isolation, one from another? As they are committed to continue direct or indirect subsidy of both modes of transport—in fact of practically everything that runs on wheels in this country, save the national bus long-distance network—should they not be using their muscle as the largest individual customer to pull public transport together in order to meet the needs of the customer, rather than fragmenting it in order to meet the requirements of political dogma?
I should like to ask the Government whether they have looked at practices elsewhere in Europe. I do not believe that one should argue that what is good for Norway is necessarily good for us or that what works in Berlin will work in London. But if I go to Oslo, I can get a timetable which lists every public transport service provided by the community, Oslo Tramways or by the people whom it employs to provide bus services. All the fares interrelate. If I decide to go outside Oslo, I can obtain a timetable listing every public transport service operating in Norway. I can look at the timetable that relates to trains from Oslo to the far north, to take me to a given station. At that station there will be an entry in the timetable referring to all the buses that serve that given station. If I get off at that station, take a bus to the end of the road and find myself in the fjords, what will I find if I consult the timetable? I shall find that the ferries that run are also referred to. I will not say that all the services run to a common tariff, but they run to tariffs that are broadly based and similar. All services are subsidised by the Government, who can direct the level of service to be provided and also the fares to be charged.
I am not saying that this is the best way to go about things in this country, but I should like to know what the Government have done about looking at the position in other countries. As subsidised bus services must be subjected to competitive tender, I ask myself what happens if there is no tender. I pick this point up from proposal 2.4, which refers to many essential bus

333
routes. Where do we go if a service is essential and there is no tender?
I should also like to know to what extent National will be divided into so-called free standing parts, how many parts there will be, and whether it is really necessary to divide it at all. It is already divided into autonomous regions. I am quite sure that the directors of these autonomous regions will fight their corners with just as much tenacity as the directors of the British Rail sectors are now beginning to do.
I should like to ask the Minister this. Do the Government believe that under proposal 2.7 the PTES, which have been deemed essential by speakers this afternoon and legislated for by the Government not so long ago, have a future, or that rail has any part of that future? Is Section 20 of the 1968 Act to become an irrelevance?
Finally, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister to confirm that the views of professional operators in the bus industry will be fully considered before legislation is tabled? It is they, not I or the Government, who are the experts who will have to live with the eventual Act.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, anybody who has listened to this debate will appeciate that the problem to which my noble friend Lord Teviot addressed himself is a very complex one. It is extremely complex in every possible way. Therefore, your Lordships will be glad to hear that I propose to make only the shortest possible contribution because I am concentrating on only one point. It is a point which has been touched on already by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. It is the importance to the possibility of saving and improving the service to people in remote areas, of the sharing of the existing transport systems. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also mentioned the matter.
I am thinking particularly of Scotland, where there is many a glen in which the little red car coming up with the newspapers and the mail is, other than perhaps the odd shepherd's Land Rover, the only vehicle that passes that way in a day. I urge upon the Government to concentrate on the points they make in this White Paper, particularly in Chapter 7, on providing ahead for the possibilities of sharing with existing transport. By that I mean this. You can look ahead now at the problems of the design of vehicles. If, as I believe, the time is not far off when the postal people will be able to take their passengers, then their existing vehicles must be designed to suit the extra one or two passengers.
The trade unions, and the labour concerned with the operation of such services, and the security of the same, must be consulted. Insurance and the like must be considered. For that reason I make so bold as to say that a lot of ingenuity can be applied to the design of vehicles which will suit the Highland glen and other remote places.
I say this with some hesitation. The day may not be far off when the electric vehicle will be a viable unit. Together with the development of regenerative braking, that might be helpful for use in hilly areas. Perhaps a word might be said to the Hydro Board to see if they can make any contribution.
334
However, any suggestion in regard to the Post Office is not the only one because, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, there are other vehicles that travel that way. So I think it is important that the "powers that be" in remote areas apply themselves to producing a system whereby, whether by subsidy, by authorising the sharing of fares, or by some sort of support to hire cars or the like, the public will be provided with transport so that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, may not come to pass in that everybody is going to be driven back to the motor-car.
The other points that I have in mind have already been made by other speakers but my sole contribution is concerning ingenuity and foresight as to the future of the sharing of transport in rural areas.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for introducing this Question. I welcome this opportunity to debate the Government's proposals on buses which were set out in the White Paper published in July. It is a subject to which I do not claim to bring the personal knowledge which my noble friend Lord Teviot and several other noble Lords have on this subject. Nevertheless, in the short time I have held my present responsibilities, I have come to recognise the great importance of our proposals, particularly to the many millions of people in both urban and rural areas who use this form of public transport. As the White Paper said, "Britain needs good bus services". Over 10 per cent. of all journeys are made by bus and three-quarters of those journeys are for essential purposes—work, school, business and shopping. Our aim is to set the industry free so that it can give a better service to the passenger and better value for money to the ratepayer and taxpayer. We are currently considering responses to the White Paper and consulting widely on the details of our proposals on the basis of seven consultation documents. We intend to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity.
Before answering some of the specific points raised by noble Lords, may I explain briefly the background to the Government's policy and describe some of our proposals in more detail. Local bus services have been subject to the present highly restrictive licensing regime for more than fifty years. Between them the Traffic Commissioners and the local authorities—with the very best of intentions—have used their powers of regulation and subsidy to shape the services provided in their areas without the benefit of genuine competition. The result has been an industry which has failed to adapt to the needs of the customer. The industry has come to be dominated by relatively few public sector operators, many of which do not even purport to be commercially orientated organisations.
The present system has not served the customer well. Bus fares increased by 30 per cent. above the rate of inflation between 1972 and 1982. Revenue support for the industry increased from £10 million in 1972 to over £500 million in 1982—a thirteen-fold increase in real terms. Total support for the industry is estimated at over £900 million for 1984–85. Yet at the same time services have declined and in some areas have become non-existent.

335
The present bus licensing system was in fact originally devised for a totally different era. The 1920s were a period of growth for bus services. Fares remained stable and operators made money. Study of the official papers during those years now shows that the 1930 legislation was devised primarily to keep the number of services to a minimum in the interests of safety. But, as times changed, the belief grew up that the way to provide a comprehensive public transport system was to use the licensing system to protect operators on their profitable routes so that these could cross-subsidise the unprofitable ones. The system positively encouraged the development of large public sector operators unresponsive to the needs of the customer and the maintenance of existing patterns of service with little incentive to develop new markets.
Since the mid-1950s the system has in effect prevented the industry making the rapid adjustments which were necessary if it was to continue to meet the demands of the travelling public. The result has been a disastrous cycle of rising costs, rising fares and reducing services. Previous governments have recognised the debilitating effect of the road service licensing system and have tried to do something about it. In 1980 this Government decided that the time had come to deregulate long distance coach services and allow county councils to set up trial areas in which road service licensing for local bus services would be abolished. Many of your Lordships will recall the strength of opposition to those measures. Yet we now know that fares on long distance services have dropped on average by 40 per cent. in real terms and many new services have been introduced.
My noble friend Lord Teviot has described the developments in one of the three areas where local councils took the opportunity to deregulate local services. There has been no massive decline in services in these rural areas as many predicted in 1980. Indeed, the evidence is that rural services in the trial areas have done rather better than in the country as a whole. Nor have the county councils had to provide increases in subsidies to offset the loss of cross-subsidy. In Hereford and Worcester, the council is paying 40 per cent. less subsidy on rural services. Moreover, in Hereford town, bus services have increased and fares have gone down. This is a far cry from the transport deserts we were promised at the time of the 1980 Act.
That is the background. I now turn to our proposals in detail. We intend to abolish road service licensing throughout Great Britain except in London, where major changes are already under way. I want to emphasise that safety standards will be maintained. The system of operator licensing that supervises the quality and safety standards of public service vehicles and operation will be retained and tightened. I hope that that answers one or two of the questions, and particularly the Guardian article, which I had read.
Opponents of our proposals have pointed to problems in Hereford when small private operators have attempted stage carriage work, working their vehicles all day long in urban conditions. But the Hereford situation demonstrates precisely that the present system is working and can ensure that proper standards are maintained. Problems have not occurred in the Devon and Norfolk trial areas nor as a
336
result of deregulation of the express and excursion and tours market in 1980. Operator licensing already copes with some 5,500 indpendent operators of buses and coaches. As a whole, the private sector owns 30,000 vehicles. Over many years the private sector has maintained high safety standards. Only a very small number of operators have caused concern, and the system has dealt with them.
As well as ensuring safety standards, we also propose to protect the public from operators who fail to provide the services that they have undertaken to run. To achieve this, there will be a registration process. It will not be possible for a registration to be refused but all local services will have to be registered and the operator will then be required to run the service registered. This will provide the public with a reasonable degree of certainty. There will be appropriate periods of notice before a service can be introduced, varied or withdrawn.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, were concerned about the remoteness of the body registering services, particularly in the case of the Isle of Wight. We, of course, recognise that local authorities will need access to registrations. We are considering whether PTEs, county councils in England and Wales and regional councils in Scotland should themselves be the registration authorities. But no decision has yet been taken. This is something on which we are still consulting.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. It seems to me, however, that the question of registration does not solve the problem of someone who tenders for a service and then goes bust. The fact that he is registered and therefore has an obligation to provide it in no way stops him going bankrupt and having to withdraw the service.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord has made. I think that I may have a reply to it when I come to my more detailed answers. The effect of removing road service licensing will give the bus industry its head. It will allow operators to test the market by seeing whether people want different services and at what price. It will allow operators to show what they can really do. There will be fare reductions on well-used services and passengers can expect more frequent buses on busy routes. It will introduce the competitive spur to efficiency and lead to innovation. The bus industry will begin to recapture some of the traffic which has been drifting away to other forms of transport. At long last, the best routes will be cultivated and developed.
To come back to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, it can already happen now that a company can go bust in the middle of its operations. Deregulation will, of course, expose those services which are not viable. This was a point that my noble friend Lord Teviot made. However, under our proposals, local authorities will continue to be able to subsidise services that would cease in a free market. But, instead of subsidising whole networks of services some parts of which are profitable and some parts of which are not, the subsidy will be paid specifically to the non-commercial services. That might be rural

337
services, evenings, Sundays, or whatever. The authority will specify its requirements and invite tenders from operators to provide those services. The authority will then accept the tender which offers the best value for money.
My noble friend Lord Teviot and other noble Lords—in fact, nearly all noble Lords—have raised the question of cross-subsidy. They have argued that, without the benefit of cross-subsidy from the commercially viable services, authorities will have to increase the total amount of subsidy they pay if they are to maintain the level of services in their areas or, in the case that my noble friend Lord Mottistone cited, maintain the level of services outside the peak holiday season. But that is to ignore the major effect of deregulation on costs. The White Paper talks of a potential for cost reduction of up to 30 per cent. While many public sector operators will dispute that figure, there is general agreement that costs will fall, and by a substantial amount, as the trial areas demonstrated. This will mean that many services which are at the moment unprofitable will become profitable and in others the amount of support needed will fall.
In rural areas, operators will be able to start new services without the fear of objection from entrenched subsidised public sector operators. Local taxi and car hire companies will be able to move in and provide more cost effective solutions in some places. Competitive tendering will ensure that what subsidy is available will support more services than before. We shall be encouraging further development of community buses and post buses and the like through our new innovation grant, which will amount to £1 million a year in England with comparable sums for Scotland and Wales. In addition, in recognition of the special problems of rural areas, we shall be providing a new rural grant of £20 million in the first years, reducing by even steps in subsequent years to cover the transitional period when cross-subsidy is reduced and until competition has its full effect on costs.
So I do not accept that loss of cross-subsidy will have the disastrous consequences for the non-commercial services which many now predict. As I explained earlier, this has not happened in the trial areas. Our proposals will ensure that subsidy goes to the route or service where it is needed rather than as part of a blanket subsidy to a whole network. Competitive tendering will ensure better value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and several noble Lords raised the question of concessionary fare schemes. Let me make it clear that we support sensible concessionary fare schemes. We want to ensure that all operators, not just publicly-owned ones, are able to participate in such schemes. Local authorities will be placed under a duty to make the concessions that they provide available on an equal basis to any licensed operator who runs an eligible service and who wishes to participate in the scheme. We are currently consulting on the detailed measures which will be needed to implement this.
The present structure of the bus industry, dominated as it is by large public sector operators—the passenger transport executives, the municipal bus companies and the National Bus Company—is not conducive to the introduction of effective competition.
338
The size and financial strength, and in some cases the blanket subsidy these operators receive, would, unless checked, give them market dominance which could thwart the development of new operators and new services which we want to see. This is why we are proposing that the bus operations of the PTEs should be broken down into smaller units and turned into companies; that bus undertakings of district councils should be incorporated into companies; and that the board of the National Bus Company should have a duty to reorganise the company, in consultation with the Secretary of State, into parts which can be disposed of as free standing companies. We believe these measures—which in many cases simply build on changes already being implemented by the authorities concerned—will provide the right structure for bus managers to operate commercially and take advantage of new opportunities. And they will clarify the operation and financial relationships with the local authorities, so that no one operator has unfair access to public funds.
Finally, I should mention our proposals on taxis and hire cars. First, let me emphasise that we are not proposing to make any fundamental change to the way classic taxi and hire car services are provided. We do, however, propose to relax progressively the restriction on the number of taxis which operate in some areas. It is important to ensure an adequate supply of taxis, and research has shown that tight quantity restrictions on taxis tend merely to encourage the expansion of the private hire car trade.
Our main proposal on taxis and hire cars is to allow them to carry passengers at separate fares. We believe this could result in a much wider use of taxis and hire cars as an integral part of public transport. With the decline in bus use there are simply too few passengers in some areas to support a conventional bus service. Taxis might be used to reinstate services already withdrawn, or to maintain socially desirable services at lower cost to local authorities. It is not our intention to require all taxis and hire cars to enter this field, but simply to remove the legislative barriers to them doing so. No doubt taxis and hire cars will continue to be primarily engaged in meeting the demand for exclusive services, and nothing we are doing will prevent them doing so.
The noble Earl, Lord Minto, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier raised the particular problems of bus services in Scotland. Broadly the same problems exist in Scotland and broadly the same remedies are appropriate. The problems of rural areas in Scotland are particularly acute. The transitional grant to operators of rural services will extend to Scotland, as will rural innovation grant to encourage new ways of meeting rural transport needs. There is particular scope for use of vehicles owned by education authorities—as my noble friend Lord Ferrier said—health and social work authorities, the Post Office and private firms. In urban areas the benefits of competition will be substantial both for the consumer and the ratepayer.
I now turn to a number of detailed points which noble Lords have raised. The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, asked why London was being excluded from the White Paper. We do not say that deregulation would not work in London, only that

339
we should first see through the great changes which have only recently been introduced there. Changes to road service licensing in London will bring a measure of competition there in the meantime.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone—and my noble friend Lord Teviot also mentioned this matter—raised the question of the future role of the county councils in co-ordinating public transport. What we are proposing is that councils will no longer have a duty to co-ordinate public transport—that would not be compatible with allowing free competition. But councils will still have general powers to talk to operators of commercial and non-commercial services, provide information for passengers; and promote co-operation between operators where this is commercially sensible and provided competition is not restricted.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but does that mean that the system of transport policies and programmes is going to be abolished in future? Will that be in the Bill as well?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall have to ask the noble Lord to wait and see the Bill. All we have at present is the White Paper, and as your Lordships know, there is a considerable amount of consultation still going on.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned the Scottish Bus Group and asked why it was being treated differently from the National Bus Company. The Scottish Bus Group is a very different company from the National Bus Company and it operates in a different market. It is a smaller company; it operates more distinctly in rural areas; and it is currently reorganising itself. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will, of course, continue to watch the competitive situation in Scotland to ensure that competition is allowed to emerge.
Several noble Lords mentioned travel cards, through-ticketing, interchange arrangements and timetables. It is too early to say precisely what will be the effect of competition on any particular fare or ticketing scheme. Some will prove to be commercially viable and will continue following deregulation. If their existence attracts custom, operators will wish to go on providing them. But where fare schemes are achieved at high cost to both the taxpayers and ratepayers as well as to passengers paying hidden cross-subsidy, that cost will be exposed by competition.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone raised the question of monopoly as regards the Isle of Wight—a subject which also concerns me. My noble friend argued the case for the Isle of Wight and suggested that operators from adjoining areas may be less likely to compete with the existing local bus service operator. But even in a relatively small market such as the Isle of Wight there must be in existence other bus operators or, for example, taxi firms which would be interested in coming forward. Certainly if the existing operator tried to exploit his position in the market, others would come in to undercut him.
340
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, asked about our proposals on bus stations. I should make it clear that all we are seeking to do is to prevent bus operators who control access to particular bus stations from behaving in an anticompetitive way by deliberately ensuring that other operators cannot gain access to that station. I take the point that to require local authorities to operate bus stations commercially in every case may not be the right solution where local authorities wish to encourage operators to use the bus station to ease congestion on the streets. We are looking further at this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, asked about the effect of our proposals on rail services, particularly in the case of the PTEs which subsidise local rail services. Those powers to subsidise rail services will not be affected by our proposals, but passengers will be free to choose what form of transport suits them best. Rail will no doubt continue to attract passengers and revenue support.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about school buses. The arrangements for school buses are not covered by the proposals in the White Paper, but of course many local authorities already go out to competitive tender for school bus services. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, also asked whether I could give him any details of the break-up of the National Bus Company. I cannot at this stage give any details.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been raised. I hope that I have explained why the Government believe that fundamental reforms are necessary and will bring great benefits. I hope that I have also shown that we have an open mind on many of the detailed questions of implementation. That is why we are consulting. The detailed points that have been made this evening are a helpful part of that process and I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be studying this debate with great interest.
The time has come to end the 30 years of decline in the bus industry. We must move into a new era in which the main services will not only continue, but the standard of service will improve and fares will be reduced; other services will evolve to meet the needs of the community more effectively; the taxpayer and the ratepayer will get better value for money; and there will be scope for innovation and new types of services. Under our proposals we can look forward to a future where passengers determine the services that they want.

Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Building Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Foster Children (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
London Transport Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Lords amendments agreed to and with the remaining amendment disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past seven o'clock.

  GLC BANNER
  GLC BANNER
  NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTS IN AUSTRALIA
  NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTS IN AUSTRALIA