Sitting of 4 April 1985

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

    Planning Applications (Representations)
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for facilitating representations on applications for planning permission by the owners or occupiers of contiguous land.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I recently introduced a neighbour notification scheme in Northern Ireland. Under this scheme the occupiers of land adjoining a site which is the subject of a planning application are notified of that application and given the opportunity of making representations before the application is decided.
    Mr. Powell: Will the Minister do his best to ensure that this welcome and desirable reform is given statutory force as soon as practicable, especially in the light of his disclosure last night that there is a bottleneck in the draftsmanship department of the Northern Ireland Office?
    Mr. Patten: I shall certainly ensure that we get ahead and provide a statutory base as soon as possible. We are talking about an interim scheme. Work on the amending Order in Council has begun, but we will obviously want widely to consult right hon. and hon. Members about the precise terms of the legislation.
    Mr. William Ross: Do the new notification procedures which the Minister mentioned cover the farming community and tenants of dwellinghouses, and, in particular, the tenants of Housing Executive dwellings?
    Mr. Patten: For very good reasons the procedures cover occupiers rather than owners.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Is my hon. Friend the Minister, like me, encouraged to hear the right hon. Member for South Down, (Mr. Powell) welcoming a measure introduced at the behest of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Will my hon. Friend go one step further and consider site notification?
    Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend knows, we are also looking at site notification and experimenting in that direction. As for encouragement, I am always encouraged by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).
    Mr. Alexander: Is there not an anomaly in the general law here? Is it not true that if someone is refused planning
    1330
    permission for his own property he can appeal, but that if something horrendous is happening next door, such as the erection of a fish and chip shop or a petrol station, he has no right of appeal? Should not the new provisions being applied to Northern Ireland be extended to the general law in this country?
    Mr. Patten: We are also considering the whole question of third party appeals. It is often the case that the things that we do in Northern Ireland could well be transplanted elsewhere.

    Security
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Hurd): Since I last answered questions in the House on 7 March, one soldier, two police officers and one civilian have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province, making a total of four. As the House will be aware, two of these deaths occurred yesterday morning when a car bomb exploded outside Newry courthouse. The Provisional IRA has claimed responsibility for all these brutal murders. The House will want to join me in expressing abhorrence and extending deep sympathy to the families of all who have died.
    So far this year a total of 120 people have been charged with serious offences, including 15 with murder and 11 with attempted murder; and 54 weapons, 2,160 rounds of ammunition and 3 lb of explosives have been recovered.
    Mr. Molyneaux: May I join the Secretary of State in his condemnation of yesterday's atrocity and in extending our sympathy to the bereaved? As it is human nature to slip into predictable routines, could certain individuals be given the duty of alerting their colleagues to the dangers of following fixed patterns? Those individuals could perhaps regard it as their task to suggest variations in those routines.
    Mr. Hurd: It is certainly a principle of good security policy that that policy and its procedures should be varied and kept under review. There are a number of legitimate questions arising out of what happened yesterday that need investigation.
    Mr. Proctor: The whole House will wish to join in the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend. Will he confirm that the SAS and other undercover security forces are active in the frontier area, and that those forces will be increased in and around Newry and South Armagh in the light of yesterday's events?
    Mr. Hurd: I can confirm that the General Officer Commanding has at his disposal in Northern Ireland specialist Army units which he deploys to meet operational needs throughout the Province. My hon. Friend will understand why it would not be sensible for me to go further than that.
    Mr. Nicholson: I join the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) in offering sympathy to those who have been

    1331
    bereaved. Yesterday saw the death of the 10th member of the RUC to be murdered in my constituency in the past five weeks, and a civilian was also murdered. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will give further consideration to more security measures in the Newry area, which in the past nine months has been the subject of continuous bombings and murder attacks? We appear to be getting nowhere, despite all the assurances. However, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me, the House and my constituents that a firm security policy will be adopted and maintained in the Newry area?
    Mr. Hurd: There is a firm security policy, but I share the hon. Gentleman's feelings of outrage about what has been going on in his constituency. As I said to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), I agree that security policy and the emphasis on deployment in different parts of the Province need to be constantly examined and should be examined again in the light of what happened yesterday.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree with Ulster Members that the present security policy has been proved to be a failure, and that it ensures only that the constituents of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) and other hon. Members are put into coffins — the coffins of good Ulster, decent British citizens?
    Mr. Hurd: That is not a worthy comment at this time. I do not believe that the security policy has failed. It is given a high priority and attention, as must be right in the circumstances of the Province, and we defend it robustly against attacks and criticisms, as is also our duty. The hon. Gentleman makes no constructive suggestion. I am always open, as are the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, to constructive suggestions, particularly from elected representatives in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On the general background to the security situation in Northern Ireland, and acknowledging that, from time to time, it is perceived to be in the national interest that we should humbug the Americans, will the Secretary of State constantly recall the old wartime adage "Careless talk costs lives", and realise that words that are seen to be flannel in other contexts can be misunderstood in certain different places, with disastrous consequences?
    Mr. Hurd: I have spent a large part of the last week or so trying to explain in the United States of America the complexities of the situation in Northern Ireland and Ireland, and trying to discourage the idea that there is a single key that will turn a single lock and solve the problem.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I welcome the condemnation of terrorist outrages by the Catholic hierarchy and the splendid statements of Catholic priests, which are so seldom publicised. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Catholics on both sides of the water would be grateful if we could have an end to all equivocation in these matters, and an appeal from the Catholic church to Catholics to join security forces and replace those Catholics who have been murdered doing their duty?
    Mr. Hurd: It is desirable that representatives of all Churches should underline to those who listen to them that the role of the security forces in Northern Ireland is
    1332
    basically to protect the simplest human right of all—the right of the citizen to go about his daily lawful occasions in peace and security.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I be associated with the Secretary of State's sentiments about yesterday's atrocities? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the allegations of torture by Paul Caruana, held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, have a dramatic effect on the minority community and their feelings about the security forces? I do not expect the Secretary of State to comment today on the details of the case, but will he guarantee that the detailed questions asked by Amnesty International will be answered in time?
    Mr. Hurd: Mr. Caruana's allegations are being fully investigated through the normal procedures. An investigation has been conducted by the RUC complaints and discipline branch. Its report was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decided, after careful examination of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, that the prosecution of any of those involved was not warranted. The RUC is now following the usual procedures and submitting its report to the Police Complaints Board for consideration.
    Dr. Mawhinney: In the widely reported discussions which my right hon. Friend is having with Irish Ministers about security in the Province and the possibility of a consultative role for Irish Ministers, is he also discussing the possibility of a consultative role for himself and his colleagues in security arrangements in the Republic, particularly in areas close to the border?
    Mr. Hurd: We discuss all aspects of security cooperation with the authorities in the Republic. That discussion continued under different Irish and British Governments long before the current dialogue with the Irish Government stemming from the recent Chequers communiqué. I agree that in practice — in terms of money, arms, explosives and policing — our security effort depends to a considerable extent for its effectiveness on a matching effort by the Republic.
    Mr. Archer: I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to comment on the facts of the Caruana case, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) referred, but will he declare clearly that the rule of law is one and indivisible and that it cannot be preserved by invoking Satan to cast out Satan? Will he assure the House that the report by the Police Complaints Board will be made public? Will he then make a statement to the House on the recommendations in the Bennett report and to what extent they have been implemented?
    Mr. Hurd: The security forces—both the police and the Army — in Northern Ireland operate under the rule of law. That is what distinguishes them from an army of occupation operating under military law. The normal procedures of investigation, and review of that investigation, by independent bodies — the DPP and the Police Complaints Board — are being followed in the Caruana case. The Bennett report has often been discussed in the House and everyone agrees that the situation has markedly improved in recent years. The case will continue to be followed through in accordance with the usual procedures.

    Broadcasting Authorities
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the broadcasting authorities in Northern Ireland; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): My right hon. Friend would not expect to have formal meetings with the broadcasting authorities, which are not responsible to him. However, he met both the BBC's Northern Ireland governor and the IBA's national member for Northern Ireland socially during February.
    Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. When he next meets representatives of the BBC and ITV, will he convey to them the worrying anxiety felt throughout Britain and Northern Ireland about the filming of IRA funerals at which rifles are fired? Is my hon. Friend aware that it is grossly offensive and thoroughly unhelpful? People are sickened when the BBC interviews IRA terrorists who threaten our country. Should not both the broadcasting authorities respond more actively and responsibly?
    Mr. Scott: I recognise the widespread offence that is caused by the televising of funerals which are turned into propaganda exercises by the paramilitaries. However, it would be wrong for the Government to try to prohibit the reporting by the media of such funerals. The media must use their own editorial judgment about such matters, just as the security forces have to use their judgment on the ground when paramilitary displays take place at such funerals. I am sure that those responsible will have noted my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. McCusker: Will the Minister also discuss with the authorities in Northern Ireland the disquiet felt by my colleagues and I and many others about the investigative follow-up by the BBC in the aftermath of a number of sensitive security issues? I believe that that has virtually prejudiced any prospect of a police or UDR man getting a fair hearing or a fair trial in any subsequent action.
    If the authorities in Northern Ireland deny what I am saying, perhaps the Minister will ask them why they refused to give me a transcript of one particular incident?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me about that incident, we shall see whether there is an opportunity to raise it. The best way to handle these matters is for elected representatives and members of the public to make their views known direct to the broadcasting authorities.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to reduce unemployment in the Province.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to his written question.
    Mr. Parry: Is not the Government's record on unemployment in the Province absolutely disgraceful? When the Government took power in June 1979 there were 59,600 people unemployed in the Province. In February this year the number had risen to 122,157 — an increase
    1334
    from 10·3 to 21·2 per cent. Does the Minister agree that the additional 6p tax on cigarettes announced in the Budget will lead to further job losses in the tobacco industry in the Province?
    Dr. Boyson: The rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland was increasing before 1979, when the Labour Government were in power, and that applies also to Great Britain. However, no one here welcomes unemployment in Northern Ireland any more than does the hon. Gentleman. Between 1960 and 1983 unemployment rose by 84,000, but the actual drop in the number of people employed was only 6,000. Therefore, 78,000 were accounted for by increased personnel in the Province, a birth rate 50 per cent. higher than in Great Britain and women wishing to return to work—
    Mr. Canavan: That has nothing to do with it.
    Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but if he speaks to the parents in the Province he will find that they notice when they have more children.
    The actual increase in the rate of unemployment has decreased tremendously in recent years and we all look forward to the time when employment increases. In 1982 unemployment was increasing by 1,100 a month, in 1983 by 600 a month and last year by only 200 a month. However, between July and December last year there was an increase in employment in the Province of 4,100.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that it is important that new products should be found to create new job opportunities in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that Antrim Creameries in Ballynure has successfully produced a new product which it wishes to market as a cheese spread? However, under present food labelling regulations, because it has a fat content of less than 10 per cent., the product cannot be marketed as such. Will the Minister endeavour to have the food labelling regulations changed as quickly as possible so that new jobs can be created?
    Dr. Boyson: I agree that it is vital to find new products to replace those lost with the decline of the old industries. I shall investigate the matter of Antrim Creameries. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I know from a recent visit, the Milk Marketing Board is active in that area and products from the MMB and farms in Northern Ireland are being sold throughout the world.
    Mr. Warren: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am the chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which recently had two opportunities to visit Northern Ireland to study industrial and commercial development? Is he further aware of how impressed we were with the efficiency and enterprise of all workers in the Province? Does he accept that while there may be a lot of nuts in Noraid trying to make the Province as dangerous a place as New York city, Ulster is certainly a good place in which to invest?
    Dr. Boyson: I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren). Twice he has been to the Province with the members of that Select Committee, and I have had the privilege of meeting him and his fellow members on each occasion. Undoubtedly, employers in Ulster, and employers from outside who have invested there, pay tribute to the conscientiousness and reliability of the members of both communities working in the factories of Northern Ireland. The more that that can be

    1335
    made known in Britain and throughout the world, the better. We must do our best to build up tourism in that beautiful Province. Great opportunities exist there. Hon. Members who take all possible steps to publicise the advantages of Northern Ireland, in relation to sport and in many other ways, do a great service to the Province.
    Mr. Hume: The Minister will be aware of the parliamentary answer that he gave me last week containing the unemployment figures for each of the 17 constituencies in Northern Ireland. Has he noted that the two constituencies whose unemployment figures exceed all others are Foyle and Belfast, West? Does he draw any political conclusions from that, for example, about the relationship between the rate of unemployment and violence? Does he agree that special attention should be given to the unemployment problems of those constituencies? Why is his Department making cuts in the valuable work of the youth and community workshop in Derry?
    Dr. Boyson: The answer to the second part of that supplementary question is that we have cut back only where all the places have not been filled. The figures show that 77 vacancies exist in the Foyle area. It is highly expensive to have places in community and other centres involved in youth programmes that are not filled. We are relating demand to supply.
    The answer to the first part is that I am aware of the high rates of unemployment in Belfast, West and in Foyle. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have been concerned to assist with the continuance of employment, for example, at Molins and at other works. Clearly, a decline in violence would help to bring other employers in. I am making arrangements to meet people in May from West Belfast, including priests and the bishop of the area, to see what can be done by way of co-operation between the Government, trade unions, employers and the people of the area to improve employment prospects.
    Rev. William McCrea: Is the Minister aware that a certain hypocrisy is shown by Opposition Members when we debate unemployment, in that the creation of jobs is not encouraged when leading members of the Labour party associate with members of Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA, who are blasting jobs out of existence in the Province?
    Dr. Boyson: There is a degree of truth in that, although many Opposition Members would not agree. To invite members of Sinn Fein to this House and to speak to them here undermines the whole issue of confidence in the Province. Nor is it helpful to the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Bell: Her Majesty's official Opposition will not be distracted by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), and I assure him and the House that, as we have said on many occasions, the Opposition have no truck with and do not support violence in any form. It is hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to seek to distract attention from the important issue of unemployment.
    With the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), I compliment the efficiency and enterprise of the workers of Ulster. I spent yesterday with trade unionists and industrialists there. Does the Minister share the widespread feeling that I found yesterday that Northern Ireland is a low-wage, unemployment economy? If so, does he acquiesce in it? If not, what steps does he propose to change that sentiment, which is abroad in the province?
    Dr. Boyson: I am sure that every hon. Member welcomes the hon. Gentleman's frank statement about Sinn Fein and violence in the Province. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren). The Government do not lay down the wages that are paid throughout the economy — that is done by agreement between employers and workers. It is difficult for employers and employees to have a high-wage economy in view of the fact that firms in Northern Ireland have to compete with firms in Southern Ireland, which are near the increasing markets of Europe and because of the costs of energy and transport. I share the hon. Gentleman's desire that we should develop full employment with good wages and good conditions in factories to encourage other people to come to the Province.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Shorter questions may lead to shorter answers.

    Short Brothers, Belfast
    Mr. William Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet representatives of Short Brothers, Belfast.
    Mr. Hurd: I have no immediate plans to meet representatives of Shorts, but I keep in regular contact with the chairman of the company.
    Mr. Ross: Should not the right hon. Gentleman change his mind and meet representatives of Shorts to receive the congratulations of workers and management because the Government have finally followed the American military establishment and the commercial world in ordering a high-quality product from Shorts? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the management of Shorts to ensure future high quality work by continuing to engage a large number of young apprentices and giving them the proper training that is required to keep the firm in the forefront of this technology?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was delighted that the contract for the RAF trainer went to Shorts. I was especially delighted because there was no need for any special pleading or special subsidy in that regard. [Interruption.] I can tell the House from certain knowledge that the contract was clearly awarded on merit, simply because Shorts beat the competition. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about apprentices. Since becoming Secretary of State, one of the most heartening sights that I have seen is the apprentice shop at Shorts. I have seen how engineers of the future from both communities in the Province are working together.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: The words of the Secretary of State are slightly hard to swallow for one who was involved with one of the three other contenders for the contract. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the wings for the Short 330 and 360 are made in my constituency, where there is unemployment of 17·3 per cent. When the right hon. Gentleman sees Sir Philip Foreman—I congratulate him on his success — will he remind him that any crumbs from his table will be gratefully received in the Isle of Wight?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is a graceful loser. We have unemployment of between 21 and 22 per cent.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it strange that the Liberal party spokesman for

    1337
    Northern Ireland has done his best to ensure that Northern Ireland does not get jobs for the Shorts aircraft industry? Does he further agree that the best encouragement that can be given to the work force at Shorts is for him to announce that the will not proceed with the privatisation of the company?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with the hon. Member's last point. If Shorts could be successfully privatised—this is still an "if"—that would be a considerable tonic for the private sector in Northern Ireland. It certainly was unfortunate that the official Liberal and Labour party spokesmen seemed to be against the fact that Shorts won this defence contract. That does not in any way diminish our pleasure.
    Mr. Archer: In order not to mar a joyful and, I should have thought, unanimous occasion, will the right hon. Gentleman, if he meets representatives of Shorts, extend to them the warm congratulations of those on the Labour Benches on the successful outcome of the Tucano project? Will he assure them that the Government will not, by any doctrinaire privatisation manoeuvres, destroy the company's successful progress, dismember the enterprise and endanger the employment of those who work there?
    Mr. Hurd: There will be nothing doctrinaire in our approach. I am delighted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) rejoice in Shorts' success.

    Maze Prison (Special Category Prisoners)
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many special category prisoners remain in Her Majesty's prison, Maze, or elsewhere; and how many prisoners are held at the Secretary of State's pleasure.
    Mr. Scott: There are 162 special category prisoners, all of whom are in Maze compound prison. Sixty-one persons are currently detained at the pleasure of the Secretary of State.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will the Northern Ireland Office seek the fullest possible particulars of the extent to which prisoners convicted of terrorism do or do not return to paramilitary activity afterwards? In the light of such particulars, will the Secretary of State review the position of the young offenders held at his pleasure?
    Mr. Scott: We are engaged now in the procedure of reviewing all those serving indeterminate sentences, as the appropriate time in their sentence is reached. The prisoners have the chance to put in written representations, and their cases are eventually discussed by a life sentence review board before being considered by Ministers. Already under that procedure 10 young prisoners have had dates fixed for their release, as well as three life sentence prisoners. That procedure will continue.
    My hon. Friend has put his finger on a very important matter. In coming to these decisions, the possibility of re-offence, and thus the safety of the public, has to be at the forefront of our minds.
    Mr. Hume: The Minister is no doubt aware that the process that he mentioned for the setting of release dates for young prisoners held at the pleasure of the Secretary of State has been welcomed by representatives of all sides of the community. In the light of that, will he do his best to speed up the process?
    Mr. Scott: We have to consider each of the cases very carefully on its merits, bearing in mind the time that the person has served, the degree of involvement in the original crime, and the behaviour of the prisoner while in prison. The final, and in many ways the paramount, consideration has to be the likelihood of re-offence.

    SDLP (Security Forces)
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has recently discussed with leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour Party their attitude towards the security forces in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: I have had a number of recent discussions on security issues with representatives of the Social Democratic and Labour party. I have made clear in particular my hope that the constitutional representatives of the minority community will take full advantage of the various opportunities that exist at local and provincial level to make their views known on policing matters to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is unlikely to be a stable security position in Northern Ireland while the minority community neither supports nor even recognises the security forces, and if that view is also the reflected view of the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the SDLP, if it wishes to be viewed as a constitutional party, and if its members wish to be viewed as constitutional politicians, to offer its support and recognition to the security forces? Then we could discuss other matters which are of security interest to it and to the Province.
    Mr. Hurd: It is true that many members of the minority community serve in and fully support the security forces, as the casualty figures show. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is highly desirable that the representatives of the minority community should, in word and in deed, make their criticisms where they think criticisms are justified but, having done that, should join in understanding and proclaiming the fact that the security forces exist to protect the rights of the citizen, Catholic and Protestant, throughout Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Secretary of State, in replying to questions about the SDLP from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), take account of the well-known antipathy of that hon. Member to the SDLP and his well-known capacity for distorting the views and attitudes of that party? Will the Secretary of State tell his hon. Friend to find out what the position is before putting forward his views on our position with regard to the security forces and before making definitive statements in this House?
    I remind the Secretary of State of what I have said very often — that we fully support the security forces in impartially seeking out anybody who commits a crime in Northern Ireland. We have said that repeatedly, but we have gone on to mention the sort of community confidence that is required to deal with the security situation in Northern Ireland. It must be the community confidence that applies in every democratic society. It must be based on consensus about government, which is the basis of order in any democratic society.
    Mr. Hurd: I thought that my hon. Friend's question was helpful in intention and in effect. I am familiar with the attitude displayed by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). I hope that he will encourage his friends in Northern Ireland to take advantage of the opportunities which exist, and other opportunities which might be brought into existence inside the Province, to express their views in groups and places where those views can have influence.
    Mr. John Mark Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SDLP would also enhance its constitutional status if it were to take part in the workings of the Assembly and express those constitutional views there?
    Mr. Hurd: Indeed, I wish that that were possible.
    Mr. William Ross: Despite the words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), is the Secretary of State not aware that the perception in Northern Ireland is that the SDLP does not support the security forces? Does that not lead to a situation in which that evident lack of support means that people whom the SDLP claims to represent are unwilling to come forward to give evidence in cases of murder, even when those murdered are leaving mass?
    Mr. Hurd: I hope that everybody in Northern Ireland, regardless of community, will encourage people who are witnesses of crime or have evidence that could lead to the prosecution and conviction of criminals, to come forward without fear.
    Mr. Hirst: Notwithstanding the views of the SDLP, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied with the levels of overtime currently being worked by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand this. It is a mistake, which is quite often made in Northern Ireland, to suppose that overtime is a measure of the effectiveness of the police force. Indeed, too much overtime is obviously not a sign of a healthy and effective force. A much better measure of police activity is the man hours worked. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the figures for the year just ended show that police man hours worked in Northern Ireland were up to 23·8 million in 1984–85 compared with 23·3 million in 1983–84—a substantial increase.

    A26 (Antrim-Ballymena)
    Mr. Clifford Forsytheasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is in a position to report on the progress of the public inquiry into the proposed dualling of the A26 between Antrim and Ballymena.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The inquiry closed on 19 March this year, and I now await the inspector's report.
    Mr. Forsythe: Because the inquiry has lasted considerably longer than the three days confidently predicted by the Department at the outset, will the Minister now look at ways of compensating objectors because of the additional legal costs involved, bearing in mind that the delays were caused by the Department in the presentation of its evidence and, 'on some occasions, by the non-presentation of its evidence?
    Mr. Patten: I realise that the length of the inquiry—I think that in all it sat for 16 days over a couple of months
    1340
    —raised certain problems. We shall consider as rapidly as we can any claims as soon as we have received the inspector's report.

    Ancillary Health Workers
    Mr. Randallasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate the number of ancillary workers currently employed by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Chris Patten: At the end of last year 6,451 ancillary workers were employed by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board.
    Mr. Randall: Will the Minister confirm that the Eastern Health and Social Services Board budget has been slashed by the Government to the tune of £4·6 million? Will he tell the House what that will mean in terms of job losses? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if we get the 600 job losses that have been speculated about in various newspaper reports, that will mean the cancellation of new services, a reduction of beds and longer waiting lists? Would that not be regarded as a serious blow to the people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Patten: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's question is based on something that is not true. The budget of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board will be going up next year, on the figures for this year. Therefore, I am afraid that what the hon. Gentleman referred to cannot qualify as a cut.

    Youth Training
    Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many youngsters leaving the youth training programme go on to full-time employment.
    Dr. Boyson: Since the youth training programme began in 1982, 9,552 — 53·3 per cent. — of the young people who have left the programme went directly into employment and 393 — 2 per cent. — returned to full-time education. The figures for the last six months were 2,768–55·8 per cent. and 164–3 per cent. Information is collected only with regard to trainees' immediate destinations on leaving the programme, so those who experienced any delay in entering full-time employment are not included in the employment figures.
    Mr. Nellist: Is that answer not a warning to young school leavers in Northern Ireland that the Government's youth training programme there has about the same success rate as the programme in the rest of Britain and offers no real future for young people? Why does the Minister not propose a real training programme, on trade union rates of pay, with an allowance of at least £55, and a guarantee of a job at the end? Does the Minister accept that the fall by a third in manufacturing employment under the present Government in the past six years, to a level that is half the real rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland, shows that the Government do not care for the youth of Northern Ireland and cannot offer them a future?
    Dr. Boyson: Over 16,000 young people and adults are in training in Northern Ireland, out of a population of 1·5 million. That shows how concerned the Government are about the matter. Three out of five of those who join the youth training programme either obtain employment

    1341
    immediately afterwards or embark on higher education. That shows that the programme is a great advantage to those who take part in it.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 April.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend is travelling to south-east Asia for an official visit.
    Mr. Thurnham: Tomorrow is the end of the tax year. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no special Easter eggs for any over-zealous tax inspectors who take too many second looks at the books of small business men?
    Mr. Biffen: I can happily give that assurance. There is no question of tax inspectors being offered bonuses for increasing tax revenue from small businesses.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Leader of the House will know that yesterday, after they had fixed their rates, many shire counties discovered that the rate support grant was again to be cut from the level of which they had previously been notified. What advice are the Government giving those counties about how they should accommodate the new cuts?
    Mr. Biffen: It has always been made clear, and local authorities have always understood, that the initial RSG figure given to them by the Department is an estimate and is subject to change in the light of council spending plans.
    Mr. Hattersley: I hope that that carefully prepared answer will be gleefully accepted in the shire counties which are to be penalised. Apart from that answer, which the right hon. Gentleman read with such precision, can he comment on the absurdity of rate legislation which, simply because the GLC has fixed a rate lower than the statutory maximum, requires cuts in shire county allocation? The figure for Lancashire has fallen by £4·2 million, the figure for Cleveland by £1·3 million and that for Kent by £3·25 million. How will the right hon. Gentleman explain to those counties that their grant is to be cut simply because the GLC has levied a rate lower than that which the Government anticipated?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman describes a set of situations on which I cannot confidently comment — [HoN. MEmBERs:"Oh."] I will commit the great solecism in this House of refusing to comment on what I cannot comment on accurately. There is no doubt that the shire counties will contrast their own prudent financial management with what is happening in many other areas of the country, including that covered by the GLC.
    Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman fails to grasp the essential point. What he describes as prudent financial management in the shire counties has resulted in the shire counties receiving further cuts in RSG.
    Mr. Biffen: I have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman that I will not follow him down that path because I am not certain of my ground.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I understand that to save overtime, no searcher dogs were used in the VIP departure lounge at Heathrow today before the departure of the Prime Minister to the far east? Will he look into this, bearing in mind the fact that the country is concerned about the Prime Minister's security above all things and would not mind paying for the overtime required?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is right to underline the great national concern that our leaders and the Prime Minister should always have the utmost security in their movements when undertaking national duties, but I have no doubt that the necessary standards have been fulfilled.
    Mr. Steel: Although the Lord Privy Seal is right not to comment with confidence, or even without confidence, on the detailed figures of the cuts imposed on local authorities, how does he expect local government officials or elected members to cope with the constantly changing barriers against which the Government place them?
    Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman must know that the rate support grant figures are always issued on a provisional basis. On this occasion they have been revised, and revisions must be expected.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend take time during the recess to consult his right hon. Friends on what new initiatives the Government might take to patch up our quarrel with Argentina, bearing in mind that the conflict started nearly three and a half years ago? Does he agree that, while it is all too easy for both countries to blame each other, there would be considerable long-term benefits for Britain and the Falkland Islands in having proper diplomatic and commercial links with Argentina and its new democratic Government? Would that not be in the interests of the long-term future of the region?
    Mr. Biffen: I accept that it must be in our ultimate interests to restore satisfactory relationships with Argentina, but that will be the consequence of a detailed and closely argued process of negotiation. We are at the beginning of that now, and we shall have to fight our corner.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 4 April.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Canavan: Is it just coincidence that almost every time I hit the jackpot at Prime Minister's Question Time she does a bunk to the far east or somewhere else? In the Prime Minister's absence, will the Leader of the House ensure that approporiate Government action is taken to compensate Scottish football fans after the Government's intervention to switch the venue of the Scotland-England football international from Wembley to Hampden? Will they compensate the Scottish football fans, including some of my constituents, who have spent hundreds of pounds in non-refundable deposits for hotel bookings in London, only to discover that the great dictatorial referee in Downing street has blown the whistle and moved the goal posts from London to Glasgow?
    Mr. Biffen: I have a lively sympathy with the hon. Gentleman with regard to his discovery that I am here to

    1343
    answer his questions rather than the Prime Minister. I no more wish to answer his question than he wishes to ask it of me, but we are chained together by circumstance. As I am sure he will realise, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport asked the Football Association to reconsider the date of the international. The change in the venue was a judgment of the Football Association and the Scottish Football Association. But I have left the worse news until last. Although there is much sympathy, there is no question of the Government accepting any liability such as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Hirstasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 April.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at its conference in Inverness last weekend, the Liberal party voted to remove all United States bases from Britain? Does he agree that this is yet another example of a glaring inconsistency in the policy of the alliance on a critical issue? Apart from offering sympathy to the Social Democratic party for its curious bedfellows, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for the other Alliance—NATO—which is the ultimate guarantor of the peace and security of British people?
    Mr. Biffen: I am happy to affirm the Government's commitment to the NATO Alliance and to say that all parties which affirm their support for NATO cannot have it both ways. They cannot want the Alliance and its nuclear implications, but deny that Alliance the nuclear bases.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Will the Leader of the House answer more sympathetically the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)? If the Government so arrange sporting fixtures that it will cost sporting fans a great deal of money, and if they take the responsibility for changing the dates, they must take some responsibility for compensating those people for the many hundreds of pounds that they have lost. We will not have this. The Government must take either one line or the other.
    Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman is advancing a most contentious proposition: that the Government should undertake financial responsibilities and liabilities in this instance. This would be a major policy departure. It is simply not on.
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 April.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many Conservative Members who, since 1979, have been urging rate reform? Is he further aware that we very much welcome the initiative of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in this matter? However, can he say when a fairer system that will better reflect people's ability to pay will come before the House? Indeed, will it come during the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Biffen: That would be a fairly fundamental reply to let slip out on a Thursday morning before we depart for
    1344
    Easter. I accept at once the good wishes that my hon. Friend conveys, but this is a very tangled problem and the sooner it can be dispatched the better. However, it would be just as well if we got the answer right rather than produced it quickly.
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 April.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mackay: Will my right hon. Friend find some time today further to consider the newspaper report in last Sunday's Observer about substantial ballot-rigging in the Transport and General Workers Union, which apparently led to the election of Mr. Ron Todd as the general secretary? Will he reflect upon the fact that our trade union legislation which passed through the House last year, is very important in the light of this ballot-rigging, and will he further reflect that no Labour party spokesman has condemned this action, taken by one of its major paymasters?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has very generously asked me to do not much more than reflect, and I am very happy to reflect on all the various aspects of the issue that he mentioned. I join him in saying that I believe it underlines the considerable importance that we might attach to the postal ballot provisions in our recent trade union legislation.
    Ms. Harman: Why have the Government, against the advice of their own quango, Playboard, made massive cuts in urban programme funding for holiday play schemes? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that without safe, constructive play, school holidays for many children will spell boredom and that for many parents, particularly working parents, they involve the worry that, instead of playing safely, their children might end up either in hospital or the juvenile court? Will he reinstate these important funds?
    Mr. Biffen: I have no authority to reinstate these programmes, but I shall of course draw the attention of the relevant Secretary of State to the point made by the hon. Lady. However, I suspect that these and all other public spending provisions have to be carefully assessed against need and value for money.
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 April.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Did the First Lord of the Treasury, for whom my right hon. Friend is replying, know of— I cannot believe that she can have approved of—the discontinuance of the £10 paid every year since the reign of Henry VII by the Exchequer to a certain university — not mine? Should not a Tory Government cherish harmless anomalies and pleasant traditions?
    Mr. Biffen: I must admit that that is not even a technical knock-out. I have been floored in round one. I have not the faintest idea of what it is to which my hon.

    1345
    Friend refers. I know that it is of national significance, otherwise the words would not be on his lips. I shall see that my right hon. Friend is informed of it the moment that she returns from the far east.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman care to tell the House how many right hon. or hon. Members have had their phones tapped since the Prime Minister was elected in 1979?
    Mr. Biffen: I did not hear the question.
    Mr. Banks: Clearly there would be little point in tapping the right hon. Gentleman's telephone. I asked him whether he could tell us how many hon. Members have had their telephones tapped since 1979.
    Mr. Biffen: As I understand it, undertakings have been given in the House by previous Prime Ministers, and have since been reinforced, that no hon. Members have had their telephones tapped.
    Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) and I have been here throughout Question Time, including Northern Ireland Question Time, but we did not reach the highly topical question on political discussions on Northern Ireland. A considerable number of hon. Members who had not tabled any questions were called more than once. We waited and stayed behind precisely for those highly political questions. They were not reached because hon. Members who had not tabled questions, and others, were called many times.
    Mr. Speaker: There is always a difficult balance to strike, but the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that I seek to balance questions between Northern Ireland Members and those from the rest of the United Kingdom. I am sorry that we did not get as far as the hon. Gentleman's question. If he had risen on question No. 6 he would probably have got in, but he did not do so. His question was No. 17.

Business of the House
10.32 am
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the week after the recess?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY I5 APRIL—Second Reading of the Surrogacy Arrangements Bill.
Remaining stages of the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill.
Proceedings on the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
TUESDAY I6 APRIL — Second Reading of the Prosecution of Offences Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Police (Anonymous, Repetitious etc Complaints) Regulations, the Police (Complaints) (Mandatory Referrals etc) Regulations, and on the Police (Complaints) (Informal Resolution) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY I7 APRIL — Conclusion of remaining stages of the Interception of Communications Bill.
Motion relating to the Wireless and Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations.
THURSDAY I8 APRIL — Remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
FRIDAY I9 APRIL — Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 22 APRIL — Opposition day (10th allotted day).
Mr. Hattersley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three specific questions? First, he knows very well that there is increasing concern on both sides of the House about the mounting tragedy in South Africa. Are we soon to have a debate on that subject?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman knows that last night the Prime Minister announced, through a written answer, additional powers that Ministers are taking to influence the career of civil servants whom those Ministers designate as subversives or security risks. Clearly that statement ought to have been made to the House and been subject to questions in the House. May we have a statement on the subject next week?
Thirdly, are we to have a debate on this week's several White Papers on employment? If the Government intend to preserve the pretence that those documents are anything other than Conservative propaganda financed out of the taxes, there has to be a debate so that the implications of the Government's policy can be examined.
Mr. Biffen: With regard to the general foreign affairs situation, which of course will encompass South Africa, it is my hope that we shall very shortly have a debate on that topic.
The powers announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday are derived from a report by the Security Commission in 1981 and the definition of subversion is that recommended by the Security Commission. Of course, we will look at this matter through the usual channels, as requested.
Finally, as will be evident, I have provided no time for an employment debate in the week of our return.
1348
Thereafter we will see how we go, but there will be plenty of economic debates related to the Budget and doubtless it could be incorporated in one of them.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: On Tuesday's business on the Second Reading of the Prosecution of Offences Bill, will my right hon. Friend pass on to the Home Secretary the hope that he will make it clear during his speech that the Government do not intend to reinstate the clause defeated in the House of Lords about the right of the prosecution to appeal to the Court of Appeal in sentence matters?
Mr. Biffen: This is a contentious issue, but of course I will pass on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the point that my right hon. and learned Friend made.
Mr. Peter Shore: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 558, which draws attention to the unacceptable and improper cash offer made by Political Research and Communication International Limited on behalf of Lead Manufacturers Limited to pay the travelling expenses to Sweden of the Select Committee on the Environment?
[That this House strongly deprecates the action of Political Research and Communication International Limited in offering to bear the travelling expenses of the Environment Committee so that the Committee can examine an advanced system for disposing of radioactive waste in Sweden; and considers that this offer by a financially interested party is, or may be seen as, an attempt improperly to influence and subvert the Committee.]
This is an important matter involving a commercially motivated attempt to influence the work of a Select Committee and the activities of a PR firm of which an hon. Member of the House is chairman. Will the Leader of the House, bearing in mind his special responsibilities to the House as a whole, arrange for an early debate or statement so that the issues raised can be fully explored and rules of conduct properly established for the future?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman raises an evidently serious point. I am sure that the whole House would agree that it would be improper for any Select Committee conducting an independent inquiry on behalf of the House to accept funding from an interested private party. Any further action arising on this matter would be for the Liaison Committee to consider in the first instance. Perhaps we may see how matters proceed from there.
Mr. Gerrard Neale: In view of the fact that interminable delays are suffered in public inquiries, and, in particular, in view of the extraordinary and lamentable decision by a Committee of both Houses yesterday to overrule the decision of a public inquiry on the Okehampton bypass, will my hon. Friend consider providing time for a debate in the near future to enable the House to consider how the public inquiry system can be reviewed so as to give all parties a full and fair chance of presenting their case but at the same time enable an early end date to such inquiries which also include the granting of planning consent to be set?
Mr. Biffen: The Government will now study the Joint Committee's report and consider what can best be done. In the meantime. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has just said.
Mr Merlyn Rees: Does the Leader of the House recall that after the last general election many hon. Members on both sides of the House were concerned about the methods and procedures of the Boundary Commission, exemplified in a small way — but it emphasised the daftness of it—by the silly names that were given to some constituencies? I have raised the matter on a number of occasions and quite properly, my suggestion that there should be an inquiry was guided to the Home Secretary. It was put to me that it might be a good subject for a Select Committee of the House. However that may be, it is now two years since the general election; the boundary setting was done badly; the procedures were often much too short. Can something be done about it? Nothing much needs to be done for about 10 years, but something ought to be done because there is concern.
Mr. Biffen: I have every sympathy with that observation. The time honoured and civic traditions of Oswestry are now extinct and have been replaced by a mere geographic abstraction called Shropshire, North. Many right hon. and hon. Members must feel exactly the same way. If I had the constituency title that the right hon. Gentleman has, I would bear it very heavily. However, I shall look into the matter and see what further progress can be made.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is nearly four months, if not more, since the Computer Sub-Committee undertook a wide-ranging survey of the information technology needs of Parliament and, with the unanimous support of the House of Commons (Services) Committee, presented a report containing specific recommendations about what should be done. Is anything to be done, or will the report simply lurk in a pigeon hole for ever?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly be in touch with my hon. Friend, and I hope that I can give him some assistance.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect Wednesday's motion on the broadcast licence fee to last? Would not a one and a half hour debate on such an important subject be inappropriate? I understand that under the Social Security B11, which will be disussed on Thursday, the Government propose to introduce some of the national insurance contribution changes presaged in the Budget. If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that those amendments will be tabled by the Government on Monday 15 April?
Mr. Biffen: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I take at once the force of what he says and shall see what can be done. He asked about Wednesday's business, but it is not in my gift to say when one item of business will conclude and the next begin. However, such decisions on licence fees have previously been resolved in 90 minutes.
Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the business that he has announced for the week after the Easter break — short as it is — is relatively light and not terribly important? I hope to be in my place then, but that will not be true of all hon. Members after the Easter break. Will my right hon. Friend consider sending our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a message, supported by the whole Cabinet, suggesting
1350
that she might like to take a few days off on her return from the far east, and perhaps go to the Mediterranean, to some nice quiet spot beside a golf course?
Mr. Biffen: I am not sure what would happen to me if I conveyed the second part of that message. But I have a message for my hon. Friend, and that is, that for my hon. Friend to describe the surrogacy legislation, the Second Reading of the Prosecution of Offences Bill and the Interception of Communications Bill as falling into a somewhat second league category shows that he has fallen slightly below his normally acute vision.
Mr. James Lamond: Did the Leader of the House pluck up the courage to have a word with the Prime Minister before she left about the need for a debate, or at least a statement, on star wars? She went to the United States and recklessly pledged our support for that, although research costing $26 billion is involved. When the Prime Minister returns from her tour of the far east, she will no doubt make a statement boasting about what she has achieved there, and highlighting the opening of a dam that was built with money given by the Labour Government. It cost just over £100 million. That will merit a statement from the Dispatch Box, but $26 billion which could have been gone on much-needed aid for the far east will be spent without even any mention of it being made in the House.
Mr. Biffen: Governments come and go, but taxpayers are the constant factor. They supply the public funds, whether that money is spent, overseas or at home. However, I shall of course draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: My right hon. Friend will be aware that since before Christmas right hon. and hon. Members have been subjected to organised lobbying campaigns in relation to badger baiting, the possible extension of VAT, the taxation of pensions, the limited list, tuition fees and so on. Most of that lobbying has been carried out courtesy of a word processor. Members of Parliament have received threatening letters from, for example, the Roche drug company. Has not the time come for a debate to be held on the nature of the lobbying of Members of Parliament and the manner in which it is carried out, as well as on how we should respond to such organised campaigns?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a point of widespread interest to the House. We have to learn to live with this, but I am not sure that we would make living with it that much easier if we shared our collective agonies with each other in a debate.
Mr. Alf Dubs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his approach tends to be that when requests are made to him either too meekly or too aggressively he resists them? Therefore, will he take note of the fact that I am trying to steer a middle course in asking him yet again what the chances are of having a debate on the Commission for Racial Equality report on immigration control procedures?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is being terribly moderate. I did not think that he was a great devotee of the middle of the road. Doubtless he, like me, holds to

1351
heart Aneurin Bevan's strictures on the subject. There is no likelihood of an early debate on the topic, but I shall continue to bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's claims.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the security arrangements for admission into the House have been tightened there have been outside long queues of parties coming into the House? I am particularly concerned about the effect that this has on children, the elderly and the disabled in bad weather. Could he find time for an early debate on this matter to discuss other ways of admitting visitors to the House?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a matter that gives concern to a considerable number of hon. Members, and causes inconvenience for a number of constituents. However, I suggest that, in the first instance, my hon. Friend elaborates his complaints so that they can be considered by the Services Committee.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Following the Government's panic actions to keep blameless Scottish football supporters away from London, may we expect urgent steps to protect the population from young Conservative hooligans?
Mr. Biffen: There must be some sharp rejoinder that buries that subject once and for all, but I regret to say that I cannot think of it.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Over the Easter recess, will my right hon. Friend look at the way in which the work of Select Committees is being persistently held up by the dog-in-the-manger attitude of the alliance in not allowing the replacement of members on Select Committees?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I know that it causes deep concern among the Chairmen of the Select Committees.
Mr. John Ryman: In arranging the parliamentary business, has the Leader of the House been discussing with the Prime Minister the appointment of peers announced in the newspapers today? In view of the immense talent on the Government Benches, why have no Conservative Members been elevated to the other House? Does not the fear of consequent by-elections and the Government's knowledge that they will be defeated at such by-elections mean that they are not willing to risk them?
Mr. Biffen: These are always matters that lie in the eye of the beholder. I looked at the list, and I thought what a fascinating social change it showed when the Labour Benches in the House of Lords are being stuffed with stockbrokers and merchant bankers.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern that I have felt since November that the House is sitting later and later into the night, and in correspondence and questions I have asked my right hon. Friend whether he will consider looking at Standing Order No. 2 and bringing in morning sittings. On Tuesday 16 April, there is the Prosecution of Offences Bill and other Bills, which will certainly go on late into the
1352
night as usual. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend look favourably at the possibility of morning sittings, at least experimentally?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is already a noted Member after but a few months' service. However, I have been here long enough to remember morning sittings, and, although they were hilarious for the small number of hon. Members who took part in the proceedings, hardly anybody turned up, hardly any business of substance was transacted, and the whole thing crumbled into farce.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety in Scotland about the delay of the announcement of the result of the unnecessary review of Scottish lowland airport policy? I am told, in a little letter from the Secretary of State for Transport today, that, like many other important Scottish announcements, this is to be made by means of a written answer so that we shall not be able to question him. I do not want to delay the announcement any further, but should not the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make an oral statement to the House today so that we can question him?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly pass that request to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Minister responsible for sport to come to the House immediately after the recess to make a statement about sporting fixtures? Will he ask the Minister to include in that statement the challenge by six British girl jockeys of six American girl jockeys to a race at York on 14 June? Will he be backing the British fillies all the way?
Mr. Biffen: That question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister responsible for sport. I shall explain to him the virtues of going to see my hon. Friend after the recess.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Leader of the House tear himself away from the subject of jockeys and turn his attention to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Risley and the sacking by Exclusive Cleaners of the cleaning staff who refused to accept a wage cut?
Will the right hon. Gentleman examine in particular the security aspect, because the trade unions claim that normal security procedures are being weakened to allow temporary staff in? Will he explain to the Secretary of State for the Environment that the company has cleaning contracts for the Houses of Parliament? Despite the firm being a massive contributor to the Conservative party, will he consider removing the contract from the firm?
Mr. Biffen: I shall try to moderate my reply, despite the sententious terms of the question. I shall draw attention to what has been said. The hon. Gentleman might seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment since it seems that its wider ventilation would be of advantage.
Mr. Dave Nellist: When the Prime Minister returns in a fortnight's time from the far east, will the Leader of the House ensure that her statement describes in particular her visit to Sri Lanka a week today? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for a large minority of the population there the visit will be seen as condoning President Jayawardene's policy of virtual extermination of

1353
the Tamil-speaking peoples of the north-eastern provinces, his ban on opposition public meetings and his recent lengthy detention of opposition and trade union leaders? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Prime Minister's statement deals with those matters?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has formally identified himself with the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka. I shall draw the Prime Minister's attention to his comments.
Sir John Wells: Can my right hon. Friend offer an early debate on alternative medicine which was debated in the other place recently? Is he aware of the great national interest in the subject, and has he heard about the recently formed council? Does he agree that views from all parts of the House on this important topic should be voiced?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's pertinent point, but we are moving to a time of the year when time is tight, particularly in view of the Finance Bill. However, I shall consider my hon. Friend's request.

PETITION

  Transport Services
  10.54 am
  Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to present a petition from the Walsall metropolitan borough council which is strongly opposed to the Transport Bill. The petition states that the proposals in the Bill would cause tremendous damage to existing passenger transport provision, and that is certainly so in the West Midlands.
  The petition concludes:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject any legislation to implement the proposals of the White Paper on buses and the Transport Bill and commit itself instead to the further development of an integrated local rail and bus network under direct control of locally elected representatives.
  I totally agree with the sentiments expressed in the petition. It gives me much pleasure to present it to the House.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (Newark)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Since the start of the debate has been somewhat delayed, I suggest that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) split the time left for their two debates, so that the first debate will end just after 11.25 am.
  10.55 am
  Mr. Richard Alexander: On 25 June last year I was advised by Lord Trefgarne in a letter that it was proposed to close Newark's static workshops of the royal Electricial and Mechanical Engineers with a loss of 193 posts in Newark. This is part of a much larger review and my comments relate to the Newark closure only.
  I very much regret the way in which this has been done. Leaving aside for a moment the lack of consultation with those most intimately involved — the men and women who work there — I find it astonishing that proposals of this nature and magnitude were taken without any statement or debate on the Floor of the House. Until this moment, I have been unable to make any meaningful representations to a Minister in this Chamber. I was able to make a protest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when requesting a debate on this subject during Business Questions.
  My astonishment and regret have been shared by the workers at the workshops who find it incredible that their Member of Parliament could not raise a matter of such fundamental importance — namely, a decision by a Government Department to close their workshop — unless he was fortunate in the ballot for an Adjournment debate, which I have been. Such a debate has been refused many times before today.
  This regret has been compounded by the tactics of my political opponents in my constituency who have milked the matter for all it is worth. The Labour party on the Newark district council proposed a motion of no confidence in me because I had not been able to raise the matter here. I received an unpleasant letter from the district secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers who, after a meeting of his members, wrote:
  "I was instructed to write a letter to yourself voicing their criticism and disgust at your total lack of practical help where it matters—in the Commons."
  That sort of offensive stuff and party political capital being made out of a difficult position may be par for the course for the individuals concerned, but it is unfair that I should have been put in the position where this is publicly stated.
  Before the proposals were announced on 25 June, I understand that there had been no prior consultation with the work force. They had been given no opportunity to explain to those conducting the review the importance of their work, the skills they exercise and the hardship that the closure would bring to them and their families. Yet the REME workshops are the fourth largest employer of labour in the town of Newark.
  Newark's unemployment is high — at the last count 14·7 per cent. in the Newark travel-to-work area. Of that, 16·8 per cent. is male unemployment. Therefore, the

  1355
  proposal, if implemented, will be disastrous for those involved. There was clearly no thought of the effect on the unemployment situation when the proposals were formulated, and I regret that very much. The decision was an enormous shock to all concerned. The proposal is that the work force can get work at the Old Dalby workshops, which are in a different county and easily an hour's drive away, each way, when the weather and the road conditions are good. That is not practical for most people, and in bad weather it will mean three hours added to a person's working day. It will prohibit most women with families from even contemplating the move.
  The people involved are not clerks or semi-skilled manual workers; the work done is the repair of Clansman radios. The workshop has been certified to the same standards as are applied to civilian contractors who manufacture or repair equipment for the services. I understand that it is the only unit in the country to be so certified.
  The work force must be specially trained, and the training takes up to four years. Emergencies often occur. The vastly increased travel to work requirement would mean that it would not be possible for those travelling those distances to carry out emergency work or to do short notice priority work. The local technical college is geared to meet this specialist training requirement. That would be lost if the proposals were put into practice.
  Nor would it be wise to have all this work done at one location and at one workshop. If there were a fire or other disaster at the Old Dalby works, no other place would have the expertise and equipment to do the necessary emergency work. In any event, why should the work be transferred from an area of high unemployment such as Newark to a prosperous area such as Old Dalby in Leicestershire?
  If there had to be rationalisation, it would have been more equitable to bring the work to an area of high unemployment rather than to take it away. It has all been so unfair. Newark may have a high unemployment rate, but it can offer excellent transport access, which Old Dalby cannot. We are in a prime communications position, virtually on the A1 and on the east coast main rail line. REME makes sense at Newark. It does not make sense to move it away.
  We shall be told that money will be saved. In relation to some of the other closures, that may be the case, but I have seen no figures to show that closing Newark will save money. There are 193 people involved and redundancy and unemployment benefit will follow if the closure takes place. Even if some jobs are taken up at Old Dalby, there will be relocation costs.
  If there will be savings—I dispute that there will be—we should be told precisely what they are and how they are made up before the decision to close is implemented. At present, we do not have that information.
  I submit that there are no proper grounds on which the proposal should be implemented. From the point of view of the skills that will be lost if No. 33 central workshop closes and of ease of communications, and from the taxpayers' point of view and, not least, from that of the many loyal workers there, these workshops should not be closed. It will be a crying shame if they are, and I urge the Minister not to allow it to happen.
  11.4 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on securing this Adjournment debate. I am grateful to him for providing me with this opportunity to explain—more fully perhaps than in earlier answers given in the House —the reasons that have led us to reduce the Army's overall static workshop capacity and, thus, to the closure of No. 33 central workshop at Newark.
  Before dealing with the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend, I want the House to be clear about three points of principle which underlie our decision, announced last December, to proceed with the measures that we proposed in June 1984. The first and paramount point of principle is that we have a duty to the taxpayer to see that defence funds are spent only on essential defence needs and are spent in the most cost-effective manner. The review of the REME static workshops in 1982 showed that, overall, we had substantially more capacity than our operational needs could really justify—nearly 20 per cent. more at that time. Recognising that some reduction was thus inevitable, we allowed some slimming of the work force through not replacing many of those who left it in the normal course of events. But this is not an economic answer in the long term, because it merely converts the over-capacity problem into one of under-utilised capital assets.
  Plainly, retaining excess capacity is not efficient; but nor is it efficient to retain under-utilised facilites, since that just pushes up the overhead costs of the operation. We really have to reduce overheads, and this means concentrating our programmed base repair activities into fewer, better designed, and better located workshops.
  The Army, and the other services too, for that matter, should not be retaining in-house workshop capacity to do work that can be done quite satisfactorily, and less expensively, by industry or the motor trade—provided this involves no operational penalty. We have looked closely at the scope we have for putting out to contract repair work on — for the most part — what we call "commercial equivalent" equipments. Since these tend to be equipments such as Landrovers or hydraulic vehicle jacks, which are more readily replaced off the shelf, it is less vital that they are repaired by the Army. By having these repairs or overhauls performed under competitive contract, we can save money where the private sector is able to give a more cost-effective service because it can spread its overheads across both its military and its commerical work load.
  Having started the study of the REME static workshop organisation in 1981, we found it necessary to recast its terms of reference in early 1982, following the report of the Public Accounts Committee "Repair of B Vehicle Assemblies". This widened the scope of the review quite substantially; moreover, the review team's main report was in turn followed by subsidiary studies dealing with separate functional and geographical problems, with the result that the full report was not considered by the Army Board until June 1983.
  The submission to Ministers in July 1983 proposed reductions at a number of base and command workshops and the closure of No. 33 central workshop at Newark and No. 38 central workshop at Chilwell. It also envisaged doubling the amount of base repair work put out to

  1357
  contract. The combined effect of these measures would eliminate the 20 per cent. over-capacity in static workshops, redress the imbalance of trades and skills between workshops and allow significant savings in manpower, capital expenditure and running costs.
  Ministers asked for further research to validate the proposed enhancements at certain workshops and for examination in greater depth of the potential for increased repair by contract. The final proposals, summarised in the consultative memorandum referred to in my answer of 28 June 1984 to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne), involved the same closures, a raising of contract repair to 36 per cent. of the base repair load, and net manpower reductions of 504 posts on the 1 December 1984 strength figures and 1,071 posts on the 1 January 1983 strength figures.
  The benefits that we expected from restructuring the static workshops along these lines were not only a tauter and more cost-effective organisation, but one that would still be able to fulfil its operational tasks quickly and competently and residual workshops that would be well sited to perform their respective roles in both the United Kingdom and in Germany. The proposals assumed less backloading of armoured vehicles from BAOR for repair in the United Kingdom, but a compensating increase in the number of B vehicle assemblies to be backloaded for this purpose, since this was more economical and less operationally undesirable.
  The Ministry of Defence recognised the far-reaching nature of these proposals, and especially the consequence for a large number of its employees. It therefore made every effort to ensure that ample time was afforded for consultation with the work force and its trade union representatives. Indeed, the initial period for such consultation was twice extended at the trade unions' request. Furthermore, various delegations and representations were received by Ministers and their officials well after the 1 October conclusion of the formal consultation period, and delegations continue to be seen. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces visited Newark on 26 November 1984. The decision that we announced on 10 December was therefore taken after full consideration of all the points that had been made to us during the consultation phase.
  Let me now turn to the specific points made by my hon. Friend and contained in the petition from Newark town council.
  The consequences for Newark of the closure of 33 central workshop REME are fully appreciated by Ministers, not least because they have been underlined very clearly both in various written representations and by the delegation which accompanied my hon. Friend when he visited my noble Friend on 17 October 1984.
  I can also assure the House that the economic implications of the rundown of the REME organisation as a whole have been considered most carefully, and that the decision arrived at provides the optimum solution for increasing the effectiveness of repair support for the Army within the resources available to us.
  I am very conscious of the disappointment that will be felt by the people of Newark—not to mention the work force itself—as a result of the closure of 33 central workshop. The fact remains that the Army as a whole now
  1358
  finds itself with more base repair capacity than it can justifiably retain. Wherever the ensuing closures or reductions were effected, our employees and the local community would be certain to question it, and to remonstrate with us accordingly. But the Ministry of Defence, having identified excess capacity and the inefficiencies that that would produce, is bound to look for the most cost-effective way to put the problem right for the longer term, even if it involves unpalatable decisions. At least in this instance many of our people will, we hope, feel able to apply for jobs in 35 central workshop at Old Dalby—which I think must mean that this closure will prove to have much less of a profound effect than might otherwise have been the case.
  A number of points relate to questions of cost. The costs estimate supplied with the consultative document that I mentioned earlier—an expanded version of which has been passed to the trade unions—has been queried by various parties. It has been observed that there is no figure for redundancy compensation in our estimates. Redundancy costs are excluded from all Government investment appraisals, in conformity with Treasury instructions.
  Some doubt has also been expressed about the validity of estimates for the transfer of existing plant from Chilwell and Newark to other workshops. Our estimates were based on the best available information at the time they were made, bearing in mind that detailed on-site studies of, for instance, new workshop layout, were not possible before the conclusion of consultations. Moreover, I think there has been inadequate recognition of the fact that much existing plant is now nearing the end of its economic life. The costs of maintaining and repairing it in the future would mean that its transport to the appropriate new location would not really be a sound investment—and, of course, some new plant for the surviving locations has already been in the pipeline for a considerable time.
  Another area questioned is our costing of future repair by contract. It should not be forgotten that REME has quite a lot of experience in this field already—contracting out repair work is not a novel practice. Our estimates for this have aimed to be conservative, since we clearly did not wish to be accused later of having viewed the problem through rose-tinted spectacles. However, we would expect that, as the level of repair work put to contract rises, so will the competition to tender. That in turn should lead to keener pricing. Additionally, firms undertaking this kind of work will see it as being more regular and more plentiful, and therefore deserving of their investment in improving their plant which, in due course, will help to reduce their overheads. It will remain our responsibility, naturally, to ensure that the quality of repair work produced under contract remains fully acceptable to the armed services.
  I am sorry if this has been a disappointing reply for my hon. Friend. No one could have done more than he has for Newark's retention, and I am sorry to hear of some of the personal criticisms that he has suffered in this regard. They are wholly unfounded and unwarranted. But it would be wrong of me to suggest in any way that the decision will be changed. I hope that I have been able to explain to the House the reasons for our decision.

  Primary Education (Scotland)
  11.13 am
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of primary education in rural Scotland. It is a considerable change from the last subject, and those following the debate from the Public Gallery must be wondering what on earth is going on.
  I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to give a clear statement of the Government's policy on village schools throughout Scotland. I say that because there is widespread belief that the Scottish Education Department has abdicated all responsibility for policy and guidance in that field, and that local education authorities have been left to muddle through in the context of Government spending cuts and the general upheaval that is going on in Scottish education at present.
  I shall resist the temptation to go into the case for an independent review of teachers' pay and conditions in this debate, except perhaps to say that I have not yet met anyone in my constituency or elsewhere who supports the Secretary of State for Scotland's refusal to settle the dispute by setting up an independent review.
  Many of us hoped that the recent fall in pupil numbers in Scotland would be used as an opportunity to raise standards in schools, but instead the Government have chosen to use falling rolls as an excuse to slash funds for education in Scotland. Indeed, I understand that in 1980–81 the Secretary of State for Scotland specifically told the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, during the course of the rate support grant negotiations in that year, that more primary schools should be closed.
  When regional and islands councils are compelled to cut their budgets, as they have been by the Government, it is, I suppose, inevitable that they see small peripheral services such as village schools as convenient targets for cuts. That is what has been happening in rural Scotland, and all over Scotland. Between 1980 and 1984, no fewer than 102 primary schools were closed in Scotland, and councils of all political complexions have been considering the closure of village schools.
  The independent councillors in the Western Isles and Highland region were at it last year. The Tories in Tayside and Lothian region were taking steps to close rural primary schools. The Labour council in Fife is seeking to close schools. The Liberal chairman of the Borders region education committee has the most ambitious scheme of all, with a hit list of 25 village schools.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is here. I know that he is concerned about the closures, as well he ought to be, because many of his constituents, including myself, are involved. I hope that we make some headway on the issue during the debate. I put it to the hon. Member, and to his friend, councillor Tom Burnham, a Liberal councillor in the Borders region, and to the Minister, that the whole principle of community-based primary education is now under threat in the Borders region. That could be repeated elsewhere in Scotland. It has been suggested that no fewer than a quarter of the total number of primary schools in the Borders region could be subject to review, and that is a matter of acute concern.
  Policies in different areas are varying wildly. Some authorities are seeking to close schools with 50 pupils;
  1360
  others are retaining schools with as few as 10 children in them. I stress that I am a passionate believer in local democracy and local decision making, but since the whole matter is inspired by Government spending cuts, I believe that the Government have a duty at least to express a view on how those cuts should be applied.
  There is a place for Government guidance on policies which have national implications, and I put it to the Minister that the Secretary of State for Scotland has a duty to take an interest in village schools, not only in the context of national education policy but in the context of the need for a national rural social policy.
  We in the Labour party are currently working on rural policy for the next Government, but for the time being a Conservative Government are in power, and people in rural Scotland are entitled to know the Government's thoughts on the matter. As he approaches the subject, I hope that the Minister will not object to me, as a Catholic, reminding him that John Knox wrote in 1570 that
  "there should be a school in every parish"
  in Scotland. So the Minister is attacking principles that run very deep.
  I want to illustrate the state of alarm and despondency that has been caused in rural areas in Scotland by the closure threats before I go on to analyse the case for preserving and developing community-based primary education.
  In my constituency of East Lothian, four village schools, at Dirleton, East Saltoun, Humbie and Whitekirk, all came under threat of closure last year. Obviously, that threat had a disruptive effect on everybody concerned. Long-term planning and development had to be abandoned in the face of the immediate threat. The children, teachers and parents faced six months of uncertainty while they considered their position and put their case to Lothian regional council. Initially, the two smallest communities thought that they could not possibly resist a decision taken by big brother in Edinburgh, but we got our act together. We demonstrated that the parents and the wider community supported their local primary schools. We proved that those villages could and would sustain adequate pupil numbers to justify at least a single teacher school and, thanks to the steadfast support of the Labour group on Lothian regional council, those schools were saved.
  However, that was neither the beginning nor the end of the story. One of those four schools had had to go through the same review procedure one year previously, and there is no guarantee that those schools will not face another closure threat next year. That constant atmosphere of crisis is bad for the education of the children and bad for the confidence of the teachers and parents. The time has come for a clear policy to resolve the issue on a permanent basis.
  I have strong personal feelings on the subject. My own five-year-old son recently started his education in the village school at Hutton in Berwickshire, represented by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. That school was threatened with closure last year and the Borders regional council is now putting us through the mill again. That council's current proposals could mean that my son will be made to move to four different schools in the course of eight years of his primary education. That demonstrates the disruptive effect of uncertainty and closures in rural primary education on my own son. I hope

  1361
  that the House will understand why I feel particularly concerned about what is going on in that region and, indeed, in other regions.
  I now refer to the detailed case for community-based primary schools in rural areas. The real case for closures is usually based on financial considerations, although the argument is usually dressed up in educational jargon. However, even the economic case for closures is deceptive. There may be a short-term gain from shutting a village school and selling the building, but at the end of the day the local education authority is still responsible for educating the same number of children. On top of that, it will have to face a permanent commitment to substantial and rising additional transport costs. That has a knock-on effect on educational considerations because extended journeys to school for young children are bound to have an effect on their concentration and ability to make progress in school. One of the proposals currently under consideration in the borders could mean that some primary school pupils in the Lammermuir area in my constituency will face 50-minute journeys every morning and evening on their way to and from primary school. That is when the roads are not blocked by snow, as they frequently are in winter. That illustrates the extreme nature of some of the proposals that are being considered.
  The economic case for closures is debatable, but the community case for retaining village schools is overwhelming. It is related to the glaring need for a positive rural social policy, and has to be seen against the background of the disastrous effect of the Government's free market economic policies in rural Scotland. We know what is happening to village shops, village telephone kiosks, bus services and small businesses throughout rural Scotland. The local school is a vital component in any community. It is a focus for community activity. It helps to encourage children to identify with their home neighbourhood. The closure of the school can be a mortal blow to a fragile village community.
  Apart from anything else, the lack of a local primary school has been shown to deter young families from staying in a village, which does permanent damage to the social structure and economy of that community. I can think of examples in my constituency of two comparable villages. In one village the school has been closed and it has turned into a sleepy village to which people retire. In the other village, the school has been kept open, and it now supports a mixed and active community.
  However, the economic and community considerations are side issues. The real priority must be the quality of education for children. It seems to be fashionable for educational bureaucrats to run down small schools, but that attitude is not shared by teachers or parents of children at village schools in Scotland. There are certain disadvantages when a single teacher has to cope with the full range of primary 1–7 in one school, in what is in effect an extended composite class. However, there are also well substantiated advantages in the environment of a rural village school. The idea that schools with fewer than three teachers were a bad thing originated in the Plowden report of 1967, but the report failed to substantiate that case. Lady Plowden herself put the following question in a letter to The Times in 1978:
  "Is it right to take the heart out of a community by taking away the children, Pied Piper like, thus losing the bond which is
  1362
  created within and between families through a common interest in the school, involving parents and even grandparents, which is both socially and educationally desirable?"
  The closers of village schools do not get much comfort from Lady Plowden.
  No doubt the Minister will have heard of Rural Forum, the umbrella organisation that represents the whole range of Scottish rural organisations, including trade unions, women's institutes, farmers and even landowners. Rural Forum held a conference on rural schools last month in Edinburgh, at which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire spoke. The clear message from that conference was that the educational benefits of village schools far outweighed the disadvantage. What are those advantages? Small pupil numbers make it possible to adopt a more flexible approach to teaching. Project work is a feature in those schools, and in that sort of extended family environment it has been shown that children develop social skills much more readily, learning to share the attention of the teacher. Older children develop a sense of responsibility towards the younger children. All in all, experience has shown that the system can work well. I have spoken to most of the secondary school heads in my constituency about the matter, and all of them without exception have confirmed that children from the smaller primary schools perform at least as well as those from bigger schools when they go on to the secondary school.
  I accept that there is no room for complacency about the quality of education in small schools. I should like to see developments related to the special circumstances of rural schools. There is something to be said for clustering schools and sharing teachers and equipment, as has been done in some other areas. It is obvious that teachers who will have to deal with mixed age classes in a rural environment probably need special training. There is scope for developing parental involvement in those schools. Of course, we should continue to learn from the experience gained elsewhere, whether in England, Wales or further afield in places such as Sweden or Finland where people have been working on the subject.
  I stress that I am not saying that every tiny rural school must be retained regardless of all the circumstances. Where a school roll has collapsed irrevocably below 15, it is obviously sensible to review the situation, although I would tend to concentrate on the possibility of attracting more young families into such an area as part of a broader rural development policy rather than taking the negative approach of closing the school and therefore shutting down the community.
  There is something awfully final about a school closure. Closed village schools are never reopened, so the crop of closures that is now under consideration in Scotland could have permanent and serious effects on the neighbourhoods concerned. It is worth mentioning that the most recent figures published by the Scottish Office show a rise in projected primary school rolls in Scotland, so we must stop and think before the process goes any further.
  Above all, there must be a genuine and credible consultation process directly involving parents and the wider community. People have no confidence in the present consultation procedure. At present the regional or islands council concerned is the combined prosecutor, judge and jury in the consultation process on the future of rural schools. Until 1981 the Secretary of State for Scotland had to sanction the closure of any school, but section 23(6A) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 and

  1363
  the associated regulations mean that local authorities can close schools that are within five miles of the alternative school without ministerial approval. That is despite the fact that the journeys for many pupils may be much longer than five miles in places where such amalgamations take place.
  That is in marked contrast to the situation in England, where ministerial responsibility is still acknowledged. In a written reply on 17 March 1983 the Prime Minister herself said:
  "We recognise the value of rural schools to their communities. This is reflected in the calculations underlying rate support grant to take account of the additional costs of provision in sparsely populated areas, in the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to local education authorities about falling school rolls, and in his detailed consideration of all closure proposals that fall to him to decide, which takes account in each case of local circumstances, the views of the local community, and the educational needs of the children concerned."—[Official Report, 17 March 1983, Vol. 39 c. 234.].
  We have no such guarantees or safeguards in rural Scotland. Indeed, one Scottish village community threatened with the closure of its school is considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That should not be necessary.
  I conclude by appealing to the Minister to acknowledge the case for rural schools in Scotland and to consider establishing a new review procedure that will be seen by all concerned to be fair. I should like to wish the Minister a happy Easter, but I shall refrain from doing so until I have received from him a response that I hope will be positive.
  11.31 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): First, in case I forget to do so at the end of my speech, I wish the hon. Member for East Lothian a happy Easter, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), whose interest in these matters we all acknowledge.
  We should place the question of rural schools in the context of the improvements that we have made in general to primary education in Scotland, which apply to rural as well as urban schools. We have embarked upon a primary education development project, stemming from the report "Learning and Teaching in P4 and P7" by the inspectorate That report followed a survey that revealed shortcomings in the primary school curriculum, including, especially, the failure to establish the relevance of skills and knowledge acquired at school to the real world.
  In planning the national development programmes and the annual programme of inspection of schools by Her Majesty's inspectors we are always concerned to ensure that schools in different environments and of different sizes are given their proper place. In that way, in practical terms, we ensure that the interests of small rural schools are always covered.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister refers to the inspectorate. The inspectorate is not always much help. Dirleton school in my constituency received a glowing report from the inspectors last year but, almost in the same post, it also received a closure threat. I wish that the inspectors could save the schools, but they cannot.
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, but the authorities have to take many factors into account when considering the question of school closure.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned resources. The Government's public expenditure plans make generous provision for primary school staffing. There is a flexibility factor of 8 per cent. over the basic staff complements recommended in Scottish Education Department circular 1029. The hon. Gentleman referred to expenditure. Resources are always limited. However, we have increased expenditure per pupil in real terms in each of the past few years. We have also introduced all-graduate entry into primary school teaching. Those measures will have beneficial effects in rural as well as urban areas.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the present teachers' pay dispute. The feature of the dispute that is of special relevance to the debate is the threat by the Educational Institute of Scotland of selective action in primary schools to replace, for a short period at least, targeted action on secondary schools in Conservative-held constituencies. It would be wrong for me to devote too much time to the dispute, but the management, the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and the Professional Association of Teachers all recognise that the sensible way forward would be to undertake a review of pay and conditions within the Scottish joint negotiating council. The third union, the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, wants to enter the normal annual pay negotiations. Only the EIS is not prepared to take either route. I hope that the planned selective action will not be widespread in rural schools, because of the effects on the schools and the communities to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the implications for rural communities when small schools close. He referred to the statutory framework which, as he said, is different north of the border. The legislation has been revised by the present Government. I will spell out the reasons for the present legislative framework in Scotland. Before 1981, the consent of the Secretary of State was required for every school closure in Scotland. In some cases there was no opposition to closure. There was a consensus that the school, for one reason or another, had outlived its usefulness or the original need. The hon. Gentleman has told us that it is not the essence of his case that there should never be any school closures in rural areas.
  Education authorities had no option but to seek the Secretary of State's permission to close. The procedure was wasteful of resources, and bureaucratic. It was also wrong in principle, for it had the effect of passing to central Government a local matter that would more properly have been left to local discretion.
  I found some of the hon. Gentleman's comments surprising. My impression was that the Labour party favoured the decentralising of decisions to local authorities. I believe that it was right that the Education (Scotland) Act 1981 transferred the responsiblity for closure to the education authority. However, it is quite wrong to suggest that local authorities were left — I believe that this was the hon. Gentleman's phrase—to their own devices. The Government recognised that some types of school would entail special circumstances. Safeguards were therefore introduced, especially in respect of proposing to close schools in more remote areas. The regulations made in 1981 require that the Secretary of

  1365
  State's consent be obtained before the implementation of any primary school closure proposal that would result in pupils having to transfer to another school five or more miles away. In the case of secondary schools, the distance is 10 miles. It was envisaged at that time that a significant proportion of closure proposals affecting rural schools would continue to require the formal consent of the Secretary of State. The 1981 Act did much more than that. One of its main features was the parents' charter, the objective of which was to give parents more say in deciding which schools their children should attend.
  The education authorities are now required, before reaching a decision on any school closure proposal, to consult many people including the parents of all children in attendance at the school and of all children who, while not yet of school age, could be expected to attend the school concerned within two years of the date of the closure proposal. Those consultations are an important part of the process. They are taken seriously by all concerned, as witnessed by the hon. Gentleman, who gave examples of two cases where local communities succeeded in persuading their education authorities to abandon proposals to close rural schools.
  Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to cover this point, but I hope that he accepts that it is deeply unsatisfactory that the future of something as important to a village community as its school should be left entirely in the hands of the authority which has a pecuniary interest in closing it. Indeed, the interest has been imposed on it by the Secretary of State. Is there not a case for an independent inquiry procedure to be set up? I understand why the Minister may not wish to take back the responsibility for reviewing such matters, but there must be a case for setting up an independent inquiry system in areas where there are closure threats.
  Mr. Stewart: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but I believe that the decision must be made by the local authority. It must take account of all the factors involved, and it is responsible to the electorate of the area. However, as I emphasised, it is not an unfettered choice, because if the closure will involve transfer to schools more than five miles away, the decision must be made by Ministers.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), whose interest in the matter is well known, for introducing the debate. Could I press the Minister on the importance of the framework in which the consultations take place. I accept that the decision should be devolved and that the regional authorities must make the ultimate decision in each case. No one has argued against that; if we did, we should be charged with being anti-devolution, whereas most Opposition Members are in favour of it. In many of their structure plans, the regional authorities lay heavy emphasis on the fact that rural areas should be supported in a very conceivable sense, yet some of their policies, especially the primary school closure programme, go against that.
  Have the Government any interest or are they taking any part in the promulgation of the ideas contained in the Armitage Norton report, which was the genesis of the present round of closures started by my local authority in the Borders region? Is it the Government's intention to
  1366
  encourage other regional authorities to adopt the cost-benefit analysis contained in that report? If it is, the Minister will have to answer many such debates in the future.
  The Government have a duty to set out the framework in which they believe consultation should take place. They need not bring forward a statutory instrument; they could simply give guidance to local authorities, especially about consultation with community councils and with the public in general, as well as the statutory duties that are imposed on them by the 1981 Act, which, at the end of the day, amount to nothing more than writing to parents and saying what they propose to do.
  Mr. Stewart: Of course, we have issued circulars to local education authorities setting out their duties and responsibilities under the Act, and no doubt local authorities will take into account the factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. But, ultimately, within the framework set out in the Act, this should be a matter of local discretion.
  A delicate and difficult balance must be struck in relation to the use of resources. An education authority has a responsibility to the entire area that it serves, and money saved in one part of the service could be used to improve the service elsewhere. As the hon. Member for East Lothian fairly acknowledged, a balance must also be struck on the purely educational merits. On the one hand, the pupil moving from a small village school to a larger school benefits from the wider educational opportunities that become available and the social benefits likely to accrue from contact with larger peer groups. On the other hand, I do not deny the hon. Gentleman's point that a small school can have an educational richness all its own. Increased travelling time makes the child's day longer and thereby detracts from the educational advantages of attendance at a larger school.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Has the Minister said that to local authorities?
  Mr. Stewart: Certainly, and I assure the House that where a case is referred to my right hon. Friend for decision, the factors of educational advantage and travelling distance, including travel arrangements, and the length of the school day are carefully examined.
  The position is different north and south of the border, but the different responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science do not mean that there are no rural school closures in England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that since the new Scottish arrangements were introduced in 1981, 18 schools have closed in Scotland and 390 have closed in England. The hon. Gentleman should not place too much emphasis on the different statutory provisions north and south of the border.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to Hutton primary school, which his children attend and which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. He will know the position on the consultations about that closure.
  I must emphasise that we always have the interests of rural communities very much in mind. We are undertaking a research project on the parental choice provisions of the Education (Scotland) Act 1981, which will include an examination of parental choice in six areas of Scotland,

  1367
  including a rural district, and I await with interest the result of that part of the project, which is expected within the next few months.
  We all appreciate the difficulties faced by education authorities and communities about school closures. The hon. Gentleman recognised that school rolls have been falling, and he referred to the uncertainty for the future. Beyond the immediate period, there is much uncertainty about the trends in school rolls. If education authorities are properly to fulfil their accountability to the public, they must take whatever steps they consider necessary to rationalise the provision of school education. Therefore, school closures, which occur in urban as well as in rural areas, should be considered as part of a larger canvas and should not be seen as a discriminating or random measure.
  We are committed to the principle of reducing direction from the centre, but we have acknowledged that, on some occasions, local discretion cannot be completely unfettered. The present legislative framework in Scotland provides the correct balance between the rights of the local authority responsible to local people to take decisions and to take account of wider considerations, which is why, under certain conditions, school closure proposals still come to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for consideration. When the closure proposals come to my right hon. Friend we shall be conscious of the basic theme of the hon. Member's speech: the special and important role that small rural schools play in the fabric of rural life.

  National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Dr. Gerard Vaughan.
  11.50 am
  Sir Gerard Vaughan: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw attention to the unsatisfactory redundancy and re-employment terms offered to staff employed at the National Institute for Research in Dairying at Shinfield, Reading, in my constituency. The institute was closed last week. I am grateful for the support given by Lord Sherfield, chancellor of Reading university, who has put down questions in another place, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee). With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the consent of the Minister, my hon. Friend will join in this debate.
  It seems that there may have been a serious misunderstanding about the nature of the employment of the staff of NIRD. The NIRD is administered by a delegacy of Reading university under their ordinance No. 24 and also under the terms of a trust that was set up in 1963. The effect is that the staff hold contracts with the university. A number of them are listed in the university calendar as university staff, some—this is important—as academic staff. It is quite clear that they are employed by the university, but the university does not manage the finances of NIRD. They are provided by the Agricultural and Food Research Council, which also set out the conditions of service. This seems to me to be a very complicated and, I should have thought, unsatisfactory arrangement, but it has worked very well over the years until now.
  In 1974, the delegacy decided that all new staff should retire at the age of 60, not, as previously, at 65, but the existing staff—this is also important—were given an option to continue under their contracts until the age of 65. In the delegacy minutes of February 1974 it is noted
  "that the existing male staff will prefer to retain their present contractual age of 65."
  This was accepted by the AFRC.
  In 1975, a further change was offered: to lower the pension age from 65 to 60. Again, this was an important option for the staff and no change was made to their contracts; it was a pension change. In April 1984 they were told, somewhat unexpectedly, that the NIRD at Reading would be closed in March of this year and that in its place there would be the Animals and Grassland Research Institute, mainly at Hurley and at Arborfield, and a completely new Food Research Institute Reading at Shinfield. But—and this is the unsatisfactory aspect to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention—staff under 60 were to be offered new posts on clearly less good terms, since they would be compelled to retire at the age of 60. Staff over 60 were to be made redundant without compensation.
  In the intervening period since 1974 a number of the staff have refused other jobs, while some have not made pension arrangements which would have been beneficial to them had they known that they would be faced with this situation. There is also the aspect that quite large earnings will be lost because of the loss of five years of expected

  1369
  work. In one man's case—he is at the upper end—it will he in the region of £97,530, as well as the loss of part of the pension which he would have expected to receive.
  This is clearly a matter of great concern to the approximately 160 staff who are involved. These people are employed by the university. The 1963 trust lays down that the institute can be closed down only by a decision of the council of the university, not by the delegacy, nor by the AFRC. This was not done. So far as I can ascertain, no decision was made by the council to this effect. There was merely a decision by the delegacy. Furthermore, under the trust two years' written notice has to be given to the AFRC.
  Since these people were employed by the university, many of them had expected that if their employment was to be terminated it would be terminated under the procedures of the university. These are clearly set out in the university statute 32(4), in the university ordinance 24(3)(1) and in ordinance 32. This has not happened. Many of these staff are highly skilled and have given very long and devoted service to the NIRD.
  There is absolutely no doubt that the reputation and standing of the institute not only contributed to agricultural research in this country but is one of the reasons why the staff retained their loyalty and stayed there over the years. They fully expected that their contracts would be honoured or that they would be compensated. They did not expect the Government to direct the AFRC not to pay them compensation.
  The Minister, I am sure, recognises the justice of their case. He is a fair-minded and impartial Minister and I ask him to look at this again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your agreement and the Minister's consent. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the beginning of the debate I failed to call the hon. Member for Reading, East by his correct title—Sir Gerard Vaughan. I apologise and beg his pardon.
  11.58 am
  Sir William van Straubenzee: Your courtesy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is typical of that which you show the House whenever you are in the Chair. I am very grateful to you and to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) for making it possible for me to intervene for a few moments to support the campaign which he has correctly led, because the institute of which we speak is in his constituency. He has led that campaign in defence of his constituents' rights with the pertinacity which we all associate with him. I, too, have a number of constituents who are involved. For some years the institute lay within the boundaries of the Wokingham constituency. I know that I share with many others admiration for the past work of the NIRD, now coming to its end.
  I shall concentrate on one point only. I am grateful for the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science and also for the conscientious and exhaustive way in which he personally has looked at this matter, as he always does when human matters are involved. It could be put like this. His view—of course it is upon advice and having looked at the matter carefully—is that staff entitlement was explicitly agreed when the current Agricultural and Food Research Council's pension scheme was introduced with a retirement age of 60. I think that that
  1370
  is a fair summary of the view that he has expressed to my hon. Friend and to me. I do not question the sincerity with which that view is put, but it is not a correct reflection of the position of those who are 60 or older or were on a contract that gave them certain rights when they reached 60.
  I have drawn to the Minister's attention a letter to a constituent of mine from the secretary of the institute. So that the references are on the record, I should say that the letter is dated 14 March 1974. The letter was written to bring the then existing arrangements at the institute into line with the institutes of what was called the Agricultural Research Council. One can see the reasoning, purpose and rationalisation behind that in 1974.
  However, as we have been reminded, the delegacy of the institute agreed in 1974 that the retirement age should be 60 in future contracts and that existing staff should have that option offered to them. That rule was reasonable, civilised and proper and I take no exception to it. However, a number of senior men, including the constituent in whose name I have provided documentation, did not take up that option in 1974. There is no dispute about that.
  Furthermore, the Employment Protection Act 1978 requires that all employees should receive a statement of their terms and conditions of employment. I shall not weary the House by reading the statement and conditions of employment issued to those of whom we are speaking. I shall quote only paragraph 13 of the statement that was given to my constituent and, I have every reason to believe, to all others involved:
  "Although the retirement age for staff is 60, you are allowed to retain a retirement age of 65, but you may choose to retire at 60 with immediate payment of any benefits to which you are entitled under the ARC superannuation scheme."
  That shows that the retirement age for my constituents and others was 65, and all compensation should be based on that age. However genuinely and sincerely the Minister states that he is satisfied that the retirement age is 60, he is not correct. I ask him to recognise that fact.
  The House always likes matters such as these to be reduced to their effect on individuals. I have been a willingly loyal supporter of the Government's policy on universities, involving, as it has in recent years, severe reductions and retrenchments of personnel. However, we have always said — and, as far as I know, we have always honoured the commitment—that the rights of individuals are protected. If the House has interfered with the reasonable expectations of those employed in universities, we have recompensed them accordingly.
  In this case, the amount involved is minuscule in terms of national expenditure, but for one of my constituents it represents a pension right of £1,000 a year. I know that the Minister accepts that that is a major change in the reasonable expectations of a person's professional life when he has been working for one of the most prestigious academic and practical institutions in its field.
  I repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East for permitting me time in his debate to support his forceful advocacy. I feel deeply that, unwittingly I am sure, the Government are doing an injustice to some fine people. Such actions always leave me with a sense of deep unease and that is why I am grateful for the opportunity to help to raise the matter on the Floor of the House.
  12.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) for providing the House with an opportunity to debate the closure of the NIRD at Shinfield, Reading and the circumstances of the termination of service of people formerly employed by the institute. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) for having joined in the debate and I thank both my hon. Friends for the way in which they put the issues. I recognise that the matter is one of particular concern to their constituents. We have had some correspondence about it and had the pleasure of meetings on the issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends, because no constituents could ask for more diligent hon. Members on their behalf.
  Until its formal winding-up on 31 March, the NIRD was a state-aided agricultural research institute funded by the Agricultural and Food Research Council. The AFRC funds 14 such state-aided institutes in England and Wales, which, together with the council's own establishments and the state-aided institutes funded by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, constitute the Agricultural and Food Research Service. With the agreement of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which provides about half the AFRC's income through payments for commissioned research, and DAFS, the AFRC undertakes corporate planning for the whole of the AFRS. I note that because the changes at the NIRD need to be understood in the context of the research service as a whole.
  In its first corporate plan, published in December 1983, the AFRC identified as an important objective the achievement of more specific remits for individual institutions. It wishes to move towards a simpler and more integral management and structuring of research programmes. In line with that objective, the first plan gave notice of the council's intention to bring the NIRD and Grassland Research Institute programmes on nutrition and production studies in cattle, sheep and pigs under single management, with the possibility of a progressive concentration of the work at the GRI site at Hurley, near Maidenhead. The plan also envisaged expanding the programme of food research at the existing sites at Bristol, Norwich and at Shinfield, and to convert that part of the NIRD programme at Shinfield which has concentrated on milk utilisation to the study of a wider range of commodities.
  These proposals in the plan are now well on the way to implementation. The closure of NIRD and the Grassland Research Institute at the end of last month coincided with the establishment of a new Animals and Grassland Research Institute based at Hurley and of a new Food Research Institute, Reading, which will continue to use some of the former NIRD premises. The initial staff of both institutes have been found by transfers from the former institutes, although inevitably in a rationalisation of this kind jobs could not be found for all the former members of staff. I should say in this connection that the council's planning and redirection of activity is being carried out in the context of a significant reduction of income from the Department of Education and Science, following advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in 1982, and the prospect of equally
  1372
  serious reductions in commissioned research income. The council's second corporate plan, published in March, speaks of 550 posts having been lost in 1984–85—100 by compulsory redundancy—with at least 650 more to go by 1988, a significant proportion of whom will inevitably be made compulsorily redundant.
  I turn now to the position of the staff at NIRD. In doing so I must stress that the AFRC acts in these matters as an independent body in receipt of its own legal advice. My Department is not necessarily privy to that advice, and in any case it has no power to intervene. Under the council's Royal Charter, the pay and pensions of its officers are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Treasury. Details of conditions of service, however, are matters for the council to determine.
  The NIRD was technically a constituent institution of the University of Reading and was administered by a delegacy of the university. Its staff were employed by the university, as my hon. Friend said, but it was a condition of the AFRC's grant to the university to run NIRD that their terms and conditions should be essentially the same as those of other 'staff in the AFRS. The AFRC told the university when the time for closure came that the grant was being withdrawn. Thereafter the university procedures to which my hon. Friend referred are essentially for the university. The staff concerned are members of the AFRC pension scheme and are employed on Civil Service rather than university salaries. That is why the decisions relating to the staff were taken by the AFRC rather than by the university. Effectively they were members of the Agricultural and Food Research Service. For many purposes that is treated as a unified service. For example, it is covered by a single Whitley council, a single redundancy agreement and unified disciplinary and promotion procedures.
  The normal retirement age for AFRS staff has for a long time been 60. However, a number of staff at NIRD who were appointed before February 1974 had a specific provision in their contracts from the university, their employer, that their retirement age was 65. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham specifically referred to an individual.
  When the decision was taken to close NIRD all its staff were given notice that their contracts would be terminated, as was allowed for in their terms and conditions. I understand that all staff below the age of 60 have been offered contracts at the new institutes, apart from eight industrial staff who left under the redundancy agreement. Those contracts specify a retirement age of 60 in all cases, including those of staff whose previous contracts specified retirement at 65.
  Although I know that my hon. Friend is specifically referring to the group aged between 60 and 65, because he quoted the larger group I will dwell on them for a moment. It is obviously for individuals to decide whether to accept those new contracts—I am talking of those under 60. If they do so, they also accept the change in retirement age. If they reject the new contracts it is for AFRC to decide whether that rejection is reasonable. If the rejection is reasonable, the individual is treated as redundant and compensated accordingly. If it is not, he is treated as resigning and receives no immediate benefits. In the latter circumstances, it is open to an individual to take his case

  1373
  to an industrial tribunal. I understand, however, that the AFRC trade unions advised their staff to accept the new contracts and that as of yesterday all but one had done so.
  Staff at NIRD who were aged 60 or more on 1 April 1985 have not been offered new contracts of employment and are therefore redundant. I shall come to the question of compensation in a moment, but it is important to realise why the AFRC has acted in this way. Its purpose of course is to apply across its whole service, including the new institutes, its retirement age of 60. This concern is given particular force by the fact that the AFRC is currently having to make a significant number of compulsory redundancies to stay within the Government's expenditure constraints. To retain former NIRD staff up to age 65 would, therefore, in effect mean that more younger staff in other institutes would have to be made redundant instead. It may be helpful if I give the House some idea of the numbers involved. When NIRD closed there were some 405 staff there. Of these, about 364 have accepted the offer of new contracts of employment at other AFRS institutes. For about a third of those this means accepting a contract with a different retiring age. Thirty-three staff are already aged 60 or more and are therefore not being offered new contracts and, as I mentioned earlier, eight industrial staff have been made redundant.
  In considering the question of compensation for staff aged 60 or more who have been made redundant —which formed the nucleus of my hon. Friend's case—it is necessary to look back to 1975 when the AFRC introduced a new pension scheme. That scheme is essentially the same as the principal Civil Service pension scheme, which has a normal retirement age of 60. When its introduction was discussed the position of staff with a contractual entitlement to work until age 65 was looked into very carefully. It was explicitly accepted by all parties, including, I understand, the AFRC trade unions, that if such staff were made redundant after age 60 they should receive only immediate payment of their pension entitlement. Certainly there is a letter to the unions setting out these terms and there is a letter to the secretaries of all the institutes stating the circumstances of the case.
  This was part of the agreed package for introducing pension arrangements which were in many ways an improvement on those that the staff concerned had before. The only exception would be if that was less than their statutory entitlement under redundancy compensation legislation, in which case it would be made up to the latter figure. This is the basis on which the NIRD staff are being compensated, since the situation envisaged back in 1975 has now arisen. It was, of course, the AFRC's decision in
  1374
  1975 to allow staff to retain a right to work until age 65 while joining a pension scheme with a normal retirement age of 60. It gave them the option to do this because it wished to encourage as many staff as possible to join the new scheme. However, I understand that if NIRD staff now being made redundant had stayed in their previous pension scheme they would not have been any better off, and might have been worse off.
  Despite all this, the Government have considered carefully the possibility of allowing AFRC to pay additional compensation to NIRD staff aged 60 or more. We have not yet felt able to do so. The starting point must be that there is no legal entitlement to such compensation. The staff concerned have had their contracts terminated, are therefore redundant and have been compensated for this in line with arrangements made with their representatives in 1975. I am afraid that that is a fairly normal course of events in both the private and the public sector. They are receiving a Civil Service pension, which is not normally regarded as ungenerous. They were in many ways in a favourable position with a pension scheme posited on a retirement age of 60, a right to retire at 60, and yet a right to stay on until 65. In using the expresssion "a right", I am, of course, implying that it was subject to the provisions of the contracts of employment which allowed for termination by notice, and that observation applies both before and after 60. I acknowledge, nevertheless, their genuine concern that their expectation of working until 65 has been removed with a consequent reduction in their pensions. I can only say that this is by no means the only area where Government policy involves retrenchment and a requirement on staff to leave before the age to which they had hoped to serve.
  I understand and sympathise with the concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East and for Wokingham for their constituents. The position is not one that any of us would have chosen. As has been kindly said, I have looked into it in some detail. I hope that I have demonstrated that none of the staff of the former NIRD has been unfairly or unreasonably treated. It is, of course, unpleasant for people who have given good and useful service to their employers, and who believe that they still have much to contribute, to have their service terminated or, as they see it, truncated. However, the AFRC, which has the responsibility for managing the service and deciding on the allocation of the funds entrusted to it must be free to make the changes which it regards as necessary for the proper development of the scientific work that it supports, bearing in mind resources and priorities.

  Security Services (Ministerial Control)
  12.21 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: Yesterday's announcement by the Prime Minister of a large extension of ministerial powers in suspending public servants—and not only civil servants—on the ground of being subversive is bound to cause further anxiety about security matters.
  We must be very careful not to allow a climate of intolerance to grow. We know what happened in the United States in the late 1940s and early 1950s, and the tremendous damage that McCarthyism and the like did there. I think that we can say with some justification that even at the height of the cold war hysteria, we did not, under either Labour or Conservative Governments, allow ourselves to follow quite that path in the 1950s. When the Prime Minister returns to the House after the Easter break, she will be expected to make an announcement. She should have made an oral statement to the House instead of using the device of a written reply.
  The security services are rarely debated in the House. They might be touched on, as happened, for example, in the debates held only this week during the Committee stage of the Interception of Communications Bill, but that is about all. It is not possible for me or any other hon. Member to table questions about the security services, because the Table Office will tell us that such questions are not allowed. I accept straight away that the same argument has been put by Ministers in successive Governments, and no doubt we shall hear the same argument from the Minister today. It is argued that it is necessary to protect the work undertaken by bodies such as MI5, and so it would not be in the public interest for such state agencies to be the subject of parliamentary questions and scrutiny.
  However, there is a growing feeling in the House, and even among some Conservative Members I understand that that attitude is no longer acceptable. The allegations that have been made, particularly in the film shown on Channel 4, "MI5's Official Secrets", have strengthened the case for saying that some degree of parliamentary accountability on the part of the security services is now more than justified. Indeed, I do not accept that such accountability would endanger the safety of the country. I shall illustrate that by reference to the Select Committee of which I am a member.
  When the Home Affairs Committee decided to look into the special branch of the police force, one or two Conservative Members and some people outside expressed the fear that we would endanger the safety of the state. What happened? We agreed to inquire into the special branch and that all our sessions would be held in public. The inquiry has now come to an end. Does the Minister or any Conservative Member suggest that as a result of that inquiry, with public sessions—just as there should be—the country has been in any way endangered? Have secrets been revealed? The answer is perfectly clear. Therefore, the fears expressed at the time about the Select Committee's inquiry were not justified. The leak that occurred was about a draft report, and I hope that that will not be used as ammunition in arguing against parliamentary scrutiny.
  In a recent answer, the Prime Minister informed me that she would not agree to the Director General of MI5
  1376
  appearing before the Select Committee if at any time he was invited to do so. When I put another question to the Home Secretary, I was informed that it would not be possible for the newly appointed Director General of MI5 to meet hon. Members in this House, say, once a year. But what would be wrong with that? Indeed, what would be wrong with the Director General of MI5, who is a public servant, paid out of public funds, appearing, if so requested, before the Home Affairs Committee?
  I cannot for the life of me see how the state would be endangered if the Director General came before the Select Committee. Nowadays, everyone knows who he is. Only two or three weeks ago a profile appeared in The Observer. So the nonsense that the public are not supposed to know the identity of such people has fortunately ended. Before the film, "MI5's Official Secrets", was shown, disturbing reports had appeared in the press about the way in which MI5 collects information on people.
  There is, apparently, an F Branch of MI5, which is very important. It is sub-divided: F2 investigates not the stock exchange, the City or the Conservative party but trade unions, while F7 looks at various other political groups. In an article that appeared in The Guardian in April 1984 we were told that F7 also looks at Members of Parliament, teachers, lawyers and journalists. If that is so, how many people are the subject of investigation? How many files are open on Members of Parliament, teachers, lawyers and journalists, and perhaps others as well? Who decides who should be investigated by F branch of MI5? Since the publicity over F branch, the title might have changed.
  It is perhaps surprising—although I do not know—that those Conservative Members who are always on about state interference and the need to cut the number of civil servants do not seem to be particularly worried about state surveillance activities. The article also mentions FX. Apparently, it is responsible for long-term infiltration. Moreover, F4 puts agents into political parties and organisations. We are told that F6 puts agents into trade unions. If I had mentioned all this at the time, or shortly afterwards, the ministerial response might have been—and might still be today—that we should not believe all that we read in the press. Of course when an organisation such as MI5 has such immense powers, and there is no parliamentary scrutiny, there is bound to be unease about whether abuses occur.
  In the film "MI5's Official Secrets", a former employee of MI5, Miss Cathy Massiter, claimed that the late Mr. Harry Newton was an agent of MI5 and had been put by MI5 into CND and other organisations. This point may not be covered by the Minister's brief, but I hope that he will take note of it. Would it not be right to clear up this allegation? Mr. Newton is dead, and the allegation has caused considerable distress to his family and friends.
  If the allegation made by Miss Massiter is correct, what justification would there be for the security service to plant agents in organisations that no reasonable person could consider to be subversive? I do not know whether Mr. Newton was an agent—I am trying to seek information through this debate. If he was not an agent, what possible reason could there be for Miss Massiter to claim that he was? What would be her motive? Many of us believe that she is an honourable woman, who has done the country good by revealing what has been happening in MI5.
  Is CND subversive in the eyes of security service? The Home Secretary told us in the House and in the Select

  1377
  Committee when it was examining the special branch that the CND is perfectly legal. Therefore, why is it subject to all these investigations?
  In March this year, I read in The Observer that the former editor of the CND newspaper, a journalist of some 30 years experience, a Mr. Bonnett, fell out with CND. When he left the organisation, he was asked all sorts of questions by the special branch, about gossip, such as who lives with whom, and about the leadership style of the general secretary of CND. What justification is there for asking such questions? He is quoted as saying that the special branch was interested in everybody. There is understandable and justifiable concern over this matter.
  Is the Institute for Workers' Control, of which Mr. Newton was treasurer, considered subversive? If it is not, why was Mr. Newton, if he was an agent, planted in that organisation, and no doubt encouraged to become its treasurer? Are MI5's planted agents instructed to act in the most provocative way possible, carrying out the traditional role of agents provacateurs? Is putting agents into such organisations the right way to spend taxpayer's money?
  Yesterday in Committee on the Interception of Communications Bill, I was asked by a Conservative member whether I believed that a security service was necessary. Obviously, I answered in the affirmative. I went on to say that much of the work undertaken by the security service is no doubt justified, but if the feeling continues to grow that some part of the security service is out of control, and many people fully committed to the parliamentary and democratic system are or have been the subject of unjustified surveillance by MI5, then confidence in the impartiality of the service will become eroded. Why should CND, the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Institute for Workers' Control be targeted by the security service and the special branch?
  Miss Massiter said about the NCCL:
  "Anyone who was on the National Executive of NCCL, who worked for NCCL, who was an active member to the degree of being, say, a branch secretary of NCCL, would be placed on permanent record and the routine enquiries were instituted to identify such people and police inquiries were sought."
  I am sure that the Minister will say that he is not in a position to talk about such matters, but is it not a matter of concern to the House that an organisation that no one could reasonably consider to be subversive should be subject to such detailed and unjustified inquiries? How far does this extend to other organisations?
  Why was my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), before she came to the House, the subject of such surveillance? Is she a subversive? Is it argued that she wanted somehow to overthrow parliamentary democracy? Taxpayers' money was used to carry out investigations into her and many like her. I should have thought that every hon. Member should be concerned about such abuses being practised by the security service. What kind of intelligence officer in MI5 could have been so stupid or prejudiced as to believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham was some kind of danger or threat to the state?
  Are there some people in MI5—if there are, I trust that there are not many—who are so partial in their own political views that they would find it difficult to carry out objectively the directive given to the security service in 1952?
  The matters that I raise will continue to be raised, certainly by Labour Members. The feeling grows that it is
  1378
  wrong for the security service not to be subject to any form of control by Parliament. The definition of subversive, which anyway is far too wide and needs changing, refers to those who want to overthrow parliamentary democracy by various means. The irony is that Parliament itself has no say in these matters. We can have the occasional debate, but we are not likely to get much information. The director-general of MI5 is banned from appearing before the Select Committee and questions are banned in the House. The announcement by the Prime Minister yesterday means that anxiety is bound to grow, as is the feeling that some changes are necessary.
  Yesterday, in Committee on the Interception of Communications Bill, one or two Conservative Members argued for an ombudsman for telephone tapping, but more is required. If we are to have confidence in the security service we have to be persuaded that it carries out its function in a proper manner and not by such practices as targeting organisations such as the NCCL and the CND, and carrying out inquiries into my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham. We have to be persuaded that the security service will carry out its functions in a proper manner. It should not do so in a way that many of us would consider, in the light of the allegations made by Miss Massiter, to be near-subversive in themselves.
  12.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The subject of this debate reflects the close interest that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) takes in security matters, and that has been demonstrated by his contributions, among other things, to the recent inquiry of the Home Affairs Select Committee into special branches, and to debates on the Interception of Communications Bill. There is no dispute that questions of national security, touching as they do both on the most vital interests of the nation and upon the rights and freedoms of the individual citizen, are ones which need to be taken very seriously by the House, and I have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman for raising these matters. However, I am sorry that he did not pay tribute to the vital work that the security service carries out in protecting the community as a whole from threats such as espionage and terrorism.
  Mr. Winnick: I said that much of the work was justified.
  Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman referred to yesterday's announcement, which he said represented a large extension of ministerial power to suspend people in the public service who are security risks. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with the basic proposition that when the reliability of an individual in public service is in doubt it may be necessary to remove him from work the nature of which is vital to the security of the state, or to bar him from moving to such work. When there is doubt because of alleged subversive tendencies or associations a formal procedure is used which has existed since 1948. Under it the individual has the right of appeal to an independent panel of three advisers.
  Last night the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) engaged in his usual extravagant language and made a statement to the press which was reported this morning. If the right hon. Gentleman works

  1379
  himself into a lather like that over such a non-event he is likely to be well and truly dead before he is deselected for Gorton.
  I must go into some detail to put into perspective the substance of the reply given yesterday.
  Mr. Winnick: I appreciate that it is right for the Minister to refer to such matters, because I referred to them, but does he intend to find time to refer to other matters that I raised?
  Mr. Waddington: I have every intention of referring to a number of other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  The terms of reference of the three advisers were last published by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in 1957. The Security Commission, in its report on security procedures and practices in the public service in 1982 observed that these had become out of date in the light of the changes in the nature of the threat to security. I am advised that my right hon. and learned Friend has decided, in the light of that, that the Government, in consultation with the three advisers—Lord Justice Lloyd, Sir Patrick Nairne and Mr. Edward Hewlett — should revise the terms of reference and the statement of procedures to be followed. That decision, which was announced yesterday, does not alter the definition of subversion from that given by Lord Harris of Greenwich, a Labour Minister, in 1975.
  The new terms of reference now include membership of subversive groups, other than Communists, which are acknowledged by the Minister concerned to fall within the definition of
  "activities which threaten the safety or wellbeing of the state and which are intended to undermine or overthrow parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."
  The only other changes in the terms of reference of the three advisers are concerned with procedure. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, North will recognise that this really is "much ado about nothing". It would have been highly irresponsible if the terms of reference had not been brought up to date in the light of the report by the Security Commission.
  Safeguarding national security is in a real sense the highest trust which parliament places upon Ministers and, in the area which we are now discussing, particularly upon the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary of the day. If that trust is neglected, the nation's safety is imperilled.
  However, two things are particularly worth noting about the debates which have recently taken place on the Interception of Communications Bill. Nobody anywhere in the House, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who on 12 March at column 215 had some rather extraordinary things to say about his former Prime Minister Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, has suggested that Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries of successive Administrations, of whichever political party, have not discharged the trust confided in them in these matters with all the care and integrity that Parliament has rightly expected and demanded of them. No one has suggested that questions of national security can be discussed in public in any detail.
  Those who threaten society with terrorism, espionage and subversion use stealth and secrecy as their weapons. Those who have to counter these threats must be able to operate with similar secrecy and their operations cannot be put at risk by public disclosure of their methods and
  1380
  tactics. It is this consideration, and this consideration alone, which has led successive Governments over a very long period to adhere to the policy of not commenting on security matters.
  This means that false or misleading reports and allegations have to go unanswered. Far better that, than to give those who threaten our society clues as to the nature of the security service's operations against them by comparing the answer which is given to one allegation with that which is given to another. It is for that reason that I shall not comment on any of the particular allegations that have recently been made.
  I cannot possibly oblige the hon. Gentleman in his request about Mr. Harry Newton. However, I shall indulge myself in a comment upon it. I am aware that the allegations about Mr. Newton have caused distress and anxiety to him, his family and those who knew him. My right hon. and learned Friend has said how irresponsible it is for such allegations to be made about someone who cannot respond to them himself. However, responsibility for the allegations rests with those who made them. I cannot depart from the usual policy of not confirming or denying allegations about the operations of the security service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises fully why that is so.
  I remind the House that the Home Secretary covered all aspects of the allegations made in the programme. First, the allegations of improperly authorised interception were examined by Lord Bridge, who found that no warrant relevant to those named in the programme had been issued in contravention of the appropriate criteria. Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend indicated that he had taken steps to examine the allegations that the security service had acted improperly in carrying out investigations and surveillance in relation to subversive activity, and had concluded, in the light of the allegations and of his inquiries into them, that the security service had carried out no operation, investigation, surveillance or action against any individual other than for the purposes laid down in its directive and with the propriety which successive Governments have rightly demanded of it.
  My right hon. and learned Friend also said that he was satisfied that members of the security service had not carried out any interception without the authority of the Secretary of State, and that the Director of Public Prosecutions had asked the Metropolitan police to look into the allegations in the film which suggested that criminal offences may have been committed. This was a complete and conclusive answer to that set of allegations.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North made some remarks about CND. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it abundantly plain that political campaigning to change the mind of the Government or of people generally about political issues cannot constitute subversion under the definition given by Lord Harris in 1975. Similar considerations apply to trade unions and their members.
  No individual need fear that he is the subject of investigation by the security authorities on the ground of subversion unless his actions and intentions bring him within the strict criteria set out in the definition. That definition was discussed at length in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in its recent inquiry. My right hon. and learned Friend explained its effect fully and carefully. He also explained the reasons for the Government's belief that this definition — which was

  1381
  applied by the previous Labour Government—sets the right boundaries for investigations into subversion without transgressing into interference with legitimate political or trade union activity.
  On ministerial control of the security service, we must take as our starting point the directive issued to the director general by the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, in 1952, and referred to in paragraph 238 of Lord Denning's Report Cmnd. 2152.
  This directive makes the director general personally responsible directly to the Home Secretary for the proper and efficient implementation of the tasks set out in the directive. It is through this relationship that ministerial control is exercised. The Government appoint the director general, and he holds office only so long as he has the confidence of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister.
  The director general is expected to seek direction and guidance from the Home Secretary as to the way the service goes about its business. With but one exception, the Home Secretary does not concern himself with particular operations. That one exception is when an interception warrant is sought, when of course the Home Secretary must be given sufficient supporting information for him to judge whether the application comes within the established criteria. But in general the Home Secretary is not concerned with particular cases, as paragraph 6 of the directive makes clear when it states:
  "Ministers do not concern themselves with the detailed information which may be obtained by the Security Service in particular cases, but are furnished with such information only as may be necessary for the determination of any issue on which guidance is sought."
  There are good reasons for that policy. The security service is not—as some have alleged—in the business of obtaining information on behalf of the Government. It is there to protect all of us and the state against external and internal dangers, and must, as the directive makes clear, do that in a way that avoids any suggestion that it is concerned with any matter other than the defence of the realm as a whole or that there is any political bias or influence in its work. The operational judgments must be for the director general to make. If he gets them wrong, and the safety of the state is jeopardised or civil liberties unjustifiably infringed, he must answer to the Home Secretary.
  In that way the chain of responsibility and control is clear and unequivocal. It enables Ministers to discharge their responsibility to Parliament for security matters without involving themselves in the detailed operations of the security service.
  Mr. Winnick: I appreciate that the Minister does not intend to respond to any of the allegations made by Miss Massiter. If it is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), when she was the legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties, was the subject of surveillance, and if it is true that many other people involved in that one organisation had files on them for no other reason than that they were active in that organisation, would not the Minister agree that that was indeed a serious erosion of civil liberties and in itself to be deplored?
  Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. It has been the custom for years and years never to comment on national security matters. It has certainly been the practice never to answer hypothetical questions.
  1382
  The hon. Gentleman needs to think for only a moment to realise that if Ministers were actually to answer questions framed in that way, over a period of time there could be questions so framed and answers so given that eventually obvious damage would be done to the security services.
  I am not, therefore, impugning anybody. It is nothing except common sense to say that it is nonsense to put questions framed in that way and ask Ministers of the Crown to answer them. I am not departing from the practice that has been followed by Governments for as long as I can remember, and certainly the practice followed by the last Labour Government.
  The hon. Gentleman, who is so ready to make all these criticisms, never mentions one of the most salient factors in the "20:20 Vision" film, which was that the bulk of the allegations related to matters that were alleged to have happened during the period of the Labour Government. All the hon. Gentleman's attacks are directed as though somehow under this Government the prison gates are closing and practices are being changed. He knows the position perfectly well and he should make that plain if he wants to make a fair speech to the House—which it is obvious he does not.
  I am sure that the House would not want the position to arise where any Home Secretary was directing particular operations against subversives or others who might threaten our society. However great was the honour and integrity of the Home Secretary of the day, the suspicion would always exist that political influence might be brought to bear on the conduct of these operations, and it is therefore right that through the structure of responsibility established by the directive, the service should be under the operational control of its director general, and that he should account to the Home Secretary for its proper and efficient working.
  So the Home Secretary is necessarily distanced from the detailed workings of the security service, but that does not mean that there is any lack of ministerial control. As my right hon. and learned Friend has made clear, he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take very seriously their responsibility for satisfying themselves that the service operates within the letter and spirit of its directive. They take the utmost care to ensure that the person appointed as director general has the necessary qualities of ability and judgment to guide the service properly and effectively in the performance of the tasks set for it. My right hon. and learned Friend maintains regular contact with the director general, though the House will not expect me to go into details about the nature of those contacts or the matters discussed.
  However, the House can be assured that my right hon. and learned Friend takes great care—as I am sure did his predecessors—to inform himself of the matters of which he must be aware in order to satisfy his responsibility to Parliament for the maintenance of a security service that is efficient in the protection of our national security and vigilant in its upholding of the civil liberties of the citizens of this country. This is an effective exercise of ministerial control in a difficult and sensitive area. I believe that the balance is right, as indeed have all the Governments of both parties who have exercised these responsibilities since 1952 when the directive was issued.

  Royal Assent
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have to inform the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Hong Kong Act 1985.

  2. National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985.

  3. Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1985.

  4. Bournemouth Borough Council Act 1985.

  5. London Docklands Railway Act 1985.

  European Economic Community (Enlargement)
  12.57 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: The subject for debate has not been dealt with by the House since 1978, which was the last occasion on which we had an opportunity to discuss the vital matter of the enlargement of the EEC, which will have, as I hope to show the House, very profound effects for the United Kingdom and the EEC as a whole.
  Since 1978 we have had the opportunity to examine the effects of an enlargement of the Community with the accession of Greece. As a Member of the European Parliament from 1979 to 1984, I have had the opportunity to examine the effect of an enlargement of the Community and to consider at close quarters the operation of the institutions of the Community.
  The rationale that is given by the Government for supporting the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EEC tends — my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt confirm this later — to be based on three principal arguments. One could be summarised as the completion of western democratic Europe, another related to that would be the consolidation of democracy in the applicant countries — Spain and Portugal — and the third has a strategic or defence element and relates to the encouragement of Spain to take part in or to join NATO.
  The completion or extension of democratic Europe is a very tempting argument, although it should be noted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said as recently as 2 April — Hansard reference column 1066, perhaps appropriately:
  "I think it likely that 12 will be the limit of the Community for a very long time." — [Offical Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1066.]
  I regret that in a sense because, quite apart from the merits or otherwise of the case being made for Spain and Portugal to join the Community, I would be very interested in the possibility of countries such as Austria and Switzerland — were it not for their curious political position — and Norway and Sweden looking again at the Community as prospective members. Apparently that is not in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which I regret.
  Therefore, the argument about the completion of western democratic Europe can at best be only a rather temporary one because we are not, apparently, contemplating its full completion. In that sense, the related argument about the consolidation of democracy is somewhat dubious because we are not told in what sense mere membership of the EEC would guarantee the continuation of democracy in any member country, never mind Spain and Portugal. Nor does the Community have a satisfactory definition of "democracy", and I believe that it would be unable to judge whether a country was, in that sense, sufficienty democratic to merit membership. The Minister of State might wish to expand on that when he replies to the debate.
  In relation to the argument relating to strategy, defence and NATO, an intriguing prospect emerges because the Spanish people will have a referendum next year about their membership of NATO. Are we being told that we are, in effect, bribing the Spaniards into agreeing to stay in NATO by their membership of the EEC? Or do we not

  1385
  welcome wholehearted membership of NATO, regardless of whether moneyes are paid or membership of other organisations is extended?
  That must be considered in the context of the fact that Ireland, which is a member of the EEC, is not in NATO — indeed, Ireland declares itself to be neutral — that France is not a full member of NATO in any case, and that, more importantly, the country which is arguably the single most important member of NATO, certainly on the eastern flank—Turkey—will apparently be expected to continue to support NATO without being offered the bribe or inducement of membership of the EEC. It is beyond me why we must offer Spain, but not Turkey, that inducement.
  Will the Minister comment on the position of Turkey as a loyal member of NATO and as a country which is moving rapidly towards the restoration of democracy, and say whether we would welcome Turkey as a member of the EEC? That is highly relevant to the question under consideration, which is the enlargement of the Community, in this case to take in Spain and Portugal.
  Politics is, among other things, the assessment of the judgment of costs and benefits. What I have outlined so far have been the principal arguments about the claimed benefits of the enlargment of the EEC bringing in Spain and Portugal. The costs argument is much less clear than hon. Members might believe. Surprisingly little information is to hand about the costs of enlargement. The Prime Minister said:
  "We shall, of course, put as many of the details of the costs"—
  of enlargement—
  "as we can before the House". — [Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1070.]
  However, she had said about the enlargement of the EEC in a written reply to me:
  "It is not yet possible to estimate actual costs and benefits to the United Kingdom"—[Official Report, 29 March 1985, Vol. 76, C. 365.]
  We are left in the peculiar position of being asked to sign a blank cheque. We shall be asked by Her Majesty's Government to agree to the entry of Spain and Portugal without, I fear, being told the costs of that exercise, either to the Community or to the United Kingdom. I hope that that will be rectified before the treaty is brought to this House for ratification.
  I hope that the Minister will consider several heads of cost and give the Government's position on them. Two of the main sources of benefit to Britain from the EC are the regional fund and the social fund. It would be interesting to know whether those funds will be increased in size and, if so, what other elements of the budget of the EC might be reduced as a result. In any case, it is not inevitable, given the fact that two countries which are less prosperous than the United Kingdom will join the Community, that our position in, as it were, the league table of claims on funds, such as the regional and social funds will be reduced.
  Shall we not find ourselves benefiting less than we have from such funds? Either we shall benefit less, in the sense that we shall get less of an existing fund, or, if the funds are increased in size, we shall get less than we would have got were Spain and Portugal not members. I am sure that the Minister will have followed that logic—I hope that it has not been too confused—in his usual impeccable way.
  1386
  My first area of concern, therefore, could be put broadly as the redistribution of wealth from the richer to the poorer. It is often said that one argument for bringing Spain and Portugal into the Community is that we could help them as less prosperous countries. The honest answer to be given by those who support the entry of Spain and Portugal must be that, if that is the case, the more prosperous must inevitably pay some of the bill. It is the size of that bill that we must be told before we are expected to approve the entry of Spain and Portugal into the Community.
  A much bigger issue is the common agricultural policy, and here we enter the real big money arguments of the EC. The CAP still takes by far the largest part of the resources of the Community and there is, regrettably, no sign of that changing. How much worse will it be when we get the entry of these two new countries into the Community, with their production of wine, olive oil and tomatoes, to say nothing of their other products, and the demands that they will make on the CAP?
  The questions that arise from that include not only what we shall do to deal with the control of expenditure on those important items, which will be much increased in output within the Community, but what will happen to the whole orientation of the CAP. I have been asked to comment on behalf of Britain's horticultural industry. I have been sent a document by the National Farmers Union, and the extracts I quote from it show the depth of concern of the industry in this country. The NFU says:
  "realisation of Spain's enormous agricultural potential could add to the Community's existing surplus problems with further adverse budgetary consequences. The Unions believe that EC funds should not be made available to Spain or Portugal from the Guidance Section of FEOGA if this would lead to increased production of products already in surplus."
  The NFU goes on to say with specific reference to horticulture:
  "The accession of Spain and Portugal would increase EC fruit production by almost 50 per cent. and vegetable production by 25 per cent. Existing Community growers"—
  including those in the United Kingdom—
  "would face a major increase in competition, as well as the possible disruption and destabilisation of sensitive and already adequately supplied markets."
  There is, therefore, concern among the members of the agricultural community in Britain that the effects of Spain and Portugal coming in will be far-reaching, because the southern countries—I refer to Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal all in alliance, and France when it suited her—would be in a position to swing the whole emphasis of the agricultural policy away from the direction that it has taken in the past—dairy products, cereals, beef, sheepmeat and the like—towards the southern products.
  I hope that the Minister will address himself to that difficulty because if we are to be honest with ourselves and our citizens, and particularly with our farmers, we must tell them what we estimate the effect will be of the entry of two new countries to the Community, which would form a new emphasis or power bloc to the south of the Community, when those countries would, in their own interests, want to draw more of the CAP funds towards themselves.
  Again we are faced with the difficulty either that the funds will be increased overall or that the existing funds will be redistributed. One way or the other, the bill must be picked up. It is the size of that bill about which we need to hear more today. Why is it assumed that a sector as vital as our automobile industry will prosper by easier access

  1387
  to Spanish markets, when the Spanish automobile industry is one of the most modern and efficient in Europe and when, if anything, we shall face an increased stiffening of competition from that source?
  I am aware of, and pay tribute to, the attempts by Her Majesty's Government, and in particular by the Minister of State, to try to make sense out of the institutional arrangements of the Community, particularly in terms of the position that would be created if Spain and Portugal were to join. The Minister will, I am sure, confirm that up to now our efforts in that direction have, alas, failed. We shall see an increase in the membership of the Commission of the Community from 14 to 17. There is already a problem in finding enough meaningful work for the present 14 commissioners to do. It remains to be seen what 17 members will do. That is bad enough, but I am told that the European Parliament will increase from 434 members to 518 members. There will also be two official new Community languages. The costs of travel—Madrid and Lisbon will be centres of activity in the Community, and those of us who have been Members of the European Parliament know what that involves—and of interpretation and translation of documents must impose a heavy burden on the Community's institutions. There will also be significant effects on voting in the Council of Ministers.
  I add in passing, because I agree that it is only a temporary argument in a sense, that the political complexion of the two countries, but especially the larger country, Spain, which has a Socialist Government, will have a potentially profound and unfortunate effect on the political balance within the Community and its institutions. How will the political decision-making process in the Community be affected by the accession of Spain and Portugal?
  I am dubious about the claimed benefits of the enlargement to bring in Spain and Portugal. I do not believe that the arguments have the strength and validity which we have been asked to accept as unarguable and beyond dispute or doubt. I am concerned that the full cost of this exercise has never been laid before us, in terms of the internal budgetary working of the Community and, more importantly, in terms of the effects on the balance of decision-making and influence within the Community and the extent to which funds will be reorientated or redirected from the northern part of the Community, of which we are a part, to the south, in which the two applicant countries will be such an important element.
  I remain extremely sceptical about the benefits of this exercise. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for reassurance. I hope that the House will take the opportunity that it is given, in terms of what my hon. Friend says as a background, to consider the position that it will take when the ratification of the treaty of accession comes before hon. Members later this year.
  1.12 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) began his interesting comments by saying that this was the first time since 1978 that the subject of enlargement of the Community had been raised in the House. It is perhaps no coincidence that during that year Spain and Portugal applied to join the Community. The fact that it has taken
  1388
  a long and arduous seven years before the negotiations were satisfactorily concluded is an eloquent indication of the extent to which real problems had to be resolved and of the Community's determination to ensure that the accession of Spain and Portugal would be beneficial to the Community as a whole and would not bring in its wake some of the fundamental problems to which my hon. Friend referred.
  Although the subject of the Community often divides the House in substantial ways, the enlargement of the Community has been welcomed by the overwhelming number of hon. Members from all parties. There is a deep realisation that the accession of democracy to Spain and Portugal not only benefits the people of those countries but makes an important contribution towards strengthening the Western world as a whole.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that both countries have left-of-centre Governments, but it is equally true that, in their first democratic elections after the return to democracy, right-of-centre Governments were elected. One hopes that, one day, the normal process of democracy will produce Governments with political complexions that are more acceptable to my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend referred to the remark of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the size of the Community and about whether, with 12 states as members of the Community, that is likely to be the end of the road. My hon. Friend said that he regretted the fact that consideration did not seem to have been given to other Western democratic countries such as Austria and the Scandinavian countries joining the Community. The position is simple. As democratic, parliamentary countries in Europe, they would be eligible to be considered for membership, if they wished to apply. They have not done so, and that is entirely within their sovereign rights. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was simply saying that, at present, no further applications for membership of the Community have been made. If a European country which was a parliamentary democracy applied for membership, that would obviously be a matter to be negotiated within the existing Community.
  That must be my answer with regard to Turkey. At the moment, there is a European Community-Turkey association agreement which was negotiated in 1963 and which recognised the possibility of Turkey's eventual membership of the Community. The Turkish Government have not made any application to the Community, so that matter does not need to be considered at present.
  My hon. Friend attached great importance to how membership of the Community could enhance the democratic credentials of Spain and Portugal. He will appreciate that, in the first instance, that is a matter for Spain and Portugal. It is significant that all parties in Spain and Portugal have supported applications to join the Community and have emphasised their belief that accession will help to strengthen the democratic structures of their countries if they can be locked into a community that is, by its very nature, essentially a community of parliamentary democracies.
  We are all conscious of the fact that, for many years, Spain and Portugal were both outside the mainstream of European thinking and were experiencing dictatorial regimes. When democratic systems were reintroduced into both countries, they both attached importance to the strong belief that any hankering by some people for a return to authoritarian systems would be much more unlikely to

  1389
  make progress if Spain and Portugal were part of a wider community participating in the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the other democratic structures of western Europe.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no mechanism in the Community to judge whether a country is democratic or, more importantly, to reject from membership any country that is not democratic from time to time? I am at a loss to understand what would happen if any country that intends joining the Community or any country that is already in the Community became in some sense undemocratic.
  Mr. Rifkind: I suggest that democracy is rather like the elephant—difficult to describe, but one knows one when one sees one. Although my hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the theoretical possibility that an existing member of the Community may one day adopt an authoritarian system of government, and to the fact that the Community has no formal method of responding to that, there is, I believe, general acceptance of the fact that it is incompatible with full membership of the Community for a country that does not have democratic structures to participate fully. How could such a country participate in the European Parliament? How could it participate in an equal and acceptable way in the Council of Ministers? I believe that that point is widely acknowledged.
  My hon. Friend asked about the implications for the regional and social funds of the accession of Spain and Portugal. Recently, it has been agreed that the regional and social funds should be significantly increased, with a view not simply to the consequences of enlargement but because of the widespread belief that agriculture should take an increasingly lower proportion of total expenditure and other Community activities should take a higher proportion. The particular quotas that will be available to Spain and Portugal from the regional development fund have not yet been decided. They will be determined later this year. The decisions that were taken at the European Council with regard to integrated Mediterranean programmes were taken firmly on the basis that additional criteria for determining entitlement to the regional fund should not be changed. One Commission proposal would have shifted regional funds towards the Mediterranean countries. That proposal has been withdrawn, and there is now no danger of such a development.
  My hon. Friend referred to the institutional implications of enlargement of the Community, mentioning in particular the problems that could arise from a larger Commission of 17 members, as is presently proposed. As he knows, the British Government have been in the forefront in arguing that this is an appropriate time at which to look completely afresh at the whole question of the size of the Commission. We have said that for our own part we would find it acceptable that there should be one Commissioner per member state, rather than some of the larger states having two Commissioners, as at present.
  My hon. Friend is correct in saying that there is as yet no agreement, but I have been heartened by the fact that in the ad hoc committee on institutions—the so-called Dooge committee — on which I am the British representative, I made a proposal to that effect, and there has been unanimous agreement in the final report that it would be desirable to reduce the size of the Commission. There is still continuing discussion as the exact figure, but
  1390
  there was unanimous agreement on the part of all the representatives on the committee—all of whom were personal representatives of their respective Prime Ministers—that the likely figure of 17, which would result from enlargement under the existing rule, would be highly undesirable and unsatisfactory, very much for the reasons referred to by my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend properly drew attention to the cost implications of enlargement, and that clearly is an important matter. It was one of the most difficult issues to resolve in the negotiations. He may be aware that the agreement which has been proposed in regard to the traditional financial arrangements is that for Spain there should be broad financial neutrality for the first few years. If the assessments on which the proposal is based are correct, the direct budgetery costs of enlargement should be very limited in the early years at least.
  With regard to Portugal, it has always been accepted by EC Governments, including the British Government, that it would be intolerable for Portugal to be a net contributor, in that it would be by far the poorest member of the Community. Therefore, there is an acceptance that, even during the transitional arrangements, there has to be some net benefit to the Portuguese economy, and that is highly appropriate.
  With regard to costs, it is difficult at this stage to give any precise figures. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we would hope to give the House the fullest details when it considers the treaty of accession. That would provide a full opportunity for a more detailed assessment and analysis of all the implications of membership, including the financial implications.
  I think that the most important point to which my hon. Friend will wish to give attention is that, following the agreement reached at the Fontainebleau summit, the financial implications for the United Kingdom will be very modest — far more modest than would otherwise have been the case. As a result of the agreement, the additional cost to the Community arising from enlargement will involve the United Kingdom in paying only 7 per cent. of the costs, rather than its traditional share of approximately 21 per cent. France will have to bear 27 per cent. and the Federal Republic of Germany 32 per cent. of the total costs. Therefore, compared with either of those two countries, the United Kingdom, with only 7 per cent. will have a very modest additional burden. Obviously, that is very satisfactory for the House and the country.
  Mr. Forth: While I accept what my hon. Friend says in this context, will he agree that there is a danger, with Spain and Portugal joining the Community, that in the future there will be much greater pressure for additional Community expenditure in total, largely as a result of the agricultural matters, on which my hon. Friend has not yet touched? Therefore, his figures, while reassuring for the immediate future, may well be under a good deal of pressure as time goes on and as the Community, with its enhanced membership, finds more and more ways to spend Community money.
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct about Spain and Portugal being likely to be beneficiaries of Community expenditure, and they may very well have an interest in pressing for greater expenditure. But my hon. Friend should bear in mind that, parallel with that development, France, which has traditionally been a net

  1391
  beneficiary, is now in the process of becoming a very substantial net contributor. Therefore, in future the French financial interests will be likely to be much closer to those of Britain and West Germany, so the balance will indeed be preserved. As any increase in the own resources of the Community could be agreed only unanimously, there would be a constant ability to ensure proper accountability and responsibility in matters of this kind.
  With regard to agriculture, the Community has agreed that there should be a very substantial transitional period before Spain should be entitled to full membership of the Community. There is agreement on a seven-year transitional period for all agricultural produce other than fresh fruit, vegetables and olive oil. In the case of certain sensitive products such as fruit and vegetables, the period for dismantling Community tariffs will be as long as 10 years. That will give substantial protection to our horticulture—a matter to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention.
  With regard to fisheries, which was one of the most important areas of negotiation, the outcome is extremely satisfactory for the United Kingdom. One of the areas about which we were most concerned was the possibility of Spanish access to the North sea. It is agreed that there should be no Spanish access whatever to the North sea. That has been warmly welcomed by Scottish fishermen and others who have an interest in those matters.
  With regard to fisheries in other parts of Community waters, the access of Spain will be based largely on the traditional access which it has enjoyed under bilateral agreements with the European Community. There have been some increased quotas in certain areas, but not in those areas which are most sensitive for British fishermen, and that is very satisfactory.
  With regard to industrial tariffs, my hon. Friend mentioned that he was far from certain that British exports in, for example, the motor vehicle industry would necessarily benefit as a result of the enlargement of the Community. It is certainly the case that Spain will be able
  1392
  to have the same duty-free access to the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom will ultimately have to Spain, but the question is much more complicated than that.
  The problem at present—it has been for the past few years—is that Spain has far higher tariffs, which have enabled it to prevent penetration by British exports to Spain, whereas that has not been the case with the export of Spanish motor vehicles to the United Kingdom. Traditionally, Spain has had very high industrial tariffs, because historically its industry was relatively weak. It was given privileged access to the Community some years ago, and the Community has been increasingly concerned at the implications and unfairness of that in terms of reciprocal trading rights.
  Under the arrangements which have been agreed, the Spanish have accepted that, in the first three years after accession, they must reduce their industrial tariffs against the rest of the Community by as much as 52 per cent. The remaining tariffs will be phased out in two or three years after that. That agreement provides very important and exciting opportunity for British exports. Particularly for motor vehicles the opportunities should be significant, because the reduced duty quota has permitted larger numbers of vehicles to be imported into Spain.
  When there are two such countries as Spain and Portugal joining the Community, that does not simply involve marginal changes to the Community; it is a very significant change, of which we are all conscious. It is precisely for that reason that the negotiations were long and hard on both sides, but I believe that there is widespread agreement, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the Community and in Spain and Portugal, that western Europe will be greatly strengthened by the addition of the Iberian peninsula to the European Community, that the democratic prospects for Western Europe are enhanced, and that as a consequence, not only at the political but at the economic level, there are challenges and opportunities for the United Kingdom which should result in our welcoming this excellent conclusion to the negotiations.

  Dr. David Hemson (Detention)
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Five weeks ago, during the first weekend of March, 15 trade unionists were arrested in Harare and Kwekwe in Zimbabwe under the emergency powers taken over from the white minority Rhodesian regime of Ian Smith. All those detained have been active in campaigning for democratic trade unions under workers' control, and in organising Socialist workers' education.
  Among those detained were Mr. Rabi Down of the General Engineering and Metal Workers Union, whom I had the honour of showing round the House of Commons at Christmas, and Dr. David Hemson, a teacher and refugee from South Africa, who was a textile workers' union official in Natal in the early 1970s. After being banned by the South African regime, he became a constituent and a personal friend of mine. Of the original 15 detainees, 13 have now been released, but two remain incarcerated. In addition to Doctor Hemson is Mr. Darcy Du Toit, also a teacher, and also a refugee from South Africa. Like Dr. Hemson, he is a member of the British Labour party.
  Those arrests are the first concerted attack on Zimbabwean trade unionists by the Government since independence. The sole activity of the 15 people detained has been to assist in the organisation of workers in Zimbabwe and in the promotion of Socialist ideas. In fact, they have been promoting the Socialist transformation of that society, the very promise that brought ZANU to power in 1980, but which that Government have not carried out. In their view and mine, the implementation of real Socialist policies will be the only way to preserve the unity of the country, solve the problems facing working people and put an end to the economic blackmail waged against Zimbabwe by South African and Western capitalism.
  The recent ZANU youth congress, as well as some ZANU leaders, called publicly for Socialist study circles among workers to be established on the widest scale, yet trade unionists, including my constituent, who have organised precisely such study circles and education among workers have been detained by the security police. The recent ZANU congress adopted a "leadership code" in an attempt to combat corruption and privilege rife at the top levels of Government and party. But trade unionists who were organising opposition to undemocratic and corrupt leaders, including some who openly collaborated with the former Smith regime, have been cast into prison.
  Last year many of those detained were involved in setting up a workers' campaign for a democratic General Engineering and Metal Workers Union. They organised workers' committees in the factories and rank and file members of the union to bring it under democratic control. Last year the security police intervened to defend the general secretary of the union, Mr. Chimusoro, when he was suspended from office for corruption and misconduct by the national council of GEMWU. That long-standing supporter of the former Muzorewa regime has continued to hold office in defiance of the workers, by courtesy of the security police. Therefore, it is not surprising that the recent ZANU youth congress resolved that the CIO—the security police—should be purged.
  1394
  Those detentions have sparked off an enormous wave of protest in the labour movement across the whole of Europe. On 27 March, the Labour party national executive committee passed a resolution that said:
  "This committee is disturbed at the arrest of a number of trades unionists in Zimbabwe including members of ZANU, former members of the British Labour party, one of those being a British citizen. We express our grave concern that the Socialist policies on which the Government was elected in 1980 should be tarnished by this attack on campaigning trades unionists. We recognise the damage such action will do to the reputation of ZANU. Therefore, we wish to record our protest, and agree to immediately write to the Zimbabwean High Commissioner and send a tele-message to Prime Minister Mugabe."
  There have been similar protests from the Swedish metal workers union, the Dutch Trades Union Congress, the French Confédération Francaise Démocratique du Travail, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the South African mineworkers union. There have been many more. Amnesty International has intervened. There have been protests and demonstrations in Britain, Belgium, Holland, Ireland, Sweden, Germany. Denmark, Greece and Spain.
  However, for nearly four weeks there was an official silence from the Zimbabwean authorities. I know that officials from the British Foreign Office intervened on behalf of Dr. Hemson and his family, but there was no public statement from the Zimbabwean Government or the high commission in London until 26 March. When that statement came, it was full of what I can only describe as absurdities and contradictions. The detainees were accused of being Left-wing and of
  "organising workers for a generalised insurrection against the Government and the state."
  Yet at the same time there was
  "no direct contact with the party or the trade unions."
  That was a vain attempt at a cover-up. We now know that 13 of the 15 have been released precisely because the Zimbabwean Government were unable to bring such charges. Indeed, despite reports of beating and torture under interrogation, the Zimbabwean Government would not be able to produce a shred of credible evidence to support their claims. As for having no contact with the ZANU party or the trade unions, that was said to try to hide the deep debate going on inside ZANU and the trade union movement and the worry that many organised workers in Zimbabwe have that their Government might drift towards a Polish-style society.
  One of those arrested was Mr. Nyamhunga, the president of the engineering union. Three others were on the regional executives of that union. Several are office-bearers of officially recognised workers committees. Several of those originally detained are leaders of ZANU in Kwekwe. One of those has been a ZANU(PF) member since he was 16, and was arrested 14 years ago in 1971 under the Smith white minority regime for leading opposition to the Pearce commission. His wife, also detained, is an elected leader of 10,000 ZANU members, yet the Zimbabwean information Minister claims they have no contact with ZANU or the trade unions.
  All those detained gave wholehearted support to the liberation struggle against the white Rhodesian regime. For the information Minister to suggest that they support
  "the installation of a neo-colonial coalition of reactionary tendencies in Zimbabwe"
  is nothing short of the grossest slander.
  Those detained, including my constituent and the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney,

  1395
  North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts), have had no opportunity to speak in their own defence. That is why my hon. Friend and I, together with members of the families of those detained, and with the assistance of the South African Labour Education Project, with whom the 15 were co-workers, launched the Zimbabwean Trade Unionists Defence Campaign. The wide-ranging European and African support that that campaign has received shows the deep concern within the international labour and trade union movement about this attack on fellow trade unionists and the drawing back of the Zimbabwean Government from the Socialist tasks that they set themselves in 1980.
  I have four specific questions for the Minister. In the early part of the detention, reports were reaching the families of the very bad conditions of Dr. Hemson, Mr. Du Toit, and the other 13 detainees. We have reports of lice-ridden sleeping bags in overcrowded cells, and inadequate sanitary arrangements. What are the Minister's latest reports about the conditions of detention in the security prison for those two detainees?
  Secondly, have the Government demanded the immediate and unconditional release of Dr. Hemson? Will the Government make similar representations, at whatever level is possible, about Mr. Darcy Du Toit? Now that the 30 days detention without trial has passed, if the Zimbabwean Government decide to deport Dr. Hemson, Mr. Darcy Du Toit, their wives Trish and Anneke, and their three children, will the British Government honour the political asylum that they granted Mr. Du Toit several years ago and allow them, if they wish, to resettle in Hackney where they used to live before they went to Zimbabwe to become teachers?
  In raising this debate, I am conscious of its international importance. Five weeks ago, when first hearing of the detention, I thought originally that it may have been the work of reactionary officials in the CIO—the security police—many of whom are hangovers from the Smith days. Perhaps it had been carried out without the strict control of the Government. My initial reaction, in early contacts with the Zimbabwean high commission, was to suggest that it should look to supporting the call of the ZANU youth congress for a purge of the CIO. Although that is still necessary, that is now no longer my main feeling.
  The attempt by the Zimbabwean information Minister to smear those trade unionists with association with the Rhodesian regime of Ian Smith, the instructions from Harare to London to the high commission and the commissioner to give no statements and accept no delegations, and the fact that from Wednesday 13 March Prime Minister Mugabe took personal charge of those in detention—when all those things are taken together, the real reason for the detention becomes clear. A deep suspicion is growing among the workers and peasants in Zimbabwe against ZANU(PF)'s move towards a one-party state, the maintenance of much of the private sector and the huge tracts of prime farmland that have been left in white hands. In an interview with a magazine in recent weeks, a former guerrilla said:
  "We were the ones politicising the people during the war, but what the peasants see happening now is different from what we told them. We told the people they would have land and many things, but the people still have nothing."
  1396
  In criticising that path, the 15 who were detained, including the two who remain incarcerated, are being used as scapegoats for the failure of ZANU(PF) to move towards genuine Socialism which, for those of us in the Labour party and internationally in the labour and trade union movement, is inseparable from full democracy, free trade union movement, the right to free speech and freedom from arbitrary detention.
  I hope that in commenting on the specific case of my constituent Dr. David Hemson, his wife Trish and their one-year-old child the Minister will give reassurances about the conditions in which Dr. Hemson is being held and the likelihood of his early release. Are the Government demanding that he should be allowed to continue his normal life in Zimbabwe, where he was a teacher in a secondary school before he was detained by the security police? If the Zimbabwean Government were to deport Dr. Hemson and Mr. Du Toit, can the Minister assure me that the political asylum granted by the British Government several years ago to Mr. Du Toit will be honoured by the present Government and that, if the family so wish, they will be allowed to settle in Hackney?
  1.41 pm
  Mr. Ernie Roberts: I wish to add a few words to those of my hon. Friend the Member or Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I have already written to Mr. Mugabe on the matter because of my association with Mr. Mugabe before he became the leader of his country. I and others connected with the anti-apartheid movement and other movements were concerned about the need for Zimbabwe to have its independence. We hoped that it would achieve that independence, with our support. Having spoken with Mr. Mugabe at meetings in various parts of Britain, I felt that he would respond to a friendly approach from someone seeking to insure that justice was done and that those who had been detained would be released.
  I have been advised that some of the detainees, including ex-constituents of mine, have been released and would be allowed to return to this country. As my hon. Friend has said, they will probably return to Hackney. Arrangements are already in hand to assist them with housing as far as we can, so that they can take up their lives again in this country.
  Although I did not know them personally, I am advised by the members of my constituency party that the children were born in the United Kingdom and will therefore have the right to British citizenship. They should, therefore, have the special protection of the Government, and the Government's concern for their safe return to this country.
  My constituency party has decided to apply all the pressure that it can to ensure that the detainees are released, and, in particular that Dr. Hemson should be released and allowed to return to the United Kingdom if he wishes. Those who will need help should receive help from us and, we trust, from the Government, on a humanitarian basis. On humanitarian grounds, whatever the legal situation may be, they should be allowed to return to this country if they wish. Hackney will be only too pleased to receive them.
  We ask the Minister to use his good offices on behalf of the Government to ensure that Dr. Hemson and the others who wish to return to Britain are allowed to do so and receive the humanitarian respect to which they are entitled.
  1.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I wish to acknowledge the obvious concern of the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) about the position of their constituents presently in Zimbabwe.
  It may be helpful if I set out the facts of this case as far as I am able. Mr. Hemson, a British subject, has been working in Zimbabwe since 1982 as an English teacher at a school in Harare. He was detained on 1 March under the emergency powers regulations. A number of other people, Zimbabwean and non-Zimbabwean, were detained at about the same time. Under the emergency powers regulations specific charges were not required or made, but we understand that Mr. Hemson's detention is in connection with an investigation by the Zimbabwean authorities into what they consider to be unacceptable political activities concerned with trade unions. A deportation order was served on Mr. Hemson on 13 March, but implementation of the order was subsequently suspended and Mr. Hemson is now held on an immigration warrant. The Zimbabwean authorities appear to be acting strictly in accordance with their law. We understand that their investigations into this case are not yet complete.
  We have had full co-operation from the Zimbabwean authorities in discharging our consular responsibilities. Mr. Hemson is receiving regular visits, including visits from his wife and lawyer, and he was seen by our consul in Harare on 7, 14 and 21 March and on 2 April. He is in good health and made no complaints about his treatment in detention. He has received medical attention for a minor complaint. Our high commission is in frequent contact with the Zimbabwean authorities over the case. We know that they are aware of the public and parliamentary interest in it here, and of our hope that matters will be speedily resolved. In addition, we are keeping Mr. Hemson's relatives in Britain and South Africa informed on a regular basis.
  Mr. Du Toit was also working as a teacher in Zimbabwe. Mr. Du Toit is a refugee from South Africa who has a British travel document issued under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. He is not a British subject and his travel document does not entitle him to formal British consular protection. Nevertheless our post has instructions to do what it properly can to help Mr. Du Toit as well as Mr. Hemson. Consular access to Mr. Du Toit has been granted informally on one occasion, on 14 March. He appeared to be fit and well.
  Mr. Nellist: On behalf of Parliament, will the Minister now attempt to ensure that the consular officials may make a further visit? The last visit took place about three weeks ago. Some of the worst conditions reported referred to the cell in which Mr. Du Toit was being held. Will the Minister attempt to secure another informal visit so that we can reassure Mr. Du Toit's family about his well-being?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulties. Mr. Du Toit does not have British status and we therefore have no right to claim consular access to him. However, we will do what we can to ensure that so long as he is in detention we have up-to-date information about his circumstances and the conditions in which he is living.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether, if Mr. Du Toit were released and able to leave Zimbabwe, he would be
  1398
  able to come to the United Kingdom. I understand that his permission to stay in the United Kingdom is currently valid until next October. Thereafter, he would have to apply to renew the permission, and that would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, he is at present entitled to come to the United Kingdom and could do so if he were released.
  The question of the position of trade unions in Zimbabwe is one for the Zimbabweans themselves to resolve. We have no right to interfere. We can and do make our views known whenever appropriate and we try to help whenever we are asked. For example, within the framework of our aid programme for Zimbabwe, we hope to develop, in consultation with the Zimbabwean authorities, a limited programme of training courses in Britain as a way of providing some assistance to Zimbabwean trade unions. In addition, part of the funds allocated by the Overseas Development Administration to the TUC will be available for trade union training for Zimbabwe, again in consultation with the Zimbabwe Government. We are also involved in Commonwealth efforts to provide assistance within the framework of the Commonwealth Trade Union Council. Our assistance in this field, as in all others, is, of course, as it must be, given in consultation with, and with the agreement of, the Zimbabwean authorities.
  One frequently hears, and no doubt the Zimbabweans themselves frequently hear, criticism of the Government in Harare for being too Socialist or not Socialist enough. I can only observe that that is a matter for the Zimbabwean Government and people. Zimbabwe is an independent country, free to determine its political and economic system for itself. It would not be right for Her Majesty's Government to express any opinion on what kind of Government Zimbabwe should have.
  May I set out the Government's general policy on Zimbabwe. Our concern stems from our close historical ties with Zimbabwe, our shared membership of the Commonwealth, and the leading role played by the United Kingdom in bringing an end to the civil war in what was then Rhodesia and paving the way for an independent Zimbabwe. Important British interests are affected, in Zimbabwe itself and more widely as a result of Zimbabwe's influence in the region. Our aim now, is to do what we can to encourage the development of stability and prosperity in a multiracial Zimbabwe. The purpose of our aid programme is to promote this objective, which we see as being in the interests of all Zimbabwean citizens and also important for the stability and prosperity of the wider area of southern Africa.
  But it is important to recognise that this is a medium or even a long-term aim and that there are bound to be difficulties on the way. It is only five years since Zimbabwe emerged from a long and bitter civil war in which all sectors of society suffered greatly. Inevitably, progress since then has not been entirely smooth, but we think it important that the inevitable obstacles should not deter us from persevering with our longer-term efforts.
  May I conclude by telling the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington that the Government recognise their full responsibility to provide what consular protection they can to any British citizen who is incarcerated in a foreign country. Where a British citizen is detained, we always make representations to the Government of that country that they should either bring charges and allow the person to be tried in

  1399
  open court, or he should be released if no charges are brought. We are applying exactly the same criteria to Mr. Hemson and, naturally, we hope that this matter will be satisfactorily resolved in the very near future.

  Asbestos Waste (Vitrification)
  1.51 pm
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment what I believe to be an important subject, and I hope that the debate will give a wider platform to an exciting British technological breakthrough which renders an extremely harmful substance completely innocuous.
  I need not remind the House that a most worrying problem in the building and other industries is the health hazard of asbestos products, not because those products are harmful in situ in a building, but because they are harmful when they are disturbed, damaged or dismantled, and when the waste products of asbestos are removed from a site, transported and disposed of.
  It may be helpful if I briefly mention that there are three sorts of asbestos. There is white asbestos, whose principal use is in asbestos cement products, such as roofing, wall sheeting and down pipes. White asbestos, which is the least toxic sort, is generally safe until it is disturbed. The second type is brown asbestos, which was widely used in the 1960s as a fire safety spray on steel-framed buildings. Brown asbestos is not as hard as white asbestos; therefore, it is more easily disturbed. It is much more toxic.
  The third type is blue asbestos, which is widely used for sound and thermal insulation in buildings, including the lining of air ducts. It is a very high temperature material and is used frequently in the insulation of boilers, not only in buildings but in ships. The House will know that ship breaking yards have a special problem, an example of which occurred at Faslane. Blue asbestos is the most toxic.
  The current method of disposing of asbestos waste is that it must be double-bagged on the site and then transported to a suitable waste disposal site, where it is tipped and buried. The regulations state that it should be buried in 1 m of earth. Since for me imperial preference has a double meaning, I prefer to say that the regulations require that it be buried under 3 ft. 3⅛ in. of earth. The problem with the conventional method of double-bagging and dumping is that the asbestos waste remains toxic and is therefore still a health hazard. It is also in danger of being re-exposed or disturbed on the waste site at a later date. For example, during the construction of part of the M25 motorway, an asbestos waste site was discovered.
  Recently, a new process was invented by the Sheffield firm of King, Taudevin and Gregson. I understand that it was invented by no less a person than the technical director of that firm, Dr. David Roberts, whom I had the great pleasure to meet in the House yesterday. Previously I had met the firm's finance director, Mr. Keith Hindle, and the managing director, Mr. Stuart Johnson.
  The firm has invented a process which transforms asbestos waste into a completely harmless glass substance which is safe for all time. It is worth stating what that new process means. First, the harmful asbestos waste is vitrified on site. The vitrification of the waste makes it non-toxic and, therefore, completely harmless. The process removes any danger in the transporting and burying of asbestos waste. An added advantage is that there is no need to sterilise land when getting rid of the asbestos waste. Another gain is that the vitrification of the waste reduces its bulk. I am told that it reduces it to one fifth of its original size. If we allow for the volume and

  1401
  area required for the double-bagging of asbestos waste, I am told that it can reduce the area needed for disposal to one tenth of the volume presently needed.
  A further beneficial by-product of the process is that not only does it get rid of a harmful substance by making it non-toxic, but it produces something that can be used, albeit only as hard core for infill on a building site. Another small but significant advantage of the new process is that it can use, as part of the vitrification process, rejected, uncycled glass from bottle banks.
  There is no doubt that this is a significant breakthrough. King. Taudevin and Gregson is the world's largest glass furnace manufacturer. It is worth pointing out that it not only won the Queen's award for export achievement in 1984. but that last month it was awarded the pollution abatement technology award for inventing the process. The award was organised by the CBI, the Department of the Environment and the Royal Society of Arts.
  There is no need for me to do it, but it might be prudent now to say that I have no financial interest in that distinguished Sheffield company and, of course, it does not employ any of my constituents. I must declare an interest in such matters, because I qualified as an architect many years ago. Vanity — the placing of four extra letters after my name—requires me to remain a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and I am a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
  This invention is a significant breakthrough. Cost must be a crucial factor in recommending that this process should be used. If the cost is very great, clearly it will inhibit the use of such a process. I recognise also that the cost assessment very much depends upon the amount of asbestos waste which has to be stripped and removed from a site. If, however, there is a large amount of asbestos on a building site or upon any other site—for example, a requirement to dispose of asbestos waste at the rate of 10 tonnes a day — there is no doubt that the cost of the vitrification process invented by KTG, including an assessment that the capital is on a four-year write-off, the manning of the plant, the electricity needed to power the plant and the recycled glass, will be about £130 per tonne.
  Having checked the figures as carefully as I can, I believe that £130 per tonne could be half the conventional cost. I understand from inquiries I have made today that the cost of bagging and dumping the asbestos waste at Fulham power station worked out some time ago at £210 per tonne and that at West Thurrock power station, where there was a requirement to get rid of 4,000 cu m of asbestos waste, the cost worked out at £260 per tonne for bagging, transporting and dumping. My information is that the figure of £260 does not include the cost of stripping the asbestos.
  The scale of the disposal of asbestos waste is a primary factor. There is much asbestos waste to be disposed of in buildings and other constructions. A conservative estimate is that we shall have to dispose of asbestos waste at the rate of 100,000 tonnes a year. At Fulham power station over 1,000 tonnes have to be disposed of. Greater Manchester has informed King, Taudevin and Gregson that it needs to dispose of 25 tonnes a day from its area. During the next few years a number of power stations will be decommissioned, most of them in the south-east of England.
  An additional benefit of this newly invented process is that it provides options for how the asbestos waste can be treated. The plant could be put on site, with all the
  1402
  attendant savings. That is the most favoured option from the point of view of savings, where there is a large amount of asbestos waste to be disposed of. However, a temporary mobile unit could be placed on site to deal with small amounts of asbestos in sensitive areas where the health of those in the immediate area has to be monitored very carefully. In the case of other sites where the amount of asbestos waste is very small it could be transported to central units strategically located in different parts of the country.
  The central unit or the temporary mobile units may be less cost effective than having the plant on the site. However, I believe that it is still competitive with current conventional disposal methods. I should very much like the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to say whether he believes that the figure of £260 per tonne is too high.
  Tremendous interest has already been shown in the new process. I believe that King, Taudevin and Gregson would wish me to say that my hon. Friend's Department has been extremely helpful, in particular Mr. Tony Sheils of the land waste department. At least 20 local authorities have expressed interest in the process. My hon. Friend may also be interested to hear that about 17 countries have been in touch with King, Taudevin and Gregson, including West Germany where, because of the lack of sites, there is an arrangement for asbestos waste to be exported for burial in East Germany. The cost is £1,500 per tonne. Therefore one understands why West Germany is deeply interested in this new process.
  I had expected the Central Electricity Generating Board to be very interested in the new process, because potentially it is the largest client. However, I understand that after showing initial enthusiasm the CEGB rejected a trial scheme. I find this hard to believe and, if it is true, it is disappointing. Surely it is in the power stations which will have to be decommissioned that a cheaper and more effective system for making the waste harmless will be of the greatest economic benefit.
  It would be wrong of me not to mention that there are other alternatives to the present conventional method, but I do not believe that they are half so good or half so effective as the process invented by King, Taudevin and Gregson. In the case of one scheme, I understand that the asbestos waste can be compressed to reduce its volume. Another system involves the encapsulation of asbestos waste either in cement or in a resinous material, but in those cases the asbestos waste is still toxic. Therefore its harm is not necessarily removed.
  I have no doubt that the King, Taudevin and Gregson process is an important breakthrough. It could end the asbestos waste problem, which is a major environmental hazard. I am proud to say that a British firm has created this process. I ask my hon. Friend to use his good offices and his considerable authority not only to broadcast this achievement to local authorities and other potential clients but also—I think I am entitled to say this on behalf of the constituents of other hon. Friends as well as my own constituents — to consider seriously whether the regulations relating to the disposal of asbestos waste could be tightened up by means of a requirement to make the waste non-toxic. That is necessary on health and environmental grounds. I should like to think that I have demonstrated that there is a process by which the waste can be made non-toxic, and that on economic grounds it is practicable and reasonable to do so.
  2.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) for raising this important subject. It is appropriate that he should do so, because his commitment and expertise over a long period, even before he became a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, and his professional training as an architect give him insights into some of the problems resulting from the demolition or design of buildings.
  I think that it would be useful if I filled in a little of the background. I shall have little to add to what my hon. Friend said, because his speech contained a wealth of accurate information.
  It is estimated that about 6 million tonnes of asbestos has been imported into the United Kingdom over the past 80 years. Imports of asbestos are declining but in 1984 about 38,000 tonnes was imported, mainly for use in asbestos cement, friction materials and asbestos textiles. The amounts of asbestos waste arriving for disposal are substantial — about 120,000 tonnes per annum. Those levels are likely to continue for some years as asbestos materials are replaced by substitutes. The waste is often fibrous or dusty and must be handled properly. That leads directly to the manner of its disposal.
  It may be helpful if I explain our general approach to the disposal of wastes; the treatment of asbestos is exceptional. We believe that a substantial proportion of domestic, commercial and industrial ordinary waste can be safely disposed of by controlled landfill. In many cases, that may be the best environmental option.
  Only last week, I opened a symposium to launch the report of our landfill practices review group which has produced comprehensive guidance on the landfilling of wastes. I urged the authorities concerned to make sure that their standards are as high as they need to be, because some preliminary reports from the hazardous waste inspectorate give cause for concern. However, we rely equally on other methods such as incineration and chemical or physical treatment for wastes that need special approaches.
  Most of the wastes for which we advocate disposal by landfill undergo dispersion and dilution or various forms of degradation within landfill, rendering them effectively harmless. Wastes that could pose long-term potential risks to man or the environment are not normally landfill. Asbestos is one of the exceptions.
  Paradoxically, as I shall be agreeing with my hon. Friend, there is some evidence that the nature of even that asbestos waste is slowly changed for the better within landfills that also accept domestic and similar waste. It is due to the reaction of the leachate generated within those co-disposal landfills. However, those mechanisms are normally afforded only limited opportunity to work because asbestos waste has to be sealed in plastic bags to protect handlers. Therefore, the only benefit of the leachates is when the bags are broken in the landfill, which we do not want to happen.
  The hazardous waste inspectorate has recently looked in detail at the practices adopted for the landfill disposal of asbestos and it reports that the main problem is the bursting of some bags during handling. There is a contradiction; there may be some degradation of asbestos
  1404
  through natural processes, but only in a way which conflicts with the manner in which it must be disposed of to ensure the safety of handlers.
  The only environmental impact of any significance is the long-term hazardous potential of the waste within the landfill. That can be minimised by the proper recording of deposits, as required under the special waste regulations. All deposits have to be at suitable licensed sites, which are operated according to the licence conditions and the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive. However, the overall conclusion is that there are some drawbacks to the landfilling of asbestos waste and suitable alternative procedures are to be welcomed.
  My Department is funding some research work at Harwell on the detoxification of asbestos waste. Preliminary results demonstrate its technical feasibility and work is being carried out to determine optimum conditions and operating factors. My hon. Friend asked whether we should now require detoxification before disposal. We cannot yet make a decision on that, but, in the light of progress on the various alternative procedures and the research work, we shall bear that in mind as a requirement for the future.
  We understand that some alternative methods are available for the processing of asbestos waste prior to landfill. These mainly involve the conversion of the waste into a hard solid material, using a variety of bonding agents, some of which my hon. Friend referred to.
  The WARD system — waste asbestos removal in drums—has recently been developed and has been used, or is being used, at some power stations. It consists of compressing asbestos waste inside steel drums and adding a bonding agent to make the waste a solid block within each drum.
  Some other fixation processes, including Sealosafe and Chemfix, have been tried, but technical and economic reasons have prevented their wider use. They involve mixing asbestos waste with cement and a bonding agent such as pulverised fuel ash. A hard solid block results.
  An older version, or forerunner, of the WARD system was called Black's blocking process. It involved compacting the asbestos waste after the addition of a bonding agent. The resulting hard block was wrapped in thick plastic sheeting, sealed and labelled before disposal by burial. Another method for disposal involves turning the waste into a slurry with water in a closed skip and depositing it in a disposal site.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, those approaches represent a different type of solution to the problem and, in one sense, a less complete solution than the KTG process which results in the waste being destroyed. I am happy to confirm that the company won a pollution abatement technology award under an admirable scheme set up under the impetus of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) when he was a Minister at the Department of the Environment. I had the pleasure of signing the certificate sent to KTG in recognition of its achievement.
  Everything now comes down to differing assessments of the economics of the process. I am still receiving some conflicting advice and some conflicting reports, including some from the CEGB, about the cost of the bagging and disposal of asbestos waste from power stations. I am not sure that the board would accept the figure that my hon. Friend gave.

  1405
  Nevertheless, there is bound to be some uncertainty, because we are scaling up processes that have been operated on a pilot basis, and we would hope for economies of scale. Recent trials, as I understand it, have been at half a tonne per day, and I understand that they may need to be scaled by at least 10 times. My hon. Friend said 20 times.
  Mr. Chapman: I think that if the plant were put in on a site and there was 50 per cent. utilisation instead of 100 per cent. it would be about as expensive as the conventional method. So there is clearly a graph of costs.
  Mr. Waldegrave: That must be so. My Department would welcome further information on and assessment of the commercial viability, on which the speed of introduction of the process at least is bound to turn.
  On the question of relative health hazards, it seems clear that these must be considerably less in the case of the Vitrifix process compared with all the operations leading up to landfill with a remaining asbestos waste of some kind. I understand, however, from the Health and Safety Executive that it too feels that it has insufficient information at present as to the likelihood of dust being involved in the process. No doubt this point can be considered further between the HSE and the company. It is an important point in assessing worker exposure during the process.
  As I understand it, the economics of the Vitrifix process turn rather crucially on the cost of electricity because it is an energy-intensive process, as any high-temperature furnace process is bound to be. Therefore, as with many processed chemical industrial operations, it will depend on the loading of the process — whether it can be kept going — and on the cost of electricity.
  I think that the KTG process is a very positive step and that my hon. Friend is indeed right to draw the attention of the House to it. My Department would welcome close consultation with and further information from the company, as would the HSE. Without going too far — and I hope that I shall not be in any way misinterpreted —I think that it would be a helpful development if one of the disposal authorities which has a large amount of asbestos to dispose of would consider taking seriously tenders from Vitrifix so that we can move to the next stage.
  Obviously, that must he a matter for the decision of the authority or company involved, but from my Department's point of view it would be very interesting to see a bigger plant work so that we could assess it. The Department will be delighted to do anything it can — either itself or through the hazardous waste inspectorate — in the way of facilitating the transfer of information or ironing out any misunderstandings.
  I end as I began by thanking my hon. Friend for raising the matter and congratulating the KTG people on the invention of the process, which has already been acknowledged by the entirely justified PAT award. I hope that over the next few years we may come to see that my hon. Friend is right in saying that this is a breakthrough in terms not only of the safe disposal of hazardous wastes but of British industrial achievement.

  Rate-capped Authorities (Government Policy)
  2.21 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is unfortunate, to put it mildly, that the House should have to be debating the issue of rate capping on the day on which it rises for Easter. The depths to which relationships between central and local government have fallen over the last six years are unprecedented. They have fallen, quite simply, because of the way in which the Government have sought continuously, year after year, to force local authorities to make cuts in their services and make staff redundant, compelling them to pass on the cuts in Government expenditure to local welfare services. Indeed, the Government have forced them to question the democratic basis on which they were first elected.
  I will give a simple example of this. Six years ago — and indeed in 1982 — the local authority in the area I represent, Islington, was able to elect its local council on a very clear manifesto which the council was quite able to carry out. Now, because of successive losses of grant from central Government and successive attacks on that local authority by central Government, the position is that if the grant were restored to the level it was in 1979 the ratepayers of Islington would this year be facing a very large rate reduction. Instead, they are faced with the dreadful choice of making cuts in their services and having losses of jobs or standing firm against the Government and trying to get some money back to maintain local services in Islington.
  We now have a position in which a large number of local authorities have not set a rate for the financial year which has just begun. These include Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark and Sheffield. It is no accident that those boroughs figure very high on the list provided by the Department of the Environment of the poorest communities in this country. Indeed, Hackney is Britain's poorest borough bar none.
  There are also three authorities that have not set a rate this year because of the amount of money that has been taken away from them by central Government policy. They are Liverpool, Tower Hamlets and Newham. For those authorities upon which the Government have imposed rate capping, the cuts this year total £452 million. The Government want those authorities to make cuts in their services.
  Those councils are being told to cut 12·3 per cent. of their budgets as between last year and this year. They have all considered the position very carefully. However, they have been placed in an impossible position. They wish to maintain their services, to keep faith with the people who elected them and to stick to the manifestos that they put before the people in 1982, but because of Government policy their wishes are being frustrated. The Government are trying to take away their opportunity to maintain services and to fulfil their manifesto commitments. Consequently, those authorities have not set a rate. Instead, they have asked central Government to return the grant that has been taken away from them in successive years since 1979. In London as a whole, the loss of grant to local authorities since 1979 amounts to more than £3

  1407
  billion. More than £500 for every person living in London has been taken away through loss of grant, cuts in services or increased rates to compensate for the loss of grant.
  I shall outline briefly the situation facing my borough, Islington. The loss of grant this year, and the Government's decision affecting the council's budget this year, mean that the Government are saying that Islington's services can exist this year on £86–9 million. But the figure that the council gives, which is a minimal figure that does not go any way towards meeting many of the needs of the poorest people in the borough, is £94 million. Thus, there is a difference of 8·2 per cent.
  If Conservative Members were councillors in Islington, Hackney or any of the other rate-capped areas, what would they do? Would they sit in the council chamber and calmly destroy those jobs, services and communities, or would they say, "No, our job is to speak up for the people of this borough and to obtain the resources that we need and deserve from central Government in order to do something about the appalling poverty, much of which is created by the Government's other policies."?
  It has been calculated that if the borough council which I represent wished to carry out the Government's policies, 750 jobs would go this year. Those job losses would include those working on meals on wheels, those working as home helps and street sweepers, as well as those working in libraries. Indeed, every council department would be affected in some way by those job losses, and everyone in the borough would be affected by the loss of those services.
  Where is the logic in sacking a home help, a meals on wheels worker or a street sweeper so that people can walk through filthy streets or see elderly people living alone, prisoners in their own homes because of the lack of social services? The same sort of logic is applied by the Government in every other area.
  The borough of Hackney is just across the border from us. On any criteria, it is Britain's poorest borough. The loss of 12·9 per cent. of its budget this year is appalling even to contemplate. In Lambeth, 2,000 jobs at least would be lost if rate capping were carried out. In Southwark, 1,500 jobs would go. There would be carnage throughout London, Sheffield and the other areas affected if rate capping were carried out.
  I am sponsored by a public service trade union, the National Union of Public Employees. Members of my union work largely for health authorities and local authorities. They work in all the difficult jobs at the sharp end. They deliver meals on wheels, sweep the streets, and collect dustbins. They do some of the most unpleasant, least glamorous but most important local government jobs. In the rate-capped authorities all those members' jobs are under threat. They ask what the logic can be of getting rid of their jobs, destroying their livelihoods and their hopes for the future when we all know that the work needs to be one, and when they are being threatened with privatisation and the loss of jobs to private enterprise companies. The sole motive of such companies in coming into those areas is not to help the poorest people but to make the fastest buck.
  We have now come to the position where large numbers or local authorities have so far refused to set a rate for the forthcoming financial year. They have done so because they realise that, first, it is impossible for them to meet the
  1408
  cuts on which the Government are insisting, and secondly that, implicit in the Government's policy towards local government, is an attack on democracy itself. This has wider implications. That attack goes back to 1979, when the Government started asking for cuts in local government spending. Then they went on to telling, then they introduced the concept of a penalty clause, and then the concept of what the totals of expenditure of any one authority should be. Finally, in 1985–86, the Government are announcing what level of spending there has to be in selected local authorities.
  If local authorities accept rate-capping limits, they are mortgaging the future, because next year the limits will be tighter, and the year after that even more so. It is not difficult for the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House, propose a change in the order and use the payroll vote to get it through. Rate capping can then suddenly affect not just a limited number of authorities in England, and all authorities in Scotland. It can quickly be spread to every local authority.
  It is important for people to realise what the Government are doing in attacking democracy and taking finance away from inner city local authorities. People should also recognise that the implications of this run very deep. There is enormous support for the stance being taken by rate-capped authorities. I have never seen such large numbers of people demonstrating outside town halls as I have in the past few weeks, not in opposition to those local authorities but in support of them. I have probably been to more demonstrations than most people and I have never seen such support for local authorities — normally, people are critical of them. There is a turn-round in feeling and opinion, and the Government will rue the day that they introduced rate capping because of what it has done to the local authorities that are trying to provide services.
  Yesterday, we saw an even more sinister movement. A judgment was made against the London borough of Hackney, in which the judge announced that there is a certain date by which the council must comply and set a rate. Thus, that judge has announced that he will invalidate the decision of two council meetings—two meetings of elected councillors carrying out a manifesto, who made a decision with the massive support of the people of that borough.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will my hon. Friend accept that the judge was decidedly uneasy about making that judgment, and made it clear that he did not like the idea of the Government putting the law courts in this invidious position because it is not a matter for the courts?
  Mr. Corbyn: It is true that many people do not like the way in which the Government are putting them in an invidious position through their policies, when the Government do not have the guts to stand up and say what they mean and what they want doing about the crisis in local government.
  Rate capping means the loss of money, and grants, and of control by locally elected councillors. It also means that, in the long run, the principle of the relationship between central and local government being one of partnership is thrown away, possibly for ever, but at least for as long as the present Secretary of State for the Environment and Government are in office. Instead of that partnership, there will be a dictatorial Government.

  1409
  Why has the Minister refused so far to meet the leaders of the rate-capped authorities that would not set a rate? Secondly, why is he apparently refusing to meet the TUC, at its request, for a discussion about the crisis facing local government? When does he propose to meet the TUC, and when does he propose to make a statement to the House on this matter?
  The issues of local government run far and wide. There are implications for every local authority in what is happening. The headless chicken atmosphere which surrounded the Government last weekend when they were running scared before the Scottish ratepayers will be repeated soon in England and Wales unless the Government are prepared to understand what is happening in the inner city areas and to mend their ways.
  Yesterday the Secretary of State announced that he intended to claw back a further £123 million, mainly from county local authorities. That is a disgraceful decision. Fortunately the people living in the county areas will have an opportunity next month to vote in elections. They will vote solidly against central Government policies. They will vote against the anti-democratic nature and thrust of central Government in their relations with local government.
  The Government will rue the day that they introduced the rates legislation. They will rue the day that they listed the rate-capped authorities and tried to take control of local government. Their policies will hit them back — slap in the face.
  2.36 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for allowing me to intervene before the Minister replies to the debate. My hon. Friend and I have worked closely together with the London borough of Islington in defence of jobs and services in our area. I am pleased and proud to stand here today to support the actions of Islington council in defence of the people of the borough.
  Last year when the Rates Bill was making its way through the House and when, night after night, we debated these matters in Committee, we warned the Government about the consequences of their actions. We are now beginning to see the fruits of those actions.
  The way in which the Government have responded in the last few weeks has been particularly disgraceful. Because of the withdrawal of rate support grant, the operation of penalties, the rate limits imposed upon local authorities and because of concern for the people, authorities unable to set a rate have approached the Government through the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the London Boroughs Association. The Government have refused to meet them for discussions. That is not a reasonable response. It displays a vindictiveness towards the authorities and the people that we have come to expect from this Government.
  The same Government refused, in a similar vindictive manner, to meet the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers when it offered discussions without preconditions. The Government are now displaying the same vindictive and arrogant attitude towards certain authorities.
  I have discussed the rate- capping issue with many of my constituents in the past few weeks. On behalf of my constituents and of the borough which represents them, I
  1410
  ask the Government to consider seriously whether, after all, they are prepared to sit down and have reasonable and responsible discussions. If they are not prepared to do that, they will stand condemned for the chaos and vindictiveness they are imposing on the people in the inner city areas.
  2.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): The hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) are well known for their opposition to the policy of rate limitation. A good deal of what we have heard today we have heard before. The hon. Member for Islington, North said that it was a pity that we were debating this matter on the last day of the Session. His hon. Friend put him right on that because we debated this matter throughout the larger part of last year. We have certainly had prolonged sessions in Committee and susequently.
  Islington's budget for 1984–85 was more than £86 million. That represents an increase of more than 24 per cent. on the amount it spent in 1983–84. In that year, Islington exceeded its expenditure target by only 0.5 per cent. and incurred a mere £60,000 holdback of block grant. In 1984–85, by increasing its spending — without any regard to the consequences — by more than 24 per cent., it is exceeding its target by 22 per cent. and has incurred very significant holdback of £17.5 million. Indeed, it has forfeited all its grant and the rates have increased by 29·6 per cent. If it had spent at target, the rates could have fallen by almost the same amount.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North spoke of the new announcement by the Secretary of State about grants for counties. That is a good line for the Opposition in the run-up to the county elections. I am astonished that John Carvel, one of the few local authority correspondents who actually understands local government finance, should, for the first time in his history, behave rather like what he would describe as someone from a less distinguished and more tabloid newspaper.
  There is nothing surprising about the close-ending of grant. It happens every year and depends on whether there is an overspend — it usually reflects the overspend or underspend in large authorities. Every county treasurer will have been expecting that announcement and will have taken it into account in his budget. I do not blame John Carvel because I suspect that he did not write the headline, as though it was a great news story.
  Islington ratepayers have seen the local rate increase from 59p in 1982–83 to 122·74p in 1984–85, an increase of 108 per cent. Moreover, in the past two and a half years Islington has increased its manpower by more than 9 per cent.
  Against that background, the rate limit which the House approved for Islington is eminently reasonable. It is 112·07p. That represents a reduction of 8·7 per cent. on the 1984–85 poundage. It is intended to enable the council to spend this year at the same level in cash terms as its 1984–85 budget. I can see no possible cause for complaint. Indeed, Islington councillors also apparently have no cause for complaint. If they were dissatisfied with the proposed rate limit which the Secretary of State announced on 11 December they had the opportunity to make representations and seek agreement to a higher limit. They did make a point about their estimated penny rate product

  1411
  for 1985–86, and the rate limit takes account of that point. But they have made no representations to us of the devastating cuts they now allege.
  Indeed, I am not surprised that we have not heard any official talk of devastating cuts from Islington, because the scope for sensible pruning there is so great. That is what I am told by the journalists of Time Out, not a Government publication, which carried an interesting little piece last month. I shall just read it to the House. It stated:
  "In these times of financial cutbacks and economic hardship, it is astonishing to discover Islington Council squandering £1·6 million of rate-payers' money tarting up its offices in the town hall. Not only were they perfectly adequate to begin with, but the work is being carried out using the most expensive wood on the market—American oak. Brand new office partitions are being put in, all covered in beautiful and costly hessian."—
  [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members do not like to hear things that do not fit in with their preconceptions, but it might do them some good to listen. The article continued:
  "And rows of perfectly serviceable, custom made oak lockers have been smashed up and ripped out to make way for made-to-measure replacement. Admittedly, part of this hideous extravagance includes the cost of facilities being put in for the disabled."
  Mr. Chris Smith rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman must wait until I have finished the quotation from a magazine which, I have no doubt, if it had said something that suited the hon. Gentleman, he would have quoted in the House with the utmost approval.
  The article continued:
  "Which is splendid news for any disabled person working in, or visiting the town hall in future, provided he or she doesn't suffer severe damage negotiating Islington's neglected streets while getting there. If this is the kind of thing rate-capping is supposed to prevent, no wonder the local authorities on the hit list don't like it."
  Mr. Chris Smith: I am surprised at the Minister using that quotation, because it was produced by his right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government at a dinner held by the Islington chamber of commerce but three weeks ago. There is a wholly inaccurate representation in the article about the replacement of the heating system at Islington town hall and a wholly inaccurate figure and description of the work involved. His right hon. Friend was put right on that matter by the leader of Islington council. I am surprised that there has been no liaison between the Minister and his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Waldegrave: The contradiction of the story was not convincing. We are told by Opposition Members that there is no waste anywhere in Islington council, that it is, extraordinarily, a perfect council and that nothing could be done better by any other authority. Opposition Members argue that Time Out was well off the mark, as are Ministers, journalists and all others who criticise Islington council on any occasion.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Waldegrave: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to address the House.
  Islington and the other rate-limited authorities should have responded to rate capping by reducing that sort of waste. Instead, they have been demanding the return of the block grant which, they say, we have "stolen" from them. That argument is spurious, and they know it. The Labour
  1412
  party started to cut the grant in 1975–76. There is nothing sacrosanct about the 61 per cent. grant rate that we inherited.
  We do not consider these councils entitled to put their municipal fingers in the taxpayers' pockets to fund their spending sprees. If they had spent in line with their targets, rate increases would have been modest. The example of other responsible authorities show what can be done. Rate increases by councils such as Islington are due overwhelmingly to the spending decisions of those councils, in full knowledge of the consequences for their grants and for the ratepayers.
  Let us consider what has been happening. We had something called "Democracy Day," when all of these councils were going to demonstrate their opposition to the Government in what they said would be "an impressive show of unity." Unfortunately, that unity did not work —as usual in the Labour party — and south Yorkshire, ILEA and Merseyside took the opportunity of "Democracy Day" to fix precepts at or below the maximum limit that we had set. They were joined by Basildon.
  What happened three days later? Reference has been made to a headless chicken. If one wanted a scene that was reminiscent of a number of headless chickens running about, it would have been the setting of the GLC rate, a scene which hardly enhanced the relatively low reputation of London's Labour leaders. The GLC decided to set its precept nearly 3p below the limit that we had set.
  The decisions of those authorities came as no surprise to us. But they must have come as a bit of a shock to their ratepayers, who had been pounded with propaganda telling them that rate capping would decimate jobs and services. Indeed, many of those ratepayers must be asking why so much of their money was spent giving them totally misleading information about the effects of our policies.
  The remaining authorities passed motions that no rate would be set. But as some of their friends in the upper tier authorities were quick to point out, they knew that they could postpone making a rate without immediate legal consequences. Indeed, the resolutions that they passed were carefully worded, all with expensive legal advice, to avoid legal consequences.
  Last week, many of the authorities met again to discuss their rates. This time common sense broke out in Leicester and in Thamesdown, where legal rates were set. The remaining nine authorities — only half of the 18 in the original show of unity — again passed carefully worded resolutions not to make a rate. A good example was the resolution passed by Hackney council, which resolved to defer a rate-making decision while
  "re-affirming its commitment to set a legal and practical rate in due course."
  These councils have tried to justify their decisions to defer making rates by arguing that they were about to start negotiating with the Government — the usual story. First, they were going to have collective discussions with us. But my right hon. Friend made it clear in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Rippon (Mr. Watson) on 14 March that there would be no negotiations on that basis.
  Then they claimed that discussions were about to start through the AMA and ALA, even though my right hon. Friend wrote to Mr. Layden and Mrs. Hodge in terms which made it clear that the time for discussion of the Rates Act, the rate limits he had set and the rate support grant settlement for 1985–86 had passed.

  1413
  The truth, as we have made abundantly clear, is that there will be no negotiations. The time for negotiation has passed, and the councils' anxiety to talk to us is in marked contrast to their reluctance to do so when they had the opportunity. Moreover, even if there were still time for those councils to make approaches, the demands that they are making would hardly form the basis of a realistic agenda.
  They have been asking us to withdraw the Rates Act and to re-write the rate support grant settlement so that we could pay them substantial sums of money. They have asked for all their so-called "lost grant" back. They have deliberately made demands which they know to be unreasonable in an effort to make us appear inflexible and intransigent. If there was any doubt about that, the leaked "Blunkett report" made it clear that that was the objective.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that there will be no negotiations, or is he saying that their might be negotiations if the terms are changed? Is he saying, before Britain's poorest borough goes back to court in a week's time, that the Government are adamantly refusing to negotiate with Hackney borough council?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I make it absolutely clear that there will be no negotiations. If the council argues in court, on the advice of its lawyers, that it is waiting to set a rate because the negotiations are in train, that would not be true.
  Referring to the prospect of non-existent negotiations on an unrealistic agenda as the reason for not making a rate is a very dangerous game to play. These councils know that, if they persist in their totally unjustified posturing, the consequences could be severe. If councillors are responsible for a loss to the council that is judged to be due to their own wilful misconduct, they can be surcharged; and if the loss amounts to more than £2,000, they will automatically be disqualified from holding office as councillors. If they are bankrupted, they would be precluded from standing for Parliament. For some of these people, that may be a telling consideration.
  One hopes that councillors will be equally, if not more, concerned about the consequences for the areas that they
  1414
  are supposed to serve. Council employees will -Probably be the first to suffer. They will not be paid. Some of the more extreme shop stewards may be prepared to put up with that, but I am not sure that the same will be true of their members. Anyway, why should they go without pay in order to bolster the political aspirations of these militants? The councils' clients will begin to feel the effects. Of course, those who need the services most, the very people whom these councils claim to be protecting, would suffer first and suffer most.
  It is the duty of all these councils to make a legal rate without further delay. It was helpful of the hon. Member for Islington, North to give me the opportunity to put that point clearly on the record. That is the view of Mr. Justice Woolf, who yesterday ruled that there were "no reasonable grounds" for Hackney's decision to defer setting a rate. It seems to be the view also of the hon. Gentleman's party, which decided yesterday, by a two to one majority, that it would not support councils that refused to set rates. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman backed another loser in this matter.
  Let me end by referring to a letter sent, at ratepayers' expense, to the unfortunate ratepayers of Southwark. The letter advises the member to continue paying rates at this year's level. The council has told its ratepayers that it is "negotiating with the Government", which, as I have explained, is totally untrue. The council has not told its ratepayers that last year's borough rate is 25 per cent., or almost 37p in the pound, higher than the limit that we have set the council. I say to the ratepayers of Southwark, "You have no obligation whatsoever to pay any rate until a rate has been set legally for the current year." Last year's rate cannot be a legal rate in Southwark, and this year's rate will be considerably lower.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North for giving me the opportunity to put some of these matters clearly on the record. I have every hope and every confidence that these councils will shortly set legal rates because they, like the others, recognise the position in which they find themselves.

  Teaching (Pay Dispute)
  2.53 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: In my maiden speech nearly six years ago, I said that I was a member of the greatest profession — teaching. I hold to the view that the teaching profession is the greatest profession. The time has come for the House to face the consequences and the effects of the current teachers' strike. I invite my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to respond to my points on the important issue of the teachers' pay dispute.
  I was a teacher for 23 years and for seven years was in charge of a large mixed school of more than 2,000 students. Millions of pupil learning days have already been lost because of the current wave of teachers' strikes. The schools affected include special schools. I know of two schools for maladjusted children and another school for educationally subnormal children that were recently closed for three days. It is public knowledge that hundreds of schools have been closed for three days, and sometimes more, with a consequential loss of education for our children. It is a very serious matter.
  Before we break up for our Easter recess, it is important to consider the schoolchildren who have just broken up for their Easter holidays. However, whereas we can be sure, when we come back from our welcome break, that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be seated where you are in your Chair to keep us in good order and to teach us good order, the children can be far less certain that their teachers will be in front of the class to teach them. Between now and then there will have been the Easter conferences of the major teacher unions. I still hope that new thinking will prevail at those conferences. A few hot-heads, claiming to represent all the teachers — which they do not — may seek to step up their disruptive campaign.
  There is strong pressure among some teachers on their coleagues not to supervise the examinations that the children will be taking in the spring and summer, and not to continue to prepare them for those examinations. It is a very serious matter and I cannot believe that teachers will do it. If they do, the effect will be to damage those children for life in a massive way, and I do not think that such action could possibly be justified. I appeal to members of the teaching profession not in any circumstances to do such a thing, and to put the children first, as they have always done traditionally.
  It needs to be said loud and clear that the purpose of a few teachers seems to be to damage the education of our children. From my experience, most people are genuinely and deeply upset at what is happening. It is the purpose of the hot-heads to disrupt the smooth running of the schools. It is their purpose to cause lessons to be cancelled and to see schools close altogether for several days a week. If they succeed in furthering their efforts, they will deeply damage the education of the children in those schools. Indeed, I suppose that unless they can damage and disrupt our children's education, there is no point in their taking the action. If the withdrawal of good will and of cover for absent colleagues and walking out from classes had no effect, no one would take any notice, so one has to see the rationale of the situation from that point of view.
  Therefore, it is totally disingenuous of some teachers' leaders to claim that it is not the intention of the teachers to harm the children by the strike. By definition, children
  1416
  are deeply damaged by those actions. Some will never recover in their lives. We must face that possibility, and so must my former colleagues in the profession.
  All teachers must be professionals first and last, as most are. They must put the children's education first and last. That is what is involved in a professional approach to education. The teacher must be a professional first and last. As I said earlier, in my view it is the greatest profession of all, and that must be the teachers' approach.
  My first point, which I cannot emphasise too strongly, is that, no matter how justified the teachers' pay claim may be, and no matter how annoyed, provoked, angry or lacking in morale they may be as professional people—or would-be professional people — there can be no justification for strike action or any other form of disruptive action. It is totally wrong in principle.
  My memories of teaching go back a long way. I remember in 1965 the teachers' strike at the William Penn comprehensive school in south London. It was then a school of about 1,100 boys. Twenty-five very fine schoolmasters walked out for a one-day strike. They were members of the National Association of Schoolmasters, which was not represented on the Burnham committee and did not seem to be able to achieve representation on that committee. The strike was intended to force that representation, and it achieved it. At the time, that action seemed to have much justification. It was taken by dignified men. Looking back, I believe that it was the thin end of a wedge, which has led to the present wave of strikes, with all the damage to our children.
  I cannot emphasise my first point too strongly. However justified the teacher's pay claim might be, no matter how annoyed, provoked, angry or lacking in morale they might be as professional or would-be professional people, there can be no justification for strike action or for any other form of disruptive action which damages the children. It is wrong in principle.
  We have heard many protests from the Labour party and the alliance whose members have been clamouring to support the teachers in their claim for higher salaries. Many have said inside and outside the House that we have to go back to the Houghton award of 1974 and achieve such a standard again. I was a teacher at that time, and was paid that award. I remember it well. I also remember very well that it was eroded under the Labour Government. The Lib-Lab pact also occurred between 1974 and 1979. I do not wish to be tendentious, but it seems to me to be the deepest hypocrisy for the Labour party and the alliance to say that they have supported the Houghton level of salaries when under their leadership that level was eroded. Since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979, the level of teachers' pay has improved by 9 per cent. in real terms—
  Mr. Giles Radice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
  If teachers' salaries have improved by 9 per cent. under the Government, no one can be complacent about that because basically it is not good enough. However, at least it is reasonable for the Government to say, "That erosion did not take place under our Administration. It happened under the Labour Government." We challenge the hypocrisy of the Labour party when it tries to wriggle away from that fact. That must be said, but I do not say it in a

  1417
  tendentious spirit because I wish teachers' salaries to be improved — they need to be. However, I question whether the local authorities and the Government will find an extra 12 per cent. this year. I wonder whether the teachers have set out on a realistic quest in seeking such an improvement.
  The teachers are only too well aware of that fact. The ordinary classroom teacher, who is the backbone of the profession, knows only too well that the present disruptive action will not lead to a vastly greater amount of money, and many have told me so themselves. Perhaps that is why their morale is at a low ebb. Their own leaders are asking them to take action that they know is unprofessional. It is counter-productive in achieving the end that they seek, which is more pay. Unfortunately, the public are alienated. It is sad to see a great profession less loved by the public, by parents and by children — and that is suggested by the response of some members of the public — than it traditionally has been. There is no greater example of the profession than yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were a veritable Mr. Chips in your day and gave a great deal to the profession.
  Even if the teachers' action is not stepped up, it is wrong in principle and in practice. I say that sincerely. I realise that teachers have a right to protest and must find some way of expressing their feelings, but striking is not the way.
  What is the answer? I appreciate that it is unlikely that my hon. Friend will be able to give me many answers today. He will not be likely to say anything that might rock the boat in the present attempt to start the negotiations again. I hope that the negotiations will be successful. They need to be. A settlement of this terrible situation is keenly sought by us all. My hon. Friend may be able to do little more than rehearse the arguments and outline the current situation once more. However, I hope that he will be able to say something.
  I should like to voice some of the things that many teachers are thinking and saying. I was a teacher in London, which is not always the easiest of assignments. I know how very hard a teacher has to work and how inadequate is the financial reward that most teachers receive. One must bear that clearly in mind. It is essential that teachers should be paid at a level that enables them to have the self-respect to which they are entitled as professional people, especially if they renounce the right to strike because of the damage that it does, although their rate of pay should not be ruinous to the ratepayers and the taxpayers.
  We should start by conceding that there is some merit in the teachers' case; there is no question about that. In particular, there should be more pay for the good teacher at the chalk face who, in my experience, has always been under-rewarded. It is difficult adequately to reward the good teacher while not overpaying the terrible ones — and there are a few terrible teachers, too.
  The problem has faced successive Governments and successive local government employers. Even if one considered that starting pay at present was not too unreasonable, pay stays at that level for far too long. It takes far too long to reach the higher levels, and those levels are not high enough when they are reached. No recognition is afforded either to the quality of teaching or to the scarcity value of the teacher. In short, the salary structure seems to be all wrong. A good middle-aged head of department or senior teacher should enjoy a better salary
  1418
  and a better standard of living than he does at present. Other teachers, too, should enjoy a better standard of living, but the job of head of department or senior teacher is the goal of many teachers. Once the teachers reach that goal, it should represent a proper and better reward. His or her contemporaries at university who now work in other occupations may work no harder or longer — indeed, most will not — but they enjoy a considerably better standard of living. It is extremely unfair.
  I believe that the case is mainly for salary restructuring, and perhaps for relating pay to performance. That is the only way of rewarding the extra good teacher. There is probably also a case for employing fewer teachers as rolls fall, but paying those whom we retain a much better salary.
  The constant improvement in pupil-teacher ratios, which is now the best ever — the Government can take credit for that — has not been matched by a commensurate improvement in the quality of education. We must have a wide and searching debate about what the ideal pupil-teacher ratio should be. It will vary among teachers, because some teachers could teach 100 children brilliantly while others could not teach one.
  The improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio has been expensive in cash terms. Has not the time come to reconsider the matter and perhaps to spend money not on even better pupil-teacher ratios but on better teachers? All this is for negotiation, but how can we have that if one side refuses to negotiate? Unfortunately, the NUT refused the 4 per cent. pay offer. It then refused the offer of arbitration, having fought so hard for arbitration last year. Its representatives walked out of the restructuring talks, but I understand that the union is still interested. It has even refused conciliation, but eventually it must negotiate — if not now, then later. The later that happens, not only will more damage be caused to children, but the teachers will have done more damage to their standing in the public eye.
  If the NUT refuses to negotiate, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government may have to impose a solution. If that happens, what are the Government's intentions? Will there be a proper appraisal of teachers' performance? if that is envisaged, we must ensure that such appraisal is conducted not only by headmasters — we do not want a creeps' charter — but by teachers' peers and even their juniors, as well as others. Will the Government consider the relation of pay to performance, and the reward of teachers not just for time served but for their ability to teach? Will they reduce the number of teachers, increase the salaries of more senior staff and toughen the procedures for getting rid of incompetent teachers? Cannot the teacher be better valued in society now on the basis of greater public esteem? Above all, we should reward the good teacher.
  The pay dispute must stop sooner or later, and the sooner the better. We need a two or three-year strike-free agreement. The recent habit of striking and withdrawing from voluntary and some professional activities once a year damages children, schools and teachers, and I know well that it is extremely upsetting for them. I hope that sooner rather than later the teachers will get terms that they can accept. If they leave it until later, the negotiations will not go as well. They will attract more odium from an angry public who may have less sympathy in future with any grievances that the teachers may have.

  1419
  I hope that the matter can be settled and that teachers can return to their central place in society. They are respected and loved by children, parents and all members of society for the honest job that they try to do. Let no one forget that it is a great and noble profession.
  3.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I should like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for raising the important issue of the teachers' pay dispute and the effects of their industrial action. The House always listens with a great deal of interest to my hon. Friend's words because of his long experience in the education service. During his six years in the House he has held high office in a number of educational organisations, both within our party and outside. I thank him again for his comments.
  I shall deal a little later with the effects of this action on schools, pupils, parents, teachers themselves and society in general, but I should like to begin by setting out some of the background to the negotiations on teachers' pay.
  The Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 provides that the Secretary of State shall constitute one or more committees to consider and make recommendations on teachers' pay. The Burnham primary and secondary committee has therefore been established for the purpose of considering school teachers' pay. The management panel of the committee comprises representatives of the employers — that is, the local education authorities — and of my right hon. Friend. The teachers' panel comprises representatives of the teacher associations. It is for the Secretary of State to make orders to give statutory effect to the committee's agreed recommendations.
  Although the Secretary of State's repesentatives have a place within the management panel of the Burnham committee, they do not constitute a majority, and it is not therefore possible for my right hon. Friend, through them, to impose his will upon the management panel. Still less of course is it possible for him to impose his will on the Burnham committee as a whole, since any resolution would need to secure the approval of the teachers' panel. There are those who argue that, my right hon. Friend should somehow step in to resolve the dispute. It will I hope be clear from what I have said that that is not open to him. The Burnham committee is a negotiating body and can proceed only by way of agreement between management and teachers.
  The present position, as the House will know, is that in response to the teachers' claim for £1,200 for all putting about 12·5 per cent. on the pay bill — the management made teachers an offer of a 4 per cent. increase. This was rejected. It then offered arbitration. This, too, was rejected. It offered to resume talks on structure reform broken off by the teachers. This was rejected, too. Exploratory meetings between both panels and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service have taken place, and ACAS is pursuing the prospects for conciliation. We must wait and see how this initiative fares.
  In rejecting these various offers, the teachers have said that they want to go back to 1974 and the salary levels
  1420
  established by the Houghton committee. This backward-looking yearning for a "golden age" is misconceived. Let me give the facts. The "level" established in 1974 hardly warrants the word "level". It had already been eroded by 1979. In no small measure this erosion was caused by public sector pay settlements like Houghton which came in a flock at that time. The rest is history — the International Monetary Fund and Labour's pay policy. But history is remembered only selectively and some union leaders would have their members forget everything but the "golden age" and the Houghton "level". I must dispel this illusion and remind the House that inflation in the mid-1970s was running at about 20 per cent. a year. This Government have no intention of returning to that self-perpetuating and self-defeating inflationary spiral. It is not a philosophical question of what a teacher is worth. This Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have the highest regard for the majority of teachers committed and dedicated to their difficult job. It is a question of economics. We cannot go back to paying ourselves more than the nation can afford. I say again, therefore, that the teachers' "back to Houghton" claims are quite unrealistic.
  As to the possibility of arbitration, in offering the teachers arbitration, the spokesman for the management panel made it plain that he was doing so because of what the teachers' panel spokesman called the "unbridgeable gap" between the teachers' claim and the management panel's offer. Arbitration is not an ideal solution. The Government have made it plain that they cannot suspend economic laws; no additional resources will be made available to local authorities to finance an arbitral settlement. The fact is that no arbitrator can conjure up resources out of thin air to finance a pay settlement that is beyond the employers' capacity to pay. The teachers do not differ from other employees in this respect. Resources are finite, and what is spent on pay is not available for spending on goods and other services.
  My right hon. Friend does not undervalue teachers. He recognises both the importance of the job that they do, and the dedication with which the great majority perform their difficult task. He is well aware of diminished career and promotion opportunities in the wake of falling pupil numbers. Career prospects for capable and effective teachers are much diminished. The present pay and career structure was relevant and appropriate 10 or 20 years ago, but there is a widespread recognition that reform is now needed. That is why my right hon. Friend has consistently encouraged the employers and the teachers to consider together the possibility of structural reform, and he has consistently made clear his willingness to consider any proposals put to him. If he is satisfied of their educational merit, and considers them affordable in present economic circumstances, he has made it plain that he would be prepared to put them to his Cabinet colleagues and seek their support for any necessary additional resourcets. At the same time, he has emphasised that he cannot guarantee the results.
  My right hon. Friend has given the teachers and employers a clear lead on the direction in which he believes reform is necessary. At a time of reduced promotion opportunities, he looks to reforms that would link pay more directly with performance. That does not mean a crude system of payment by results. It means a sensitive and objective assessment of all aspects of teachers' performance with a view to improving teaching

  1421
  quality by means of well-informed and, therefore, more soundly based decisions on induction, in-service training, support and counselling, professional and career development, deployment and promotion. It means greater incentives to achieve good performance and more help and encouragement for those encountering difficulty.
  The Secretary of State believes that a reform based on such principles would offer improved rewards, better morale and increased job satisfaction, and, of course, enhanced status and esteem. Together with other policies and initiatives for better schools, which I need not rehearse here, such reform could make a real contribution to higher educational standards in our schools. I know that both sides of the House share that view.
  This is not easy and my right hon. Friend has never pretended otherwise. But instead of grappling with the problem, the leaders of the biggest of the unions have taken the teachers out of the structure reform discussions, and led them to disrupt and damage children's education, buoyed up by the false expectations aroused by an unrealistic pay claim. This is an appropriate time, on the eve of the teacher unions' Easter conferences, to urge each and every teacher to recognise the country's economic circumstances, and to look for realistic and affordable solutions — the only ones offering any prospect of success. They will achieve nothing and persuade no one, least of all my right hon. Friend, by their present course of disruption.
  My right hon. Friend's concern is above all for the quality of education provided for pupils and improvement in teaching quality can be wholly consistent with the interests of the teachers in better career prospects. Central to the Secretary of State's policies for improved teaching quality is the development of more formal and systematic arrangements for the appraisal of teachers' performance. He hopes that the teachers and employers can negotiate such arrangements into place. He has set aside resources to support research and development in the field. The Department is consulting the unions and the local authorities on how progress on appraisal might be made in the context of the better career development and management of teachers. But my right hon. Friend is acutely aware that, two years after the publication of the White Paper entitled "Teaching Quality", in which the Government set out their commitment to performance appraisal, we are scarcely any nearer agreement. In those circumstances, it is plainly incumbent on him to consider all possible means of securing his objectives. It is against that background that we have announced in the White Paper entitled "Better Schools" our intention to seek power to make regulations on appraisal. Indeed, in that White Paper we have said much that has been warmly welcomed on both sides of the House and in the education service about where we should be in the next decade and after, leading on to the 21st century.
  1422
  I know that Labour Members have shared our interest and supported the claims and the points made in the White Paper "Better Schools" and have not disagreed about the main thrust of the arguments contained therein. We have been used to receiving the constantly reiterated views that ever more resources are necessary and essential. I am, of course, grateful for any comments that Members of the Opposition may care to make about the policies contained in our White Paper. It must be hard for the Opposition to make a speech condemning what we have done in the past six years and what we intend to do over the next 10 years and more. All I know is that the arguments which they put forward in their speeches both in the House and outside have led us to the view that we are content to receive their support in what we are doing. And of course I am grateful that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who leads the Opposition on these matters, is always fair and even-handed in what he says and what he has to do.
  Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman is not.
  Mr. Dunn: I do take exception to that. The hon. Gentleman knows that I try to understand the points that he makes.
  Mr. Radice rose—
  Mr. Dunn: No. I have got a lot to say and it is my speech.
  I have always listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. I think that he represents a more moderate voice on the Opposition Benches and I hope that he will continue for a lot longer in his present role on those Benches—certainly not on these.
  My hon. Friend, in moving the motion, has drawn attention to the widespread disruption that is being caused by the teachers' industrial action. Throughout England and Wales hundreds of thousands of children have had their schooling dislocated. Many schools have had to close altogether for up to three days at a time and many more have been unable to provide all their pupils with uninterrupted education. Parents have had their working and domestic arrangements disrupted, as their children have been sent home not only at lunchtimes but for part of the time tabled school day. As so often with industrial action, the hardest hit tend to be those who are worst placed to cope with additional problems—single-parent families, families least able to meet the costs of extra travel for their children and so on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I express the hope that Members and staff will have a quiet and peaceful recess.
  It being half past Three o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put till 15 April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 26 March.

ENERGY
  Point of Ayr Colliery (Liquefaction Scheme)
  Point of Ayr Colliery (Liquefaction Scheme)
  Nuclear Safeguards
  Nuclear Safeguards
  Israeli Minister of Energy
  Israeli Minister of Energy
  Fishermen (Fuel Costs)
  Fishermen (Fuel Costs)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  High Technology (Graduates)
  High Technology (Graduates)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Higher Education (National Insurance Contributions)
  Higher Education (National Insurance Contributions)
  Synoptic Geomagnetic Measurement
  Synoptic Geomagnetic Measurement
  New Blood Posts (Age Limit)
  New Blood Posts (Age Limit)
  Tenured Appointments
  Tenured Appointments
  Particle Physics Research (Review Group)
  Particle Physics Research (Review Group)
  Brixton Church of England School, Devon
  Brixton Church of England School, Devon
  Manchester (Capital Allocation)
  Manchester (Capital Allocation)
WALES
  Departmental Legislation
  Departmental Legislation
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospitals (Vale of Glamorgan)
  Hospitals (Vale of Glamorgan)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Forestry Land
  Forestry Land
  Private Schools
  Private Schools
  M4
  M4
DEFENCE
  British Aerospace plc
  British Aerospace plc
  Test Ban Treaty
  Test Ban Treaty
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Legislation
  Departmental Legislation
  Research Contracts
  Research Contracts
  Soviet Union (Nuclear Forces)
  Soviet Union (Nuclear Forces)
  HM Vessels (Log Books)
  HM Vessels (Log Books)
  Mr. Peter Levene
  Mr. Peter Levene
  Nimrod Aircraft (Servicing)
  Nimrod Aircraft (Servicing)
  Harrier GR5 Aircraft
  Harrier GR5 Aircraft
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Expenditure and Taxation
  Expenditure and Taxation
  Negative External Financing Limits
  Negative External Financing Limits
  Value Added Tax (Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act)
  Value Added Tax (Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act)
  Tax Relief (Charities)
  Tax Relief (Charities)
  Nationalised Industries (Financing Limits)
  Nationalised Industries (Financing Limits)
  Taxation Policy
  Taxation Policy
  Customs and Excise (Industrial Action)
  Customs and Excise (Industrial Action)
  EC (Finances)
  EC (Finances)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
PRIME MINISTER
  Rates
  Rates
  EC Reports
  EC Reports
  Scotland-England Football Match
  Scotland-England Football Match
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Civil Service (Secondments)
  Civil Service (Secondments)
  Mr. Peter Levene
  Mr. Peter Levene
  Football Matches
  Football Matches
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Voluntary Bodies (Grants)
  Voluntary Bodies (Grants)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Family Court
  Family Court
  Vaccine Damage Claims (Legal Aid)
  Vaccine Damage Claims (Legal Aid)
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  Dangerous Dogs
  Dangerous Dogs
  Departmental Legislation
  Departmental Legislation
  Liquidators (Reports)
  Liquidators (Reports)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Family Law (Representations)
  Family Law (Representations)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisons (Health and Safety)
  Prisons (Health and Safety)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  Television Licence Fee
  Television Licence Fee
  Draize Tests
  Draize Tests
  Immigrants (Grants)
  Immigrants (Grants)
  Betting Shops
  Betting Shops
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Pensioners (Television Licence)
  Pensioners (Television Licence)
  Her Majesty's Prison, Stafford
  Her Majesty's Prison, Stafford
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Metropolitan Police (Identification Parades)
  Metropolitan Police (Identification Parades)
  Local Government Reform (Fire Boards)
  Local Government Reform (Fire Boards)
  Nuclear Winter
  Nuclear Winter
  Prisons (Categorisation)
  Prisons (Categorisation)
  Suicides (Statistics)
  Suicides (Statistics)
  TGWU (Ballot Rigging)
  TGWU (Ballot Rigging)
  Injured Police Officers (Civil Remedy)
  Injured Police Officers (Civil Remedy)
  Stop and Search Powers
  Stop and Search Powers
  Drugs (Hot Line)
  Drugs (Hot Line)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Executive (Staffing Report)
  Housing Executive (Staffing Report)
  Political Reform
  Political Reform
  Community Enterprise Scheme
  Community Enterprise Scheme
  Noraid
  Noraid
  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Rubber and Plastic Bullets
  Rubber and Plastic Bullets
  Higher Education (Report)
  Higher Education (Report)
  Baker Report
  Baker Report
  Lignite
  Lignite
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Housing Executive (Modernisation Schemes)
  Housing Executive (Modernisation Schemes)
  Housing Executive (Contracts)
  Housing Executive (Contracts)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Northern Ireland (American Investment)
  Northern Ireland (American Investment)
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  President Belaunde Terry (2 May Press Conference)
  President Belaunde Terry (2 May Press Conference)
  E1 Salvador
  E1 Salvador
  Poor Regions
  Poor Regions
  European Council (Votes)
  European Council (Votes)
  Superphenix Reactor
  Superphenix Reactor
  Spain and Portugal
  Spain and Portugal
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Saudi Arabia
  Saudi Arabia
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Antarctica
  Antarctica
SCOTLAND
  Voluntary Conservation Bodies
  Voluntary Conservation Bodies
  Workers' Educational Association
  Workers' Educational Association
  Protected Fauna (Control)
  Protected Fauna (Control)
  Fishermen (Fuel Costs)
  Fishermen (Fuel Costs)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
TRANSPORT
  Fishing Industry (Research Awards)
  Fishing Industry (Research Awards)
  Motorways (Litter)
  Motorways (Litter)
  Motorways (Accidents)
  Motorways (Accidents)
  Airports Policy
  Airports Policy
  Roads (London)
  Roads (London)
  Hayes Bypass
  Hayes Bypass
  Traffic Signals (London)
  Traffic Signals (London)
  A40 (Enlargement Schemes)
  A40 (Enlargement Schemes)
  Driving Test
  Driving Test
  Roads (Statistics)
  Roads (Statistics)
  Rail Services (Timekeeping)
  Rail Services (Timekeeping)
  Liverpool Airport
  Liverpool Airport
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Departmental Achievements
  Departmental Achievements
  Net Book Agreement
  Net Book Agreement
  EC (Insurance)
  EC (Insurance)
  Amateur Radio
  Amateur Radio
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Ericsson Exchanges
  Ericsson Exchanges
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Telecommunications Industry (Shares)
  Telecommunications Industry (Shares)
  Investment
  Investment
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Holdings
  Agricultural Holdings
  Cheese Spread
  Cheese Spread
  EC (Spain and Portugal)
  EC (Spain and Portugal)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
ENVIRONMENT
  Olympic Games
  Olympic Games
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Overseas Ministerial Visits
  Overseas Ministerial Visits
  Sports Competitors (Drug Abuse)
  Sports Competitors (Drug Abuse)
  Private Sector Rented Accommodation
  Private Sector Rented Accommodation
  Litter
  Litter
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Commercial Properties and Hospitals (Waste)
  Commercial Properties and Hospitals (Waste)
  London Planning Commission (Staff)
  London Planning Commission (Staff)
  Civil Servants (Extra-departmental Work)
  Civil Servants (Extra-departmental Work)
  Greater London Council
  Greater London Council
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act (Guidelines)
  Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act (Guidelines)
  Superstores (Planning Permission)
  Superstores (Planning Permission)
  GLC (Historic Buildings)
  GLC (Historic Buildings)
  Rate Equalisation Scheme (London)
  Rate Equalisation Scheme (London)
  Environmental Organisations (Departmental Patronage)
  Environmental Organisations (Departmental Patronage)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Fairhazel Co-operative, London
  Fairhazel Co-operative, London
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Birds of Prey
  Birds of Prey
  Nuclear Fuel
  Nuclear Fuel
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  Radioactive Waste Disposal
  North Pennine Area of Outstanding Beauty
  North Pennine Area of Outstanding Beauty
  Conservation (Special Grants)
  Conservation (Special Grants)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Health Authorities (Declarations of Interest)
  Health Authorities (Declarations of Interest)
  National Health Service (Internal Audit)
  National Health Service (Internal Audit)
  Departmental Legislation
  Departmental Legislation
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Drugs (Costs)
  Drugs (Costs)
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Health Education Council
  Health Education Council
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton District Health Authority
  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton District Health Authority
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Cervical Cytology
  Cervical Cytology
  Committee on Gynaecological Cytology
  Committee on Gynaecological Cytology
  In Vitro Fertilisation
  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Nursing Homes
  Nursing Homes
EMPLOYMENT
  Departmental Achievements
  Departmental Achievements
  Link Courses
  Link Courses
  Trade Unions (Political Funds)
  Trade Unions (Political Funds)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Ballot Rigging
  Ballot Rigging
  Coventry
  Coventry
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Vocational Qualifications
  Vocational Qualifications
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Wages Inspectorate
  Wages Inspectorate

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
The Marquess of Milford Haven—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Soccer Spectator Violence
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further action they are considering, or recommending, to eliminate hooliganism connected with football matches.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, On 1st April my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, together with ministerial colleagues, met representatives of the Football Association and Football League to discuss soccer spectator violence.
The football authorities agreed: to examine urgently the FA's disciplinary rules; to accelerate the introduction of closed circuit television; to ensure that perimeter fencing is in place and effective; to investigate a practical scheme of membership cards for matches at home and abroad; to introduce more restrictions on the distribution of tickets for problem matches; to encourage more and better family enclosures at league grounds; and to deal severely with any bad examples set by players' behaviour on the pitch. The Government will support the football authorities.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be announcing shortly, in a White Paper, conclusions following the Public Order Review and making proposals for new legislation in the autumn. These will include some new provisions which are of general application, but which will assist in preventing and controlling football hooliganism.
That legislation will also include powers to control the sale of alcohol at grounds and on transport to grounds. My right honourable friend proposes to designate particular clubs for this purpose according to their record. Meanwhile, the Government are recommending the football authorities and the clubs to ban alcohol from matches.
The Government will also support football authorities in other ways. We will extend designation under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act to clubs in Divisions 3 and 4 of the Football League, starting with grounds with a record of violence, and we will review the guidelines in the Green Code. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be discussing with the police what improvements can be made in their effectiveness in dealing with football violence, particularly in obtaining evidence to bring more serious charges, where appropriate—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is not much more, but I am under a constraint to deliver it all.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Injury time.
Lord Elton: Overtime.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Overkill.
Lord Elton: I shall continue, my Lords. My right honourable friend is also encouraging magistrates to make full use of their powers, including detention and attendance centre sentences and is drawing their attention to the Court of Appeal guidelines on sentencing violent offenders; and to bail conditions forbidding attendance at matches. Finally, for matches abroad, we will consult other Governments about publicising better and perhaps strengthening last year's Council of Europe recommendation on football violence. We will review how the Diplomatic Service can help in identifying troublemakers. We are considering arrangements for people convicted of offences abroad to serve their sentences in this country. We will seek to discourage travel agents setting up special schemes for problem matches.
My Lords, that concludes what I have to say.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very full Answer. Is he aware that the trouble is caused by a small minority whose violence gives this country a bad name and spoils football for other people? I congratulate the Government on their determination to force some action now, but are they aware that the ban on alcohol in Scotland has, during the past four years, contributed to a marked improvement but that such a ban cannot by itself be a complete answer to the problem?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the troublemakers are a minority. We agree that the ban on alcohol will assist and my noble friend will have noticed that there are a number of other proposals, too.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, may I express my thanks to the Minister for the speech—the statement—he has just made? I thought he was going to speak about banning alcohol at Tory Party Conferences. Is he aware that in this House six years ago we dealt with this matter in regard to Scotland? Certain reservations were expressed, but it has worked very well, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said. It is a matter not just for the clubs; it is also a matter for players, managers, and the police, but they must be given the power—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, why has it taken six years for the Government to take an interest in this problem in England and Wales? Why are Scottish supporters insulted by having one of the greatest sporting occasions transferred because the Government cannot control law and order in London?

341
Is this fair to Scottish fans who have paid deposits to hotels, spent money on buses, and so on? What are the Government going to do about that?
Lord Elton: My Lords, in my position I can scarcely complain at the length of the noble Lord's question. Basically, I have said that the Scottish experience with the banning of alcohol has been helpful and encouraging to us. I have said what the Government propose in this respect. The noble Lord will notice, when he looks at my reply in Hansard, the very large proportion of what I said in terms of action which is to be taken by the Football Association. I think that it is right that we should look to the sport to control itself. The noble Lord will know of clubs with past histories of violence which have managed to control that violence without the recourse to law which has now become necessary.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's last answer, can he say whether those clubs at which disturbances frequently take place and which, therefore, involve a considerable police effort, are made to pay the full cost of that police effort?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the rules on the payment for police efforts, as I recall, relate to what is done inside the ground and not to what is done outside.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the noble Lord note that 20,000 Scottish supporters recently went to Spain, where the country was unfortunately defeated, and the Spanish police authorities complimented the Scottish supporters upon their excellent behaviour? In view of those circumstances, is it right and just that the hooliganism which has been evident south of the Border should be transferred to Glasgow on the advice of the Government that that fixture between Scotland and England should be transferred? Will the noble Lord answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, as to whether, in view of the fact that many supporters have paid deposits on hotels, to travel companies and for transport to attend the fixture, they will be reimbursed by the Government as they have now requested the transfer of that fixture north of the Border?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am always glad to commend good behaviour, especially abroad, where it redounds to the credit of the United Kingdom as well as to that of Scotland. As to the question of the transfer of the match, the request made by the Government was that it should not be played on a bank holiday. It was the association's decision to move the venue. Under those circumstances, or indeed in other circumstances, I cannot see that there could be a question of reimbursement.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not everybody would be critical of the association's decision to change the venue of this match? Something as traumatic as that needed to be done to draw attention to the depth of the problem which was growing almost every week that there was a football match. I do not think that suggestions of it
342
being insulting, and so on, are in keeping with the importance of the matter. I believe that the association will be supported by the whole nation. Will my noble friend keep in mind that the Government should continue to exercise any power that they have to ensure that this is kept as a top priority?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are very much aware of the importance of this matter, both nationally and internationally. We shall support the Football Association in its commendable efforts to put its house in order.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the short notice given for the cancellation of the venue for the Scotland-England game has thrown Scottish supporters into great confusion? Small travel agencies particularly have suffered. For many years they have handled the arrangements for Scottish supporters going to games abroad where they have behaved extremely well, as other noble Lords have said. Individuals have been severely punished financially and some small travel firms are likely to face bankruptcy as a result of the short notice for the change of venue.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when the sport falls into the disarray which has recently affected parts of it, all those associated with it stand in danger of some sort of loss or inconvenience. That is sad, but the fact is that the damage has been done to the whole community of sport by a very few people who have done violent and bad things. It is right, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said, that the nation's attention should be focused on that, and national disapproval should result in better behaviour.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, the Minister mentioned attendance centres as one sanction available to the courts. Can he tell the House how many young offenders are serving attendance centre orders as a result of acts of football hooliganism and vandalism? Are the Government satisfied that that is proving to be an effective deterrent? If so, do they plan to increase the number of attendance centres, particularly the senior ones, of which there are very few at present?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am a little further from the information that the noble Lord seeks than I was last week. I am afraid that I shall have to write to him about the numbers. As to the efficacy, it is clear (is it not?) that if a fan who is also a hooligan is required to be at an attendance centre when his club is playing, that will minimise the violence done.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware we do not get the phenomenon of hooliganism on our rugby fields? Maybe if a little rugby was taught in our elementary and secondary schools it would do a power of good for the English and the Scots people.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord has kicked off in a match which I think I do not want to join in.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what is the size of the department at the disposal of the Minister for Sport, and how those people occupy themselves in the context of this matter?
Lord Elton: My Lords, they occupy themselves in acquiring the information and giving the advice which it is necessary for my honourable friend to have to discharge his functions.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept from me that all law-abiding citizens will welcome this example of Government interference, particularly in view of the lethargy that has been shown hitherto by the Football Association and many of the clubs? Does he agree that the virus of hooliganism is catching, and that the vandalism by members of the organisation of Conservative students is setting a bad example to law-abiding football fans?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the first half of the noble Lord's intervention was welcome; the second was not entirely relevant.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we have had 12 minutes on this Question. May we go on to the next one?

WEU: Security Research Institute Proposal
11.19 a.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the proposal, made by the German Foreign Minister to the Ministerial meeting of Western European Union (WEU) in Rome last year, for a European Research Institute for Security Policy under WEU, and what their attitude is to this proposal.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, yes. We stand ready to help with the investigation of work undertaken by existing research institutes in WEU member countries in the field of European security which was agreed by the WEU Permanent Council after discussion of Herr Genscher's proposal.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Government confirm that what Herr Genscher proposed was a new single European research institute dealing with security matters? Would it not be a rather obvious trap for our Government and other governments to fall into if they simply limited their response to that to making it easy for the existing national research organisations—Chatham House here, and so on—to meet rather more frequently than they do at the moment? Is not what is needed a European mixed united study team to get to grips with these topics?
Baroness Young: My Lords, a new research institute, working in the same field as WEU but independent of it, would need careful dovetailing of its work with that of WEU itself to avoid wasteful overlap and duplication. However, I can confirm that there is no intention by WEU to create a caucus within the alliance and we recognise the importance of the contribution made to NATO by the non-WEU allies.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it a fact that the American administration has recently been expressing some concern about the prospects of co-operation between the Western European members of the North Atlantic alliance?
Baroness Young: My Lords, no approaches of the kind that have been suggested in the press have been received from the Americans in relation to the WEU Bonn Ministerial session.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, can the Minister say anything more about the terms of reference of this initiative? Can she say whether it would serve not only the WEU itself but the other Western European defence organisations? Does she not agree that there is a need for greater co-ordination of and co-operation on the Western defence effort? Has any estimate been made of the cost of this?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the general point, as the noble Lord will be aware, the renewed and reactivated WEU will provide a valuable forum for foreign and defence Ministers to hold joint debate about European defence and security matters. We believe that greater co-operation in this field will improve the European contribution to the alliance and give political impetus to work in other fora.

Coal Products: Statistics
11.21 a.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total expenditure incurred by the National Coal Board during Mr. MacGregor's period of office, in the processing of deep-mined, imported and surface coal, oil, tar, gas and other by-products, compared with the total production of processed coal in the five years before Mr. MacGregor assumed office; and what plans they have for additional processing.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, the processing of coal and byproducts for the National Coal Board is carried out by the board's wholly-owned subsidiary NCB (Coal Products) Limited. Information on the activities of the company is available only for full financial years, the most recent being 1983–84, the year in which Mr MacGregor was appointed chairman of the National Coal Board. I have arranged for these detailed figures requested by the noble Lord to be placed in the Official Report.

345
Future production plans are a matter for the National Coal Board and the management of NCB (Coal Products) Limited.
Following are the.figures referred to above:
The net operating costs (excluding operating grants) of NCB (Coal Products) Limited in 1983–4 and the previous five years were as follows:—

£ million

1983–84

276

1982–83

290

1981–82

303

1980–81

245

1979–80

297

1978–79

243

Total production of coke and other manufactured solid fuels over the same period was:—

'000 tonnes

1983–84

3,242

1982–83

3,483

1981–82

3,280

1980–81

3,852

1979–80

4,430

1978–79

4,320

Lord Shinwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, although I found the answer to the final part of my Question profoundly disappointing. I will not blame the Minister for that. Is he aware that it is now more than 60 years since the late Mr. Lloyd George introduced a pilot scheme at the Metropolitan Gas Works in London for the processing of coal which I supported as I have continued to do ever since? When I was Minister for Power I asked the Prime Minister to agree to the integration of oil, gas and electricity into an energy policy, but that has not been done. Is the Minister aware that millions of pounds of our taxpayers' money have been spent in the production of coal in its raw state, which is used in its raw state? As a result of this, it has been affected by geological faults, subsidence and a number of other problems that have occurred underground. In order to create, as we all wish to do, a viable and profitable mining industry, surely it would be more appropriate to use in the coal industry technologically advanced modern conditions to produce a variety of products which can be placed on the market and provide work for a vast number of people, instead of people going underground to undertake work of this kind. When will the Govenment face up to this question of processing on a big scale in order to make this industry great?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I respect the very great experience of the noble Lord in this matter. I pay tribute to the work which he has done over the years in his efforts to encourage the industry to modernise. I should tell him that since this Government came to power they have invested no less than £4 billion in the mining industry. Indeed, the Plan for Coal, about which we heard a great deal during the recent sad dispute, has been exceeded as far as investment is concerned. Of course a degree of that investment is also going towards the future technological uses to which coal and coal products can be put and which has been referred to by the noble Lord.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, with modern conditions, the time has arrived when we should cease opening new coal mines, or continuing with a large number of them, irrespective of whether they make a profit? Many of them never make a profit, never did and never will. Is he aware that we should process the coal, turning it into byproducts? When the Minister speaks about the fact that billions of pounds have been spent, he is not altogether accurate. I do not blame him for this. I ought to see the details and I think he ought to see them himself. In fact, billions of pounds have been spent on producing new mining equipment to the advantage of those who produce such equipment and make a profit on it. We ought to stop this kind of situation. For example, one of the things we can do is to liquefy the coal underground. It would save a lot of trouble. It would be more expensive to begin with but in the long run it would pay the country.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the objective of the Government is to ensure that the massive sums of money which have been invested in the coal industry offer a reasonable return on capital as soon as possible. I find myself in complete agreement with much of what the noble Lord has said. I am sure that his views will be to the advantage of those in the National Union of Mineworkers with whom he has contact. I think he should emphasise those points to them.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, after all these long statements today, the best supplementary question is confined to a single sentence?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on employing that tactic.

Provision for Hospital Patients
11.27 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to avoid putting hospital patients' lives at risk through lack of funds.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we do not accept the suggestion that hospital patients' lives have been or will be put at risk because of lack of funds.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the noble Lord had his attention drawn to the surveys produced by the baby life support systems and by Dr. Colin Walker of Dundee, both of which show a very grave shortfall in the number of intensive care cot units in a number of hospitals, including University College Hospital in London and King's College Hospital in London? Is he aware that these surveys show that babies are being turned away at a rate of between five and 20 a week

347
and that it is supposed by the doctors that many of them die because there are not the care cots available to keep them alive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has done it again. He asks me a very general first Question about an industry that has been financed by this Government to a record sum of £171/2 billion, employing something like a million whole-time staff. He then asks me a very detailed question about intensive care cot units. Perhaps I may provide a Written Answer to him and I will put a copy in the Library.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Question on the Order Paper has a clear implication that lives are being put at risk by the National Health Service? Is he aware that this is a very offensive Question, both to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and indeed to the whole health service? Is he aware that, on the figures of the financial provision by this Government, in the coming year £17 billion is to be devoted to the National Health Service compared with £71/2, billion in the last year of the Labour Government? Even allowing for the cost of living increase, is that not a very substantial increase? Is my noble friend aware that, if there is any substance in the offensive Question of the noble Lord, it reflects on his own Government, the then Labour Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his question. I would also confirm that the increase that we have given to the National Health Service is 20 per cent. in real terms.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, contrary to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is not the noble Earl aware that there is increasing public concern about the state of the health service, the threatened closure of vital specialist units and the level of waiting lists, which are now averaging roughly 100,000 more than during the period of the previous Government? Does the noble Earl accept that taking into consideration the inbuilt growth of demand, partly due of course to the ageing population, the theorectical efficiency cuts and the increased charges, the actual growth rate is negligible—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Ennals: I am asking a question, my Lords, I am asking a question to the extent that the noble Lord was. Our progress would be a little more rapid if I was allowed to ask that question and to get an answer to it. In view of the circumstances, is not the real increase virtually nil and for some of the RAWP deficient areas actually nil?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree entirely with the noble Lord's last statement. We discussed this matter fully on 13th February, as he will recall. The Government's position was put clearly before the House. As to closures, the noble Lord knows a lot about closures. He closed 272 hospitals in the five years that he was in charge of the health service. With
348
regard to waiting lists—another of his supplementaries—the latest figures for September 1984, which are still provisional, show that at 682,000—
Lord Ennals: A disgraceful figure, my Lords.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the waiting list is some 22,000 fewer than it was in September 1983 and some 70,000 fewer than it was at the peak of 752,000 when the noble Lord was in office.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it would not be more in accordance with the sensible practice of this House if noble Lords who have doubts about the adequacy of the provision for the National Health Service were to table a Motion for debate? They could then put their points and have them answered, rather than put down a general Question and, without notice, try to spring a particular example of an alarming nature on a Minster who cannot conceivably be expected to give an answer to it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We had a very good debate, as I have said, on 13th February. We would welcome another. Our record is extremely good and is better than that of any other Government.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, as this is a health Question, Members of the House and myself would welcome the services of an experienced nurse on the Government Front Bench?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that there was no trickery in the Question? When it was originally put down it included points such as that concerning the closure or the threatened closure of the cardiac unit at Guy's Hospital, which has subsequently been answered. Nor is there any party point—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, what I am trying to discover is whether the department is conscious of the facts—I have given only one example—regarding children's intensive care cot units. Is it not the case that, according to medical evidence, there are patients who are losing their lives because there is not the financing of what is a new process? Whereas previously premature babies were expected to die, with the new process, which needs new money, there is now the opportunity to keep them alive. Will not the noble Earl accept—and will he further investigate the point—that this is a facility which any Government, of any political nature, should now be financing in order to save these lives?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on that detailed point, I have said that I shall write to the noble Lord. We are putting the care of the patient first. That is why we are spending record sums and increasing manpower.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, with reference to some remarks made about experience, is my noble friend aware that many of us have noticed that in the few months that he has been sitting on the Front Bench he has given admirable answers to a whole range of questions on many subjects?
Lord Parry: My Lords, regardless of politics and forgetting what has gone before, will the noble Earl assure us that he is in touch with those agencies which carefully monitor and are deeply concerned about the treatment of babies immediately before and immediately after birth? Will he give the assurance that he is studying with them all the implications of the development of the health service so that it can properly serve both the unborn and newly born child?
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords, I can confirm that the department is in regular touch with a whole range of organisations.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, on a lighter note, will my noble friend agree that it might be an improvement if Questions framed in the form of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" were regarded as out of order?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that there really is no case on record where it has ever been proven that death has occurred through lack of funds?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, one can say what one wishes; it has never been established.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I did not know that specifically.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, will the Minister—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that perhaps—
Lord Shinwell: I am not making a speech, my Lords.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that perhaps Question Time has gone long enough and that we might move on to the next business.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask a question?
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is held in great affection in the House. I think, however, that we have had long enough on Questions. I think that it would be the sense of the House that we move on to the next business.
Lord Shinwell: No hooliganism, my Lords!

Films Bill
11.36 a.m.
Bill read a third time.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Levy on feature films, pre-recorded video cassettes or blani video tapes.
(" . The Secretary of State, after one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and after consultation with persons considered by him to be representative of the film production industry may by order made by statutory instrument, establish arrangements to supplement the financial assistance provided under section 5(1) of the Act by funds derived from any or all of the following schemes, that is to say—

(a) a levy from independent television contractors and the BBC of an appropriate sum of money to be determined by him in respect of the showing by them of feature films on television, or

(b) a levy at such rate as he may determine on pre-recorded video cassettes containing feature film material and sold in the United Kingdom, or

(c) the appropriate film proceeds of any levy scheme approved by him in respect of blank video tape sold in the United Kingdom.")

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this composite amendment which we discussed at Report stage concerns a levy on feature film at a new point of exhibition which is the television screen. I maintained that without such a levy the British film industry is doomed. At Report my noble friend produced a very thorough and detailed counter-argument: so thorough, indeed, that I said that I must go through it in Hansard with a fine tooth comb. That I have now done. With some sorrow I inform my noble friend that I still have many points of disagreement with him on his speech.
The British film industry has needed subsidy or central funding ever since the war. Now, as people leave the cinema for television sets in their living rooms, it needs it more than ever. But there is another reason for moving this amendment. The BBC licence fee is now agreed. At all other stages of the Bill, both here and in another place, there was the difficulty of the licence fee. Really the twin issues of levy and licence came at us in the wrong order. Only now has that order been put right. No longer can it be said that the BBC should pay a levy while at the same time and contrariwise it should not put up its licence fee by too much. All now is decided on that front—£58 it is!
My noble friend and I have had a quite extraordinary argument about the price that we pay to watch films on television. I keep assuring him that I am paying next to nothing. He keeps assuring me that I am paying quite a lot although I do not realise it. He talks of my buying goods advertised on television and therefore paying for film indirectly through the increased price of the goods. But my understanding of advertising is that its aim is to increase the volume of sales and that therefore it can actually lower the unit price of goods. At Report my noble friend mentioned that we paid via the self same BBC licence fee, to which I replied that even with a £65 licence fee the cost of viewing a feature film is only 6p. Now that the licence is £58, the cost of viewing such a film is more like 5p, unless five people are watching the same screen, in which case the price comes down to just I p each. Surely we are getting something for nothing and surely the inevitable result of that will be the bankrupting of the British film industry?
I should like to take issue with my noble friend on the question of video companies. At the Report stage on 26th March, he said (at col. 956 of Hansard):
"Of the 65 video companies listed in the BFI directory, no fewer than 21 have co-invested in film production".
That is true if we include half our programmes on baby care, gardening and pop promotions; but it is not true if we include only British independent feature films because then the figure sinks I think to a mere three video companies out of the 65.
My noble friend also speaks of the £96 million allocated to Channel 4 for film and video. However, my understanding is that the £96 million is Channel 4's total budget, not just the budget for feature films alone. Whatever may be the figure for Channel 4, the material made for it is very different from that made for the big screen. At no stage has the following point been made before, but it really is a fundamental one regarding the whole issue. A cinema film tells its story basically by pictures, and can therefore in theory be understood by a deaf man. A television film tells its story in sound, and can therefore in theory be understood by a blind man. The reasons for this strange difference between picture-based and sound-based films are historical. The British film industry arose from silent talent—for example, Chaplin, Eisenstein and Flaherty. The television industry arose from sound talent, that is, the wireless. It is odd but true that even today "Dad's Army" and "Yes, Minister" are just as good on wireless as they are on the small screen. All too often the pictures in a television film are just chewing gum for the eyes.
The consequence of the difference is as follows. Pictures are international; they know no language barrier and hence the export record of films made for the big screen is top class. However, sound is English and national, and so a film which relies on sound does not export so well. Television film exports less well than film made for the cinema. That is why I argue still that our export-market film industry needs support from our home-market television industry.
My noble friend argues against a redistributive levy; he calls it robbing Peter to pay Paul. No, my Lords; if anything, it is robbing Dives to pay Lazarus, and not by much at that because the total sum which we are talking of is only 1 per cent. of television's income. The British film industry asks for between only £10 million and £20 million, and that must be compared to the £93 million that that self same industry earned in exports in 1983 alone. I know that my noble friend is understandably frustrated that we keep resurrecting the issue of the levy. However, I must say that we in our turn are also frustrated that my noble friend has not really budged an inch on any issue connected with the Films Bill. I cannot understand why that is so. I listened to him when he spoke on the Insolvency Bill last Tuesday and all was sweetness and light. He is a flexible man except when it comes to the Films Bill. That leads me to conclude with an apt pun. The British film industry needs financial aid: all it is getting is Lucas-aid!
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend and I shall do so briefly because it was discussed very fully at the
352
Report stage at a very late hour, but that was no fault of the Government. However, I wish to make one point. The terms of the last paragraph of the White Paper were a eulogy on the performance of the British film industry. That is fair enough. However, one only has to go to Pinewood Studios to see how many studios are not now in operation. My fear is that this Bill will exacerbate that situation.
As I ventured to mention on Second Reading, I am not necessarily pleading for central Government funds. However, when it comes to videos there is one point to be made. It is one thing to praise the achievements of the British film industry. However, one wants to see films, as it were, in the raw. Not everybody has a video. Many people like to go to the cinema to see films and do not wish to see them on a cassette. Despite all the pleadings and complaints of the video industry—and I respect the good work that that industry is doing—if the Government are not prepared to provide central funds (and in view of all their other commitments I can well understand why they are not so prepared) I do not see why the video industry should not be submitted to some reasonable payment in this regard.
11.45 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I share the regret of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, that it is necessary to bring the same amendment at Third Reading as was moved and then withdrawn at the Report stage. But the fact that it is necessary is evidenced by the fact that the arguments for the amendment—particularly those so ably put forward by the noble Viscount a few minutes ago—become stronger, and the arguments put forward by the Government against the amendment become weaker.
The noble Viscount has pointed out a number of misstatements in the Government's winding up at the Report stage—for example, the reference to the total budget for Channel 4. I shall not weary the House by repeating any more of them. Under the rules of order at Report stage it is not possible—or at least it is certainly very difficult—to correct errors of that kind in the course of debate. The only way in which to correct the record is to bring the matter forward at Third Reading. Therefore, I share the noble Viscount's regret, but the judgment must be that it was the correct course to take at this stage.
I would only add to the arguments of the noble Viscount by saying that the Government should really consider why it is that what they are proposing for the British film industry is at variance with the proposals put forward by virtually every Government in the Western world, and indeed the rest of the world. There are very few countries which have a natural home film market which is sufficient in size to permit a varied and successful film industry without any intervention by government. The obvious examples of that are the United States and India; and I suspect that to a lesser degree countries like Brazil and China also have the same opportunities where they are protected both by the sheer size of the market and by the particularity of language. In virtually every other country in the world such a protected market does not exist and for this country in particular, which shares a language with a

353
very much larger film industry—the United States film industry—the position is very much worse for our indigenous film industry.
If we were to take the broader view and if we look at the very modest amount of support to which the noble Viscount has referred in moving the amendment, we would find that the United Kingdom would be very much in line with the civilised world and not so completely out of line as implied by the proposals of the present Government in this Bill.
Baroness White: My Lords, I have not previously intervened in the discussions on this Bill and I would have hesitated to do so today had I not realised, from the speech of the noble Viscount and my noble friend on the Front Bench, the attitude still being taken by the Government towards the British film industry. It appears to me—and the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, was referring to it in those terms—that their attitude is that they praise the plumage of our successful British films but forget the dying bird. This is surely the whole essence of the arguments that are being put forward.
I am myself now very much out of touch with the film production industry. There was a time—I was for 16 years art independent member of the Cinematograph Films Council advising the then Board of Trade—when it was considered that the late Reginald Maudling and myself were the only two people in another place who really understood film legislation. It is quite clear to me, although some detailed circumstances have changed, that the present Government certainly do not appreciate that the only way in which we can keep a flourishing British film production industry is by some transference of resources between the different parts of the industry. The details have changed; the principles have not.
It is clear from what is being said that the Government have not grasped what is an absolutely essential fact, in particular for a country which shares a language, among other things, with a very much larger country and has no protected market in the sense that China or India or other vast countries may have through other circumstances. I believe that, unless we have a much more reassuring reply from the Government than can be expected, they are making the gravest possible mistake, and it is very depressing.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, on his tenacity and on the way in which he introduced this particular amendment. As I indicated in some of our earlier debates, it is an amendment that gets a great deal of sympathy from me but I am afraid it is not one that in all honesty I can support. I like certain things about it. I like the fact that the Government should look at the problem again in a year's time. I like the idea that the Government should look at a levy on tapes. But I must resist the suggestion that the television companies, already giving massive support in one way or another to the film industry, should be regarded still as a milch cow to which we go automatically. Their advertising revenue is slipping. As has already been said in other debates, satellites and cable are over the horizon and in two or three years' time the television companies—some of them at least—may well be
354
fighting for their lives. I do not think we can continually go to them with an empty bucket and expect them to fill it.
I believe that the real answer to this problem is that there must be more direct money from central Government. I believe they have been mean and shortsighted and have shown lack of vision in this respect. Most of all, as I said before, what we need are financial incentives for investment into films. The experience of the Australian film industry is that once those tax incentives are given the money flows in—not only money for the making of a film but the start money, the risk money, which flows in to enable the scripts to be written, budgets to be prepared and production to go ahead. So in sorrow I must say I cannot support this particular amendment though parts of it, I believe, are pleasant and useful.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, in supporting this amendment I should like to take as realistic a view as I can. I am far from accepting all the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, adduces against the idea of a television levy. I think the noble Viscount has put the arguments extremely well. But I do not wish to join in that particular debate because I recognise that the Government have quite made up their mind that they are not going to support a television levy. Therefore I prefer, if I may, to concentrate my few words on the tape levy, which seems to me to afford the principal hope for getting additional resources into the film industry, which is what those of us who support the film industry wish to see achieved. For this purpose I should like to divide my remarks. First, I shall deal with pre-recorded tape, involving feature films, and then say a work about blank tapes.
In regard to pre-recorded tapes, the noble Lord the Minister and his Government seem to put the main force of their argument in terms of their total hostility to the idea of some kind of recycling mechanism, but for the life of me I find it very difficult to understand the basis of their hostility. What the noble Lord the Minister said on a previous occasion was simply that this is not the right way of encouraging an economic activity which should have its feet firmly planted in the market place. But what they do not seem to go on to do is say why that should be so in this particular case. The only support that I have been able to elicit from a very careful study of the various statements which I have heard the noble Lord the Minister make and which I studied subsequently in the Official Report is that he says it would be inefficient because it would tax the successful producers in favour of those who otherwise would perhaps not have found investments. Surely this is totally to misunderstand the whole process of film making, whether in this country or other countries. After all, success, especially in the cinema, is a totally unpredictable thing. The cinema industry is a mixture of many flops and occasional successes. This is why it requires a constant injection of supporting funds if we are to get commercial funds to back this rather dubious kind of commercial enterprise.
In my submission, therefore, it is not efficiency for which we are looking here; it is where we are to find money to save this industry and keep it going.

355
Therefore the argument against recycling, I would suggest, is totally irrelevant. On the other hand, the noble Lord the Minister dismisses any arguments regarding the use of videos as irrelevant to a levy on pre-recorded tapes. He says producing pre-recorded tapes is a perfectly proper business of publishing video copies of films. I dare say that that is perfectly true in a sense, but it ignores the use to which video tapes can be put and the effect that they have, and are bound to have, on the cinema-going habits of the public.
If I may pray in aid the observations on a previous occasion of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, he pointed out how people can rent a pre-recorded video tape for a very small sum and gather together groups of friends and relatives who can all see it. It is true that they may not enjoy the same experience as seeing the film in a cinema, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, rightly placed emphasis. Nevertheless, we are in this way probably depriving the cinema of a considerable number of its potential audience. This is, of course, an effect which flows from the character of a pre-recorded video tape.
Again, there is the potentiality of unlawful copying of video tapes, made even more probable, as I mentioned on a previous occasion, by the recent introduction of the double video recorder which would facilitate this process. Then the Government say, "All we can ask for, for those who are struggling to help the survival of the industry, is to take money from the taxpayer". But of course the whole essence of a levy is that it does not take money from the taxpayer, at any rate in no sense in which Her Majesty's Treasury is involved, in exactly the same way as the Eady money did not take money from the taxpayer. It was a recycling mechanism and, as I venture to submit, there is really no crucial objection to such mechanism.
12 noon
Then may I say a word about blank tapes. Here I have struggled hard to understand the Government's position on this, and I am happy to see that they do not at any rate go so far as the writer of an article in The Times the other day, presumably put forward on behalf of the video industry, who argued that domestic tape recording is a matter of personal freedom on the principle, as he put it, that a man can do what he likes with his own tape.
I do not know whether the writer of that article had attempted to think this through: for instance, whether he would say that if I buy a book written by a certain author that that gives me the right to publish copies of that book in defiance of the ownership rights of the author or the copyright owner. Happily, as I say, the Government do not go so far as that. Indeed, at any rate since their Green Paper they indicate that they might be prepared to contemplate a levy on blank tapes, but then unfortunately on conditions which would render any such scheme wholly nugatory and unworkable because, they say, first of all such a levy is in no sense to be a redistributive or recycling levy because their mind is totally set against that.
What must it be? It must be a compensatory levy based solely on copyright criteria. Now, what does that mean? Does it mean that every copyright owner has to
356
be identified and given his fair share? Is it possible to identify these people to evaluate their contribution and allocate compensation? Surely this is completely out of the question. Indeed the Government themselves seem to recognise that by the passage in the Green Paper, to which I drew attention on Second Reading of this Bill, where they said that there might be an amount of the levy channelled into a central fund for the benefit of the film production industry. One welcomed that suggestion because it seemed to propose something constructive. But unfortunately now comes along the right hand of the Government which, perhaps understandably in a way, "Knoweth not what the left doth" and this is said: it can only be done on a purely voluntary basis. There must be no Government intervention to divert money into a fund. It must be wholly voluntary, we are told.
If so, having laid down that draconic principle, the Government would encourage such a scheme. But surely this is absolutely unworkable. With whom, by what mechanism, would such voluntary assent be procured? How if it ever were procured could it be enforced? One therefore feels oneself forced to ask whether the Government are really serious in this proposal.
I believe that they sincerely want to help, but basically they seem to have the feeling that they have done all that they can and they want to wash their hands of any further responsibility, and simply leave the industry to secure its own survival in whatever way it can. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, this is totally at variance with the attitude of other leading film-making countries towards their national film industries. The result is likely not to be the euphoric one that the Government paint for us, but that they will administer the last rites over the film industry despite the goodness of their intentions.
I suggest therefore that it is of the highest importance that this great product of British film, which has contributed so much to the culture of 20th century Britain, should not be cast away in this fashion, and that the tape levy presents possibly a last resort whereby, without tax, a substantial injection of funds can be put into the film industry without causing any grave detriment to anybody else. Therefore I strongly support at least this part of the amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will also give it your support.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to rise briefly to support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, but with a slight reservation which is based on Lord Willis's remarks on the contribution which television could make to the cinema. I seldom agree with the Government's views on a free market, but I think it is healthy that the television companies should be able to negotiate with film companies across the table and come to an agreement based really on the market as it stands at the time.
On the other hand, with video cassettes, whether they be pre-recorded or blank cassettes, that is another matter altogether. I do not think it is unreasonable in the way that this amendment is framed that we should

357
lump the television contribution (should the need arise to consider that) and the question of video tapes together.
We are talking about money. The film industry needs enormous amounts of money, but the video cassette market is here to stay and is growing. The Secretary of State ought, quite properly, to have the power, should the occasion arise, to be able to call upon contributions from that sector particularly. I do not think that he will need to use his powers where television is concerned.
Perhaps I may inject one brief note of optimism. The Times newspaper today shows that the recent figures of cinema attendances have taken quite a cheerful upturn with recent successes in British cinema. We are also now moving into the British film year which gives us every hope that the British film industry is now moving into a much more cheerful era. If the exhibitors, film producers, and everybody connected with it, including the Government, can pull together I am sure that the disappointing pattern we have seen of film attendances in this country will change. It is changing. With this change perhaps the Government's attitude will change.
I should not like just before we start the Recess to say that the noble Lord the Minister has been unhelpful, but I would say that the general attitude of the Government in their production of this Bill has been unhelpful and not understanding of the needs of the film industry. It has been rather dismissive of the film in British life, which is now beginning to find its own momentum. I would support this amendment in the hope that it will never need to be used, but the Secretary of State ought to have these powers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords in the House this morning who have repeated the arguments that were deployed on at least two previous occasions, both during Committee stage and Report. Since the arguments have not changed I hope the House will forgive me if I do not reiterate why the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment.
I want though to concentrate on two points to which my noble friend Lord Mersey has referred fairly consistently since he first put down the amendment. He bases his amendment on two main propositions: first, that the film industry needs more money; secondly, that television and other media would be the appropriate victims of a levy because, so he argues, when he watches films on television he is getting something for practically nothing. May I deal first with the suggestion that watching films on television is getting something for nothing.
I do not follow the argument. I never have followed it, and I do not follow it again today. I suppose I could equally say that if I watched a television transmission from Covent Garden or Glyndebourne I would be getting something for nothing there. If it is true for ballet or opera 1 suppose it is reasonable for me to say the same for soccer, snooker, racing or the Royal
358
Tournament. I have not heard any call for television transmissions of all those events to be subjected to a levy. I do not think we should forget either that these entertainments are normally shown considerably in advance of the three years' delay to which a film is subjected.
My noble friend argues that the film industry needs more money; he mentioned £10 million or £20 million. May I remind your Lordships of a number of basic figures. First, under this Bill the Government will be contributing £2 million a year for five years for film production and project development. Taken together with the money to be provided by the participants in the British Screen Finance Consortium, this means that the consortium will have twice the external funds that were available previously to the NFFC. This was the point that my noble friend Lord Auckland made. I remind him and other noble Lords that this is a considerable amount of money.
While the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said that he does not favour the television milch cow, he calls for more Government money. I have stood at this Box so many times and heard calls for Government money. Of course it is not Government money; it is the taxpayers' money. If I were to respond in the affirmative every time I was asked this I do not know what the taxpayers would say to us. We do not believe that this is the right way of using taxpayers' money.
I described Channel 4's record of commissioning feature films. I want to pick up one point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, made in that somewhat disarming way which may lead your Lordships to believe that he is right and I was wrong. He commented on the remarks I made at Report about the Channel 4 budget. He implied that the figures I gave at that time were not perhaps exactly so, giving some cause for doubt. I checked again afterwards with the Independent Television Companies Association, which confirmed that the figures I gave were right. I suggest to your Lordships that a number of the figures that I have given are factually right. For example, my noble friend Lord Mersey was talking about the number of video companies investing in film production. I gave the figures before and I give them again now: 21 of the 65 companies listed in the BFI directory have invested in film production.
In addition, the television companies and the BBC will be making greatly increased contributions towards the National Film and Television School. I also referred on Report to the significant and growing contribution which the video industry—I have referred to that again today—is making towards film production and distribution. Let me add to those figures the £20 million film production fund which Goldcrest announced last autumn, and the 175 million dollar finance facility which Thorn EMI announced last month—all specifically aimed at independent producers. These are substantial sums and those figures alone demonstrate that the market can supply finance for films without resorting to the artificial intrusion of a levy such as my noble friend favours. In short, I do not think that he has made out any case whatsoever for the extra money he asserts is needed.
12.15 p.m.
I want briefly to touch on the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made. I thought his argument revolved. At one stage he was telling us that the exhibition industry was on an upturn. He referred to The Times article this morning, which I saw. He said that at the beginning of British Film Year there was an upturn in the industry and this was welcomed. Then he turned the argument round the other way. I remind the House that the Government are providing in addition £325,000 for British Film Year.
I do not have any intention of wearying the House by going in detail over the ground which I covered pretty comprehensively a short time ago during Report. Nothing I have heard today causes me to alter my view that a statutory redistributive levy, whether it is on films shown on television, on films sold as prerecorded video tapes or on blank tapes, would be wrong in principle and counter-productive in application. The fact that this amendment is permissive makes no difference because the Government have no intention of enshrining in statute a provision to which we are strongly opposed.
Finally, I hope my noble friend Lord Mersey will not be too disappointed—though I am sure he will not be surprised—if I say that the Government have made their position quite clear both in the White Paper and in the many debates in Parliament, both in your Lordships' House and in another place. The Government believe that the commercial film industry is just that: a commercial industry. Like any other industry, it will prosper and raise finance for new work only if it is making a product which the consumer is prepared to buy. Where the Government are prepared to help—I have described the way in which we have done this on more than one occasion—is in the limited area traditionally covered by the NFFC, the riskiest end of the market. Beyond that, at present we see no justification for Government involvement. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I think it is clear that the movers of this amendment and the Government are fundamentally and chronically opposed on this issue and we shall not get any further. My noble friend Lord Lucas has not shifted his opinion. I suspected that he would not. I am disappointed but I certainly am not surprised. I feel that if this amendment is to go down at least it must go down with all flags flying, and so without further ado I wish to press this amendment.
12.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 62.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Birk, B.

Ampthill, L.

Blease, L.

Ardwick, L.

Boothby, L.

Auckland, L.

Bottomley, L.

Banks, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

360

Buckmaster, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Garmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Coleraine, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Collison, L.

McNair, L.

Craigavon, V.

Marley, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mersey, V. [Teller.]

Ellenborough, L.

Mulley, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Newall, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Oram, L.

Falkland, V.

Parry, L.

Fitt, L.

Peart, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Porritt, L.

Hampton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hayter, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hooson, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shinwell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Somers, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stallard, L.

Jeger, B.

Stamp, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kagan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kennet, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Whaddon, L.

Lawrence, L.

White, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Longford, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Ironside, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blake, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cox, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crathorne, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L

De Freyne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Romney, E.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elles, B.

Soames, L.

Ely, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathspey, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Teviot, L.

Glanusk, L.

Teynham, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Vickers, B.

Vivian, L.

Henley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
12.26 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Certification for purposes of section 72 of Finance Act 1982 in case of British films]:
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.]
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

London Docklands Railway (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Compensation) Bill
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
The subject of this Bill has been described as,
"an arcane byway of planning legislation",
as,
"very complicated, if not obscure",
and as,
"of great complexity".
Perhaps I may be allowed to add my own description: a tortuous maze for the understudy. Nevertheless, as the discussions in this House have shown, it is a Bill with some important practical implications. It is gratifying that there has been almost total acceptance of the need for the Bill, and relatively little disagreement with its detailed provisions. I am grateful for the helpful and constructive manner in which has been approached on all sides of the House. It is in these conditions that your Lordships' House comes into its own.
The main purpose of the Bill is to remove the right to compensation under Section 169 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 for the rejection of planning applications to extend to blocks of flats in existence on 1st July 1948. As originally drafted, it was aimed specifically at cases where the extension has the effect of creating additional units—the situation in the Peaktop Properties case. However, there was general agreement both in this House and in another place that the Bill would better fulfil its primary purpose if it were extended to cover extensions which had the effect of enlarging any individual unit by more than 10 per cent. My noble friend Lord Avon referred to this point in introducing the Bill to your Lordships, and the amendments which he subsequently put down were welcomed on all sides.
As the House will know, the Bill has another purpose. This is to limit the right to compensation under Section 165 of the 1971 Act for adverse decisions following the revocation or modification of a development order. Under the Bill compensation is no longer payable unless the planning application was made within 12 months of the withdrawal of the development order permission.
This two-pronged task was the complete rationale behind the Bill. After Second Reading, and exhaustive discussions, however, it was clear that your Lordships were much more concerned about what was not in the Bill; and amendments were considered both at the Committee and Report stages to widen the Bill to cover among other things development associated with agriculture, landscape areas, special development orders, and compensation rights in conservation areas.
I do not intend to rehearse the arguments today. Suffice it to say that when I was unexpectedly thrust
362
into prominence last week I was able to make two important commitments. The first is that the Government will now undertake an urgent review of compensation provisions in the 1971 Act. We fully intend to issue a consultation paper by the summer to enable all the relevant issues to be fully debated. I f, as a result of their review, the Government conclude that further amending legislation is indeed required, perhaps coupled with appropriate amendments to the general development order, the necessary Bill will then be introduced at the earliest opportunity. By proceeding in this way, I would hope that we can find a balance between the various interests which commands widespread acceptance.
At the same time, we can look at some of the other technical problems which have been raised during the passage of this Bill, such as the fear that a landowner may be able to obtain compensation more than once for the refusal of what is essentially the same scheme, and the interaction between Schedule 8 and the right to serve a purchase notice under Section 170 of the 1971 Act. In carrying out this review we shall give careful thought to the examples of potential or actual problems which noble Lords have given, and in particular to the special needs of conservation areas, which rightly concern my noble friend Lord Montagu. If any legislative proposals should need to include a retrospective element because of further abuse, I feel confident that your Lordships would again overcome your normal dislike of such legislation and give it your blessing.
The other undertaking relates to the adequacy of the 12-months' period of grace under section 165. We have come under pressure both ways in relation to this provision. On the one hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said that there should be no compensation liability at all in these circumstances. I recognise that any provision of this kind is capable of abuse. Nevertheless, it is required to safeguard the position of a person who has begun to incur expenditure on the basis of the development order permission, only to find it taken away from him before the development can acutally begin. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone have both argued for a longer period, particularly in the case of development with a long lead time. We believe that this would increase the risk of abuse to an unacceptable extent. Nevertheless, there may be situations where 12 months is too short a period, and I have therefore given an undertaking that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have regard to the compensation implications when he is considering what should be the operative date of an amendment to the GDO which restricts permitted development rights.
In conclusion, I would again like to thank your Lordships for the constructive manner in which the proceedings on this Bill have been conducted. It was intended as a Bill to deal with a specific and limited problem, and I am grateful to the House for its speedy passage. At the same time, it has provided an opportunity to open up some much wider issues, and the Government will certainly bear in mind the points that have been made and the problems that have been

363
identified in undertaking the further review that I have promised. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
12.33 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I first of all apologise to the Minister and to the House for only having arrived when the Minister was on his feet. I thought that the Films Bill would take longer than in fact it did. This Bill has had very much wider "mauling", if I may use that word, in this House than it received in another place, where it whizzed through almost like a hot knife through ice cream without very much deliberation. I should like to say immediately from these Benches that we appreciate very much the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was thrown into the middle of the Bill at a fairly vigorous Report stage. We recognise the difficulties he probably had. I should like also to take this opportunity to say how sorry we are that his noble friend Lord Avon is ill and to wish him a speedy recovery. I think we should all be grateful if that message could be passed on to him.
As regards the way in which the Bill has gone through, I think many of us are extremely disappointed on a number of counts. We are of course pleased that there will be a consultation paper by the summer and that a Bill, if necessary, will be introduced at the earliest opportunity. But I must point out that even so, considering the way the time factor has been worked out, I fear it could hardly be less than two-and-a-half years before anything at all happens; and during that period many unlisted buildings in conservation areas are going to be in great peril.
This is a great pity about this Bill. This was not the point at which the noble Lord came in, but it is a policy decision and so I do not think it would have made any difference. We were given very encouraging sounds from the noble Earl on Second Reading and again on Committee. It was quite clear that other interests—those interests which the noble Lord has now said he hopes will be reconciled—I am afraid have prevailed over the conservation interests and unfortunately. have won the day. It is a great pity, because the vote that was taken on the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and myself was lost by only four votes; so the feeling in the House was extremely strong as regards the conservation areas. I think we all feel a great deal of regret about that and we are very concerned about the impossibility of being able to repair the real damage that will be done during this intervening period.
In regard to the compensation liability, the noble Lord was quite right to refer to the amendment that I moved to do away with even a year's compensation liability. This does not mean that if there are legitimate expenses involved in planning or in a planning application these cannot be met, and met by other means. This was explained very carefully and in a more legalistic way by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who is himself a lawyer. This is an historic thing and we are stuck with this compensation liability. The only hope—rather a forlorn one, though I hope I am proved wrong—is that the Minister has
364
now said that the Government, in looking at these things and also, I hope, in the consultation document, will have regard to compensation issues.
There is no doubt that this is something which ought to be looked at with a new and keen eye. We ought not to be wedded all the time, as we are, to this history of compensation to which people are automatically entitled. I hope the noble Lord will take on board that the real expenses incurred can be recouped in other ways. You do not have to have an automatic year's compensation which is, let us face it, a provision which is very often abused. That is quite wrong.
With those words of disappointment but also of appreciation to the Minister for his courtesy and the way in which he has dealt with his end of the Bill, I do not think there is any more we can say from these Benches, except that we would like to be sure, as he has said, that some speed will be given to the consultation document and that the Government will consider this to be a serious enough issue—it may sound a small one as compared with other areas of government, but it is a very important one to people as well as for buildings—so that any necessary legislation will be brought forward at a very early opportunity.
12.39 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I also apologise for not being in my place when the noble Lord started his speech. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I thought that the previous business would go on for far longer than happily it did. I should like also to join with her in congratulating the noble Lord the Minister on the way in which he has dealt with these difficult problems, having arrived in the proceedings of this Bill at such short notice. I also join with the noble Baroness in hoping that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will soon be completely recovered from his most unhappy illness.
I should like also to express, quite briefly, my own disappointment that certain provisions protecting agricultural interests have not so far been included in the Bill in the way that I had presented them to the House. They were amendments that were spoken to by many members of the party opposite who had agricultural interests. Of course spurious claims for compensation must be avoided, but there is considerable anxiety that genuine agricultural interests may be affected by this Bill. However, I do not want to press these matters any further on Third Reading. I shall read the report of what the noble Lord the Minister has said. Earlier in these proceedings the noble Earl, Lord Avon, made some suggestions which he and the Government felt might be helpful to the agricultural interests, and I understand that the noble Lord the Minister has given certain undertakings and assurances in regard to these matters. With that, I shall leave the agriculture aside.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, I was also disappointed about the failure in being able to persuade the Government to accept the amendment in relation to conservation matters which, as she said, was narrowly defeated. I thank the noble Lord the Minister again for his courtesy and I hope that the other place may be able to do something for the farmers in relation to these matters.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene at this stage of the Bill; but, having taken part in all the other stages, may I briefly welcome something which the noble Lord the Minister mentioned in his opening speech which was to do with retrospection? If I heard him aright, it is very good that he has put on the record that if necessary he is prepared to recommend to the House that there could be an element of retrospection in legislation which might be proposed if there is flagrant abuse of potential loopholes to which we were drawing attention at the previous stage. Anyone who is thinking of trying to abuse any possible loopholes should be aware that this has been said in your Lordships' House and is on the record, and that there are many noble Lords who would support any attempt to introduce retrospection in cases of flagrant abuse of the present system.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Lords who have spoken. I should not like to let this opportunity go without recording my thanks for the way in which the House has treated the changeover on this Bill. I shall of course forward all the remarks that have been made today straight to my noble friend Lord Avon who I understand is currently in France.
The various points that have been made really boil down into one. I have indeed repeated the important commitments that I made at Report stage last week. However, I should not like anybody to go away with the impression that I have definitely asserted that there will be retrospective legislation. If I may repeat at a slightly slower speed what I said earlier: if any legislation proposals should need to include a retrospective element because of further abuse, I feel confident that your Lordships would again overcome your normal dislike of such legislation and give it your blessing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned the speed at which legislation can be brought forward and then rather negated what she had just said by saying that she did not expect any legislation to come for another two-and-a-half years. Perhaps I may be allowed to remind her that from First Reading to today there have been two short months for this legislation, and therefore there is no need for it to take as long as she has suggested, should it be decided to be necessary—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I put that right? I was adding together the time taken to get the consultation paper out, for the consultation paper to receive responses and for the Government to consider them, and perhaps to introduce legislation. I find that this is the general time scale which is accepted by most people and not just by me.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I obviously do not fit into the generality, do I? Another point which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned, and to which I ought to refer, is that of limiting compensation to genuine cases, or perhaps a more accurate description would be the genuine parts of cases. We did try to work out a different way, but we came to the conclusion after a great deal of thought that a 12-month limitation was the best way to deal with the problem.
366
But, quite obviously, this will be part of the consultation process. Agricultural interests, conservation interests and landscape area interests are all matters that have to be weighed in the balance, as indeed have the views of landowners and other people both in the urban situation and in the countryside, and this is what we fully intend to do. With those few words, I thank the House once again.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Hong Kong Act,

National Heritage (Scotland) Act,

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

Bournemouth Borough Council Act,

London Docklands Railway Act.

Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1985
12.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1985 laid before your Lordships' House on 26th March be approved. Perhaps I may also speak to the draft Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1985 which were laid before your Lordships' House on 21st March. With your Lordships' permission, I propose to deal with the regulations in reverse order since the latter set, concerning statutory sick pay, are entirely straight forward and self-contained and I shall confine myself to a purely factual presention of their effect.
The need for these amendment regulations has arisen because a social security commissioner has decided that the existing law is not what the Government had hitherto believed it to be. I must make it clear to your Lordships that all that these regulations do is to put the matter beyond any doubt, and to ensure that generally accepted and longstanding policy continues to apply.
The regulations are intended to make it absolutely clear that statutory sick pay—which, with your Lordships' indulgence, I shall refer to as SSP—is to be taken fully into account for the purposes of determining a person's entitlement to supplementary benefit. SSP was introduced in April 1983 for those who work for an employer and who pay Class 1 national insurance contributions. It largely replaced national insurance sickness benefit during the early weeks of incapacity. Payments of SSP made by employers are fully reimbursed by the state.

367
For supplementary benefit purposes, sickness benefit has always been taken into account, and it was decided by the Government that so, too, should SSP. That has been the position from the time SSP was introduced until the Social Security Commissioner, in a recent decision, decided that the existing law did not support the policy intention and that SSP was subject to a weekly disregard of £4.
I should point out that the chief adjudication officer has some doubts about the legal basis of the commissioner's decision and is seeking leave to appeal against his decision. But it seemed right to the Government to put the legal position beyond doubt as a matter of urgency, rather than await the outcome of that appeal. The regulations, if approved, will be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee as soon as practicable after they have been made.
I now turn to the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1985 whose main purpose is to introduce new arrangements for all forms of board and lodging payments in order to control expenditure and help curb abuse while giving protection to the vulnerable and those in real need. The dramatic increases in spending over the past few years demand firm—but fair—action. Between December 1982 and 1983 supplementary benefit expenditure rose from £166 million to £270 million for ordinary board and lodging, and from £39 million to £102 million for the residential care and nursing home sector. It is estimated that total expenditure on all forms of board and lodging in 1984 was £570 million. Further significant increases are likely if action is not taken.
As a first step, Ministers took direct responsibility for determining the limits—the maximum amounts allowed for board and lodging. These powers—Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment and Temporary Provisions Regulations 1984—were used to impose a temporary freeze last autumn on existing locally-determined limits, until new arrangements could be introduced. The proposals for change were announced last November and were submitted to the Social Security Advisory Committee for public consultation. The committee's report and the Government's response were published on 21st March.
In framing these regulations we have taken careful account of the committee's views and the representations received—for which we are naturally grateful. It has of course not been possible to meet all concerns because effective control both of expenditure and of abuse must be maintained. But we have made substantial modifications to the original proposals, particularly in the ordinary board and lodging sector.
First let me deal with this aspect. The limits which are currently set locally for each office will be set for each area at one of the six standard rates ranging from £45 to £70. Most will be set between £50 and £60. For this purpose DHSS local offices have been grouped, taking account of Department of Employment travel-to-work areas, so as to reflect as far as possible established accommodation, employment and travelling patterns. Couples will receive a maximum of one-and-three-quarters the single adult limit, unless they have a child under 11, when twice the single rate will continue to apply.
368
For those aged 26 or over there will be no restrictions on the period of payment as a boarder. Those aged 25 or under, unless in an exemption category, will be restricted to two, four or eight weeks as a boarder, according to the area, thereafter the non-householder rate would normally apply. The exemption categories set out in the consultative document have been expanded in line with many suggestions of the advisory committee and will apply to all those aged 25 or under.
Hostels, which previously came within ordinary board and lodging, are treated as a separate category and will have a national limit set at £70 a week, in recognition of the special facilities and services they provide. There will be no restrictions on stay for people in hostels.
For residential care and nursing homes we have set limits at levels which we believe will allow reasonable charges to be met in homes meeting the new registration arrangements under the Registered Homes Act 1984. The new structure of limits based on registration categories will be £110 a week for a residential care home for the elderly; £120 a week for the mentally ill and also for homes for drug and alcohol misusers; £140 a week for the mentally handicapped; and £170 a week for those who became physically disabled below pension age. A nursing home supplement of £28·60 will be added to these limits for nursing homes. Although this supplement is equivalent to the level of attendance allowance, it is entirely separate from that allowance. It is part of the supplementary benefit payment and need not be claimed separately. Your Lordships will be pleased that, in line with the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation, we have decided to introduce a hospice category catering for the terminally ill. The limit will be £198·60 a week.
There are three other important changes. First, topping-up payments by local authorities for claimants under pension age in residential care homes will be allowed without reducing supplementary benefit entitlement. Secondly, attendance allowance will be taken into account in full. Thirdly, the rate of personal expenses for those in residential care and nursing homes will be set at £8·50–30p higher than proposed in the consultative document. This brings the position closer to that in local authority homes.
We recognise that existing claimants will need a period to adjust to the changes. Those over pension age in residential care and nursing homes can continue for life to have charges met at the existing level, or until payments under the new limits become more favourable. Those under pension age in residential care and nursing homes can continue to have charges met at the current level for 12 months. There are protection arrangements of other claimants, depending on the accommodation they are in.
Following the freeze in existing limits—and in view of the many anxieties expressed—we recognise that it is appropriate to review the new limits before November 1986. We shall look at them again within 12 months of the operative date.
The Government are the first to accept that better information is needed on certain aspects. A number of studies are already under way as further research is

369
planned. There is no doubt that firm action is needed to control expenditure, which has increased far beyond any social need. We believe the proposals, modified in the light of the committee's advice, will enable real needs to be properly met while avoiding wasteful expenditure and abuse. The Government will monitor carefully the effects of the changes and will make further changes if a need is shown. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th March be approved.—(Baroness Trwnpington.)
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I shall put these two Motions in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper. The Question is that the first Motion he agreed to.
12.57 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I believe that this is the first occasion on which the noble Baroness the Minister has taken charge of a major debate in her newly promoted capacity, and we wish her well. We do not promise her a good time, or an easy time, but we know that we can rely on her to deal sympathetically and honestly with the many questions which we shall have to raise.
Perhaps I may begin with statutory sick pay. I remind your Lordships that we opposed this at the time it was introduced. It was very complicated and very difficult and a great nuisance to employers, especially to small businesses about which the Government are usually so careful. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness say that it appears that the existing law is not what the Government thought it was. That is a very interesting confession. Some of us were unsure at the time whether the Government knew what they were doing. We shall look forward to further debate on that matter.
On the larger questions there has already been a great deal of thought and discussion, and many people of all political parties are worried and disappointed. The Minister has told us about the increases in the numbers of applicants and in the amount of money being spent, but I wish she could have told us why this is so. Why are homeless people crowding into inadequate lodgings? Why are young people drifting around looking for work? Why are we seeing increased pressures on voluntary organisations? Why are local authorities having to reduce the provision that they are able to make for residential care, for hostels for young people and for building flats and permanent housing for the homeless? It is economic madness to pursue that line and I very much regret that the Government are doing so. They are dealing with symptoms which in themselves are not always very well diagnosed, and are not dealing with causes.
I shall say a word or two about abuse in a moment, but first I should like to quote to the House a sentence in the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. Paragraph 9 states:
"We are deeply concerned that in attempting to limit spending and control abuse where it exists, the proposals are likely to affect large numbers of unemployed claimants who have no real option but to stay in board and lodging accommodation, and whose ability
370
to search for jobs will be much impeded by the restrictions on place and length of stay as a boarder".
What we are dealing with today is not a social security problem; and in that respect I have great sympathy for the Minister. This is largely a housing problem. It is a public expenditure problem. If the Government create situations through economies being made in other departments, it seems unfair that the bill should land on the desk of the DHSS which is not responsible for the causes of the problems.
As regards abuse, we have to ask why it was taking place and who was doing it. Was it necessarily done by young people looking for a good time, as has been prominent in most of the Government's explanations of these regulations? If so, what did the local DHSS officers do about advertisements? In the other place this week an advertisement was quoted in which a landlady said, "DHSS payments arranged." Why did the DHSS local office give that landlady the money she asked for? It was not the claimant who got the money; it was the landlady. Moreover, it was said that some of these young people were just having a good time by the seaside. I understood that for an applicant to receive assistance he or she had to be genuinely seeking work. Again, what were the local officers doing if these people were shown not to be genuinely seeking work? To lay all the blame on what I am sure is a minority of people seems to be no way for the Government to tackle this very difficult problem.
The noble Baroness said that careful consideration had been given to the remarks of the Social Security Advisory Committee, but if I were a member of that committee I would not feel that much consideration had been given to the most serious and thoughtful points made in the report. I could give your Lordships many examples, but I know that those who are interested will read the report for themselves and would not want me to take up too much time on it.
However, there cannot be a more friendless set of regulations in the Government's calendar. I have received a whole pile of objections not on political grounds, but from the people who work in this held, who have to help the homeless find a roof and help people who are trying to look after the old, sick and handicapped. I have representations from the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Directors of Social Work, the British Association of Social Workers, the Social Care Association, and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. They are not Bolshevik organisations. I refer also to Age Concern, Shelter, CHAR, and the British Refugee Council. In fact, I could detain your Lordships for a long time. I hope the Government will understand that they are people who know what the problem is on the ground. It is ungracious and unrealistic to ignore their representations.
I mentioned the primacy of the housing problem in all this. I understand that local authority expenditure is still falling. I have been informed that there is an estimate that gross capital expenditure on local authority housing will be over 40 per cent. lower for 1985–86 than it was in 1979–80. Housing benefits are in chaos. I wish that the expenditure of which the Minister is complaining could be transfered to the provision of housing, for housing associations and

371
voluntary organisations, instead of the opposite, which I think is economic madness.
I shall now make one or to two special points. As regards the blind, there is great anxiety that, in the way the figures have been established for the upper limits, there is less money for someone who goes blind after retirement age than before it. There is the difference between £110 a week and £,170 a week, I am told. Often it is the elderly who are likely to go blind and to have other difficulties such as deafness and incapacity and who, in any case, find that if they suddenly go blind in their old age, it is more difficulty to adjust than it is in the case of a younger person. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has four homes, including two which look after the deaf-blind. The institute believes that these lower payments will make its work very difficult. I agree with that so far as all disability is concerned.
I cannot see why the Government are making this difference according to the age at which one is overtaken by disability. In fact, many of us start getting a bit groggy before we retire and there is then a gradual deterioration. We may feel a bit worse after retiring, but it is not always a sudden calamity to which one can fix an actual date and say when one became disabled. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how they propose to work that one out.
I was very concerned about representations made by the British Refugee Council. People who come to this country are helped by the council, which does excellent work for people in very distressing circumstances. The council feels that there will be special hardships for refugees if they are not allowed to have the very minimal comfort and support which the council tries to give them at present. Refugees are people who, above all, need some stability and comfort and who do not need harassing. There seems to be a special need there.
I am sure that the Minister has seen the representations from Age Concern and CHAR. I hope that she will be able to answer some of the points raised by these very experienced bodies. I am also very worried about the age limit being fixed at 26. We are not talking about drifting, or even adventurous, school-leavers, but men and women up to the age of 26. I do not know why that age was fixed. Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
I hope that the Minister will also explain how fixing time limits for people to stay in certain places, without increasing the amount of accommodation, is going to help. Surely the Government are only producing a kind of musical chairs of misery where it is all right so long as a chap swaps digs with someone round the corner. The fact that provision is not increased makes that a futile exercise, particularly in the areas of very high unemployment and of housing stresses.
For the youngest there is the rule about four weeks being long enough for them to find work; otherwise they have to move on. The people who have made that regulation must be living in an unreal world. Perhaps no one in the Government has had to apply for a job for some time now. It often means finding a vacancy, checking the advertisement, and writing a letter. Many applicants complain that it is sometimes two or three weeks before they have a reply. If they are called for an
372
interview, another week or 10 days may have gone by. Some of us have heard the doomed phrase, "We have others to see. We will let you know". In no time four weeks has gone by. The young person may then be sent a letter offering him a job and he may have had to leave the address that he gave to the employer. I cannot see what sense that makes. I shall be interested to see whether the noble Baroness can produce some reason. In another place the Secretary of State said that 25 per cent. of young people found a job in under four weeks. He did not go on to say that 75 per cent. did not.
Age Concern mentions particularly the elderly mentally infirm. There does not seem to be fair consideration of their needs. Even the Church of Scotland—I say that not in any derogatory way, but to emphasise the width of the objections to the new rules—says that the rates laid down for its 41 homes are below the charges that it has to make. I cannot imagine that Church of Scotland homes are particularly extravagant. It points out that local authorities are not able to top up the money. I ask the Minister what is to happen to the people who cannot stay in those homes. Where are they to go? If responsible voluntary bodies take the view that they cannot manage within those limits, they deserve to be taken seriously.
Going back for a moment to the Social Security Advisory Committee, I thought that its comments on the question of moving people around were very telling. It said that the Government are on the verge of creating,
"a class of homeless and rootless young person who is unable to return to the parental home, for whatever reason, and who cannot remain long enough in any one location to find permanent accommodation or a job".
Preventing continuous residence causes another problem. When people apply to get on council lists for housing there is often a residence qualification—sometimes two years, three years, or even more. Many private landlords also expect an applicant to have an address where he can be contacted. They do not like to feel that a prospective tenant is a tramp, wandering around without any roots.
I have to ask how the figures were fixed. I notice that the nursing home rate is only £28.60 higher than for residential care. I wonder whether that is enough, in view of the fact that one would expect higher staffing ratios and probably more highly qualified staff in nursing homes dealing with very sick people than in residential care. I have to ask also what allowance is being made for inflation. Will the figures automatically go up? Will they be index-linked? Alternatively, will they stay as they are until November 1986, which I think was what the noble Baroness said? Then perhaps the noble Baroness can explain why the rates have been fixed according to the category of the home and not the needs of the patients. It seems to me that staffing might vary very much according to the patients and the infirmities which bring them together in one home, rather than according to what the home is called.
The problem of homeless people living in this dreadful bed and breakfast accommodation is well known to us all. It must be deplored. It is a waste of

373
money and it does not provide people with anything like a home, especially where there are small children. They have nowhere to play. In many that I know they arc sent out after breakfast. These places are not properly inspected. There are hazards of fire, there are shared bathrooms and there are various other squalid conditions. Where are those people to go while the Government pursue their lunatic housing policy? It is no use saying to a lot of young people in central London, many of whom are being cared for by voluntary associations, that they should go somewhere else. They have nowhere to go. We cannot tell homeless young people in Camden or Westminster to go home. They are at home. They are where they belong; they are not at the seaside.
We foresee a great many problems and difficulties, and we very much regret that these rules have been drawn up, not because we go along with abuse at all, but because we are confident that the abuses could have been dealt with differently and without causing hardship to so many innocent, deserving and vulnerable people.
1.16 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her clear explanation of the regulations and to join in welcoming her advent to this complex field of social security and congratulate her upon it. The noble Baroness said that the statutory sick pay regulations were straightforward. I think that that is right. I do not want to say anything about them, except to draw attention to the fact, which is not strictly within the regulations but is related to statutory sick pay, that the Public Accounts Committee in another place said during the course of the past week that one in three sickness payments made to staff under the Government's devolved statutory sick pay scheme were found to be wrong. It seems to me that there is a little way to go yet before we have that scheme exactly as it ought to be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has rightly referred to the widespread concern about the proposals dealing with board and lodging. There were 504 representations made to the Social Security Advisory Committee, and that was the largest number which it had ever had. It is all the more to be regretted that there was such a shortage of time for consideration of the proposals. The Secretary of State in his statement admits that there was a tight timetable.
First of all, we had the consultative document, then we had the very thorough report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on that, and then we had the statement from the Secretary of State which amended the proposals to some extent in the light of some of the criticisms made, while resisting strongly some of the other criticisms. There was no time to get the view of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the final proposals. It regretted that, though it welcomed the fact that it was brought in early in the initial discussions.
Those regulations are before us today, as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made clear, because of an increase in expenditure—an increase in expenditure
374
from 1979 to 1984 of between £60 million and £600 million overall, that relating to ordinary board and lodging being the bulk of it, which is an increase from £52 million to £380 million. That is a considerable increase, but I think that we have to get it into perspective and realise that, even taking the figure which covers the whole field, it is only 11/2 per cent. of the social security budget.
If there is any abuse, it must be checked. But, on the other hand, there does not seem to me to be a crisis. There seems to be no cause for panic. I should have thought that the matter could have been left to be dealt with by the social security reviews now in progress which cover this field among others. It is clear from the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee that this is a problem of numbers of claimants rather than increase in average costs—certainly more recently. The Government say that social security benefit cannot be allowed to increase at the rate I indicated just now when I mentioned the increase in figures between 1979 and 1984. However, if there are more genuinely homeless people are the Government saying that the way to tackle that problem is to attack costs? I hope they will not apply that principle to unemployment benefit.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said, the trouble is that we do not know the causes for the increase in numbers. We may have ideas about it but we cannot be certain. The Government say that it is not unemployment. They say that in 1983 the number of boarders rose by 27 per cent. and the number of those under 26 rose by 60 per cent. but the number of unemployed claimants rose by only 5 per cent. However, it remains true that youth unemployment rose by 50 per cent. between 1979 and 1984 and I should think that what we are seeing is the cumulative effect of that. That cumulative effect must have played a big part in the escalating costs.
There is the question which, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, mentioned about the lack of adequate housing provision. It seems to me that the Social Security Advisory Committee is right to ask how much other Government policies contribute to the phenomenon with which we are faced. We do not know the cause. Therefore I think it is fair for the Social Security Advisory Committee to say that the Government are attacking symptoms and not causes. They say—and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said today—that we need more research. I should like heavily to underline that. We do not know what is the right way to approach this problem until we know why it exists as it does.
Turning to the proposals themselves, perhaps I may say this. I should welcome the move towards a regional system in the response of the Secretary of State to the Social Security Advisory Committee. There are to be different rates in each area. They will be centrally determined. The Government are not altering that. As well, they will be taken from a list of only six rates. Therefore there is not a great deal of flexibility in it.
I support the multi-tier system of distinguishing between a wider variety of different categories of hoard and lodging. However, there is the fear, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has expressed and which as she said, has been widely expressed by all the organisations that are associated with work in this

375
field, that the cash limits which have been set are too low. For example, as I understand the position, in London for ordinary board and lodging the maximum has been cut from £80 to £47·30 for bed and breakfast. The Campaign for Single Homeless People says that only 10 per cent. of bed and breakfast places with single rooms which take homeless people will be within the limit. I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, can comment upon that.
So far as Newcastle is concerned it is alleged that the bed and breakfast ceiling cut to £37·30 per week means that only one out of 20 hostels currently being used by the local housing advice centre to house homeless people will be within the new limits. This raises the question as to whether prices will come down. There are mixed views about that. Many people feel that that is highly unlikely to happen. If that is so, then I should echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger—where do the homeless people go? Should there perhaps be maximum charges placed on landlords for accommodation within certain categories of prescribed standard?
Turning to residential care for the elderly, I want to tell your Lordships that one private home proprietor wrote to Age Concern:
"It seems to me that many homes looking after very frail, incontinent, disabled older persons cannot possibly run a good home at the £120 per week figure suggested".
That comment would seem to be borne out by the calculations of the British Federation of Care Home Proprietors. Certainly it is strongly supported by Age Concern.
There have been fears, which we expressed in an earlier debate, that very elderly people might have to move out of the accommodation in which they were, with most unhappy consequences. The Government have provided—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, referred to this—transitional protection. Those over pension age in residential care and nursing homes will continue for life to have their charges met at the level of payment in force when the new limits are introduced. The question is whether that level will be indexed. If it is not indexed, it might be expected that since the new rates will be operated, presumably annually, then they will eventually overtake the old rates. However, what happens to people who are caught in the gap? I should like an answer to that question in particular.
The other major factor about the new proposals is the time limit for ordinary board and lodging for those under 26. The fears of many are that the phrase used by the Social Security Advisory Committee may prove to be true—that there will be created a class of rootless young people unable to find permanent accommodation in one place, unable to find a job and obliged by benefit rules to move round constantly.
To summarise what I have been saying, let me say this. Where there is abuse it must be checked. However, the whole exercise appears to be unnecessarily rushed for the reasons I gave. There is undoubtedly widespread concern about the effect of the regulations. The problem is one of numbers rather than costs. However, the cause of the increase in
376
numbers is not known. The Government are therefore treating symptons rather than causes, as the Social Security Advisory Committee says. Much more research is required. The move to a regional system in response to the comments of the Social Security Advisory Committee is welcome but it is limited in flexibility. The limits on the rate of payment would appear to be set too low and there is a danger that the time limit on those under 26 may result in an itinerant army of young unemployed, always on the move. Finally, I would say this. In my view the scheme must be very carefully monitored and should be regarded as purely temporary pending the results of further research.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out so clearly the regulations we now have before us. I support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, regarding the age limit on the rate for blind people in residential accommodation. I am relieved to see that in another place on Tuesday the Minister promised to consider the effect that the Government's proposals had on disabled people, mentioning blind people specifically.
However, I feel that it is necessary to really rub in this situation of the blind, because blind people are hit severely by the plan to allow the £170 limit only for those who become physically disabled below pensionable age. Obviously most blind people go blind late in life, and three-quarters of all blind people are over 65. They therefore stand to suffer really badly from this proposed age rule; though the actual numbers of blind people are relatively small, with a total population of about 130,000.
The important thing we ask is that the Government reconsider the proposed treatment of people stricken with blindness in later life. We ask the Government to realise that it may cause some of them who have been in hospital great difficulty when they try to find accommodation at this price when they come out of hospital; for instance, if they are over 60, in the case of women. We hope that the Government may find it possible to allow blind people to qualify for payment towards charges at the rate that applies for physically disabled people.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it is not the custom, as we know, to oppose regulations in this House. Otherwise, I, for one, feel that the Chamber would have been rather fuller than it is. I should like to express my concern. Before doing so, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for explaining the regulations as succinctly as she has done. I should, however, like to align myself with the two Members who have preceded me. By way perhaps of an olive branch I should like to express my delight that hospices are now coming into the thoughts of the Government. But this whole situation seems to me to be characterised by an "I'm all right Jack" syndrome. I have a feeling that those who have their own home, their own roof, their own job, and their own way of life do not understand the problems at grass roots level of those who have none of those things.

377
I should like to concentrate my remarks on board and lodgings, hotels, guest houses and private landlords. The social services pay for thousands of people in these types of accommodation. They vary enormously. Some are just slums, some are fairly well kept, perhaps because of the amount of money that is paid to keep these people. I happen to know what I am talking about, as I am sure do other noble Lords. Those taken into the accommodation include people who are unemployed, who are redundant and who have left home. Unemployment is becoming increasingly a reason for the break-up of families. When the man leaves home the wife has to look after the children. He has no money; he has no employment. He comes down to London and tries to find accommodation. I hope that no noble Lord will imagine that I am trying to be in the slightest degree amusing. But there is this saying, is there not, "I will take you for better, for worse; for richer for poorer, but never for lunch." A woman especially when there are children, does not generally want a man under her feet all day. So the man leaves home.
There are also those about whom we know only too well who are now leaving—I shall not say turned out of—psychiatric hospitals and being treated as normal people in society. There is probably nothing wrong with them, except that they add to the numbers of people who have to be catered for. There are also the young couples who want to live together. Sometimes they are very young and have babies. They need accommodation. The dearth of housing, the dearth of accommodation of all sorts, let alone homes, at all prices has to be seen to be believed. I have been told of three particular roads in Brixton. In each road there are 100 houses. Each has been boarded up for quite some time. They are little Victorian houses. There is no apparent reason for them to be uninhabited. Anyone who inquires, I understand, is told that they are to be redeveloped. This, I gather, has been going on for 18 months. A great many people could have been housed in those three roads alone in London.
The Minister stated that there had been dramatic increases in expenditure. There have also been dramatic increases in unemployment. If anyone tells me that unemployment is not the cause of people coming to London, which is the focal point of all the problems we are discussing, I am afraid that I would have to take issue with him, because I happen to know the situation. I would not say that I know the situation as well as the Minister, but I have almost day-to-day contact with people who are are looking for homes and other accommodation.
Why has 29th April been chosen? Why is there such a rush? That date falls at the beginning of what all of us hope will be a spring leading to a summer. In the summer, and beginning even in the spring, we welcome a tremendous number of tourists. Tourists need roofs, too. There are very expensive hotels; there are cheaper hotels; there is board and lodging accommodation, the owners of which during the winter are only too happy to have, at just over £6 a day, some of the people who need roofs in our cities. What will happen after 29th April if someone comes along saying that he will offer more than the social security contribution for that accommodation? Out will go the people who have hitherto had roofs over
378
their heads. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, rightly asked, where are they to go? I hope that the Minister is sincere when she says that there must be a much deeper examination at governmental level of the problems that these people endure. They are the same as us. There is no difference between us and them. Everyone has need of a roof. It is almost their right.
I finish with a tribute to those voluntary organisations whose people work, very often with no pay, to help to find what is often unfortunately temporary accommodation, temporary homes and temporary roofs. They are doing a splendid job. I hey are doing far more than perhaps they are given credit for.
1.38 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I begin by supporting my noble friend Lady Jeger in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, to her new position. I hope that she will bring to these massive problems a fresh mind and a caring approach that is sometimes—no slur is meant against her immediate predecessor—not evident in the documents that emerge from the department. I have great hopes that this situation may now improve with the advent of the noble Baroness. I should also like to support those noble Lords who have spoken so far. It is quite unusual when one can agree with most of the sentiments expressed, from whatever side of the House, so early in the debate. I hope that the significance of that is not lost on the noble Baroness who has just taken over.
Noble Lords who are present in the Chamber today will also recall being in the Chamber on 13th February when we debated the National Health Service and Social Security matters. Many of these issues were raised on that occasion. Indeed, that debate took place before the draft regulations had been published. I can recall saying at that time that I had hoped that the Government would have been able to postpone the issuing of these draft proposals, certainly until after these very important reviews which are taking place, into all aspects of social security and housing benefits. It would have seemed sensible to most of us to have waited until the publication of the findings of those reviews and then to come forward with some permanent and constructive proposals which no doubt could have been made acceptable to most of us in the Chamber. However, that was not to be.
The noble Baroness who preceded me touched on the point about 29th April. There could not have been a worse date on which to introduce these types of massive proposals. The dramatic effect of the tourist industry on all available accommodation of all descriptions in London—and I feel that it is also true of most other cities—must be known, or is it the case (dare I say?) that these people do not seem to care or do not understand? However, it is certainly known to all of the voluntary organisations which have already been mentioned in the Chamber and which operate in this field. Therefore, I am sad that the Government have found it necessary to impose these regulations on that particular date. However, that is not to say that those who are present do not think that the problem is serious and urgent; of course it is. We recognise the seriousness and the urgency. The dramatic increase

379
which the noble Baroness mentioned in her opening remarks has been dealt with by other speakers. Of course it is not due to the fact that they are getting more money, although there was a massive increase in 1983–84 because there had been such a low standard up until then. There had to be a dramatic increase to bring them up to any reasonable standard, and the increase did not quite achieve that. That accounts for a great deal of the increase which the noble Baroness mentioned.
However, the major increase is due to the huge rise in the number of youngsters who are moving about looking for jobs and who are having to leave home. None of us in this Chamber who understands the problems will accept that they do it out of devilment or because they want adventure. That is nonsense. The bulk of the youngsters today are moving out of sheer necessity because conditions at home have become unbearable where there are two, three or four young people and a father or a mother or both, who are unemployed. The situation is absolutely impossible, and people who understand how ordinary folk live will readily agree that the youngsters are in an impossible situation. To say that they are moving out just to roam around and play around with the massive benefits which they allegedly receive, is absolute and utter nonsense and is really a smokescreen to cover what is, in effect, another fairly squalid cost-cutting exercise at the expense of the most vulnerable people in our community.
The noble Baroness mentioned the representations and the consideration that had been given to those representations. I frankly was disappointed with the result of that consideration. If anything, I fear that the draft proposals are in some ways worse than those that we had feared might be introduced when we discussed the consultative process. I am strengthened in that view by the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) whose 43 page report is a fairly comprehensive and scathing indictment of the DHSS proposals. All these people have been appointed by the Government to do this particular job. Their findings are summarised on pages 4 and 5 of the report, where they say:
"The extraordinary range of representations made to us … are almost united in their concern at many aspects of the proposed changes; but they are are also worried that the proposals make an attempt only to tackle the immediate problem, and do nothing to resolve the underlying difficulties … We doubt, however, whether any satisfactory control can be imposed on the use of supplementary benefit board and lodging accommodation until these issues are faced and dealt with",
which is what we have been saying. It goes on:
"Ministers have accepted that the current proposals may not offer a final solution to the problems they see. In our view"—
that is, the view of the SSAC—
"it is because they tackle the symptoms rather than the causes of growth in costs and numbers, that they are unlikely to provide a long-term solution".
That was the view expressed not by anybody on this side of the Chamber, but by a body which is very well respected in all circles throughout the country. That body is expressing doubts.
The new limits set by the DHSS for board and lodgings will mean, in the view of all informed opinion, that there will be far less accommodation
380
available and what is available will be far more likely to be sub-standard. Here again I can only quote a recent newspaper report which was the result of a survey carried out by the Camden branch of CHAR. They surveyed a number of lodging houses in Camden and they found that, under the new charges, only five out of 43 hotels would be available to claimants. The report says,
"Central London agencies estimate that under the new rules, most of the capital's 10,000 boarders would be homeless within a month"
of the regulations beginning to bite. So the situation regarding all the voluntary organisations is serious, and these regulations will make it worse.
The new proposals to limit the time that young people can stay in board and lodging, even in their own home area, has caused more concern—if that is possible—among all the organisations involved. Again, the SSAC was quoted by my noble friend Lady Jeger as being concerned that we were about to create a class of rootless young people unable to find accommodation in one place, unable to find a job and obliged by the benefit rules to constantly move around. We have a number of examples of actual cases where this can and will happen within weeks of the new regulations being brought in.
We know that the new limits will clear the way for unscrupulous landlords to increase the exploitation of desperate youngsters. We know from recent reports, too, that the result could be that youngsters will be crammed into inadequate accommodation. At the moment, there is enough over-crowding with two and three youngsters in a room. I understood from a recent television programme that that could be increased to four or five youngsters, or people, sharing one room in inadequate accommodation with the landlord charging these new fees. Therefore, it will do nothing to alleviate the problem; it will only give these unscrupulous landlords yet another lever with which to make even more profit. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness does not care about that. I think that she does care about it, and I hope that she will be able to take that point on board.
Therefore, like others I accept that tough action is necessary in cases where fraud can be proven. We would certainly accept that. But I also say that the Government are moving against the wrong people and in the wrong direction. I should like to quote again from the SSAC document. They say that there is no real evidence of widespread abuse—there is no evidence of the type of horror stories which have been emanating from the department in order to bolster up an exceedingly weak case for these changes. The SSAC say:
"Anecdote is not a safe basis for legislation, and we therefore sought fuller information from the DHSS on the extent of suspected abuse, both by claimants and proprietors. We were disappointed 'Jut no estimate of the size of the problems could be produced … Where there is evidence of fraud or abuse, the Department already has mechanisms for investigation, and we hope that fraudulent claims will be vigorously pursued".
We would all agree with that.
"However, the evidence of abuse known to us does not convince us that there are substantial grounds for making major changes in regulations on its account alone … We think it is important to remember that the vast majority of claimants are honest, and should not be subject to punitive restrictions. Many are also forced by circumstances beyond their control to live in thoroughly unsatisfactory accommodation".

381
None of us could have put it better than that. These people are acknowledged experts and they themselves say that that would be the effect.
Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Baroness one or two questions which spring directly from those aspects. They are as follows: What are the Government doing to control what landlords charge? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked a similar question. That is an area which seems to have been neglected. Let us tackle the landlords as well as concentrating on what claimants can pay. What steps are the Government taking to strengthen the powers that local authorities have to deal with poor standard bed and breakfast accommodation? Are the Government now at long last prepared to introduce some mandatory powers in that direction, something which many of us have been advocating for a great many years? What are the Government doing about the restrictions, for instance, on furniture grants for those people in accommodation of this kind who are fortunate enough to be able to get permanent accommodation but cannot move in because they cannot afford the necessary furniture to allow them to do so? Will the Government reconsider the resources that are made available to local authorities and housing associations which are prepared to deal with these aspects of the shortage of this kind of accommodation? That solution would certainly be cheaper and certainly provide far better accommodation.
Before I sit down I should like to mention one or two points affecting the elderly because that is another aspect in which I have been involved for a number of years. This report does nothing to ameliorate any of my fears about the effect and the implications for the elderly of these proposals. On the categorisation, of course we welcome what has been done. It would be churlish not to do so; and the question of the hospices has already been mentioned. We all heartily welcome the inclusion of that in the proposals so far as the elderly are concerned. But in the categorisation why is there no category for the elderly mentally infirm despite universal acceptance that those unfortunate people need a higher level of care? They require an additional level of care that is not needed by elderly people in other circumstances. That ought to have been a classification of its own, in my view.
Then the categories themselves apply to the homes, to the buildings and to the kind of home. There does not seem to have been any attempt—and I meant to ask the noble Baroness whether any attempt was made—to match the needs of the residents to the provisions made by any given home. I would have thought we should be a little more caring in trying to match the needs of the residents to the provisions for the homes rather than just a blanket categorisation of these homes. Then we have and we welcome the assurance given that those under pension age in residential care and nursing homes can continue for life to have their charges met at the level of payment in force when the new limits are introduced. That is good; but could the noble Baroness give us an assurance that any inflationary increase will also be met? It is causing a great deal of concern among the elderly and among the people who care for them. It is one thing to say that they will get this at the level at which the payment is introduced, but will it be
382
increased in line with inflation as time goes on? That is an important consideration.
Again—and I am sorry about the questions that I am asking the noble Baroness but they are prompted by reading the documentation—will she tell us, given that the board and lodging areas have been devised so as to operate variable limits for those who require other forms of board and lodging, why has not an equivalent flexibility applied to the homes? It would seem that a national figure had been agreed for homes throughout the country. There is not the same flexibility in variable charges that have been applied even to the other regulations; and why have not the homes been categorised or at least allowed that kind of flexibility in the same way?
Finally, does the noble Baroness accept that if the limits are imposed, some of the better homes may well be forced to close? Again there is evidence that the better proprietors of some of these homes say they doubt whether they will be able to carry on with the new limits and new figures provided. That can only mean that added pressure will now be put on all kinds of people to take the residents from those homes into the hospitals, thus transferring the financial burden from the DHSS to the NHS; and that cannot make sense in anyone's language unless the sole exercise is to prove that the DHSS can cut costs, and that would seem fairly squalid. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me asking so many questions. I have left out a great many more that perhaps we may deal with at some later stage, but I should be grateful if she could answer those that I have asked.
1.55 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, expressed the concern of the British Refugee Council that the present regulations contain no specific provision for refugees in this country. I should like to enlarge on that in the light of my own experience. The noble Baroness the Minister, when she introduced these regulations, said that they would contain protection for the vulnerable. What section of the community is more vulnerable than the refugees? When I had the honour to introduce a debate on this subject in your Lordships' House on 27th March, I dealt with the suffering of the refugees both abroad and here and I have no intention of enlarging on that now except to say that I am closely in touch with several refugees. I am currently giving asylum to two of them, and one of these people has come from a most appalling background. He lost both parents in terrible circumstances, and there are many others like that—though not all of them, of course—who have come from a background of almost unimaginable persecution and suffering.
What happens? They come to this country. I am quite prepared to concede that they have not all the right of asylum here. I will not go into that, but they come here bewildered and perplexed. Many of them cannot speak our language. They do not know where to go. They have no friends. What is to happen to people like that? It is really quite appalling.
There are two aspects of this regulation which have been mentioned by other speakers but I should like to deal with them specifically in regard to the refugees. One is that unless these regulations are altered, as I see

383
it and as the British Refugee Council sees it, they will lead to the closure of hostels operated specifically for refugees. Can one believe it? The holding of asylum-seekers for long periods at immigration centres and the housing of refugees in slum accommodation in London may also stem from these regulations, as we see it. Possibly I am wrong there.
The second aspect, again, has been touched on by other speakers and is perhaps the most disturbing of all. That is that those under the age of 26—and pretty well all the refugees who come to this country are in that category—are obliged to move to another area every two or eight weeks according to the regulations. The one thing these refugees need—and I hope all your Lordships will accept this—and the one thing they must have is stability. Nothing could be more damaging to them psychologically than the need to move on. They get to know their landlady, they get to know where to do their shopping, they start courses. What is to happen to them? Every few weeks they have to move on. Surely that is totally unacceptable.
So I would ask the noble Baroness the Minister to look again at these regulations in the light of the special needs of the refugees, and I would say that it strikes me as quite incomprehensible that no special provisions are being incorporated, bearing in mind the enormous concern for refugees, both abroad and at home, exercised by such bodies as the United Nations High Commission for refugees, the British Refugee Council, the Ockenden Venture and many others. They are all working in a wonderful way to help these refugees, and then we have this appalling regulation which, so far as I can see—and I hope I am wrong—totally ignores their needs.
Perhaps I may put to the noble Baroness the Minster in conclusion three suggestions which have been submitted by the British Refugee Council, and ask her whether it is possible to formulate some sort of amendment on these lines. First, a special category of hostel should be established within the regulations for the reception and initial settlement of refugees and asylum-seekers for which a maximum weekly rate of £110 would be available.
Secondly, a realistic economic rate for board and lodging should be established regionally, and in central London this would probably be about £110. Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, may I propose that there be incorporated for refugees and asylum-seekers under 26 a clear statement of exemption from the need to move every two to eight weeks. I look forward to a sympathetic reply from the noble Baroness the Minister.
2.2 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall try to keep my remarks as short as possible because time is moving on. I think I should declare an interest because I want to look at the regulations from the point of view of physically handicapped people who live in voluntary homes, in homes run by voluntary organisations, and I work for one of these organisations. Yesterday, by telephone, I passed most of my questions through to my noble friend, so I hope that she will be able to answer them. If she cannot answer them immediately, perhaps she could write to me.
384
It is my understanding that the number of physically handicapped people in homes who are already in receipt of attendance allowance is only about 50 per cent. When 29th April comes will all those who are not already in receipt of attendance allowance have to apply for that allowance? If that is the case, does the Department of Health and Social Security have enough trained staff to deal with the obviously considerable influx of applications? I understand that at the moment an application, where there is no appeal, takes from 10 to 12 weeks to deal with. If there is an appeal it could take at least six months.
If physically disabled applicants have to make an application for this allowance will they be able to draw supplementary benefit up to the total of £170 a week until their application is finally dealt with? If not, some of them are going to be in considerable difficulty. They may have to rely purely on the homes to fund them, and not all the homes will be able to do so. Some homes are run with a very small financial reserve.
I should like to ask whether physically disabled people getting their supplementary allowance in this respect will have to collect this themselves from the post office, cash their giro cheques there, bearing in mind that some of them are unable to speak properly, will not be able to get themselves to the post office, and could be in considerable danger from potential muggers on their way back. There is also the question that where, as now, the voluntary home is paid directly by the local authority it is quite possible that a disabled person with £170 or more in his hand passing the shops on the way home will spend a proportion of this money, and therefore will not be able to pay for his board, lodging and keep. What is going to happen here?
On the question of the topping up finance, is the local authority which currently sponsors the physically disabled person responsible for providing this, or is it the local authority in the area where the home is situated? This could mean considerable expense for some local authorities, and sudden expense. Where there is a social work input to homes of this sort is this to be paid for by the currently sponsoring local authorities, or will this all devolve on the local authorities in which the home is situated? At the moment it is part of the amount paid by the sponsoring authority.
During the transitional period—I have already mentioned this, but it is an important point—how will the voluntary homes deal with the disabled person who is not getting his full allowances? Are they going to be asked to keep him for nothing? Is one of the local authorities going to pay? That needs questioning. Current local authority funding includes a contribution towards clothing, which is especially important for some physically disabled people to prevent such things as chaffing; training of the care staff; holidays with care; and the retention of a place in the home should handicapped people have to go to hospital for any length of time. If their place is not held in the home for them, when they come out of hospital there is nowhere for them to go. Someone has to pay for that place while they are away.
Would my noble friend be prepared to arrange for members of her staff to discuss with representatives

385
from the NCVO problems of this sort before the regulations come into effect at the end of this month? If that is impracticable because of the Easter holidays, can she make such arrangements as soon as possible thereafter? It is very important that her staff talk to those who are running the homes for physically handicapped people.
In the case of a dual registration where a home is registered both as a nursing home and as a residential care home there appears to be no provision for topping-up the finance of any physically handicapped person living in that home. That is quite ridiculous. Perhaps my noble friend can give an assurance that this topping-up will be provided; or, if it is not provided in the regulations, perhaps she will arrange for new regulations to be brought in, also dating from 29th April, so that that small number of physically handicapped people will not be financially out of pocket.
There is another point. At the moment the allowance for a physically handicapped person applies only if he was handicapped before he reached pensionable age. The allowances are less for those who reach pensionable age and then become handicapped. Why? What is the financial benefit to someone of getting multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease after he starts drawing his pension? It is totally illogical. This is an age at which such people need more money so that others can look after them in any case. Not everyone who is of pensionable age becomes disabled purely through age or becoming infirm. We can all get diseases at different ages. This winter Members of this House over normal pensionable age have not been here because they have had 'flu. There is nothing to stop them getting 'flu just as there is nothing to stop them getting multiple sclerosis. The number may be lower because many people get it earlier; but it is a total anomaly.
Finally, with the change in funding arrangements it would appear that the responsibility for looking after physically handicapped people is being taken away from local authorities and given entirely to my noble friend's department, with the slight exception of topping-up finance. Up to now I have always understood that local authorities were responsible for finding suitable accommodation for their physically handicapped residents. Will this continue, or is a totally new regime to start from the end of this month?
2.12 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the noble Baroness to her responsibilities. In particular I hope that she will never again have as bad a brief as this to defend. I can reassure her about one thing; she will never have a worse one. I can also wish her something more. I wish her as much moderation and courtesy for all her time on the Front Bench as she has experienced in the course of this afternoon. Frankly, it has been quite amazing. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has refrained from asking many of the questions which he had. This is merely a sign of the really appalling unpreparedness in regard to the regulations which are before your Lordships' House. I shall come to that point again in a moment.
386
I am in agreement with my party and the Alliance spokesman on this subject. Indeed, I agree with all noble Lords in what they have said, with the exception of the luckless Minister. I should particularly like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, on what I thought was an extraordinarily good and telling speech. The inadequacy of the limits has already been discussed and I do not want to go over the main issues, though I should say that Church Action on Poverty—on whose behalf to a certain extent, as well as on my own, I speak—feels fairly strongly about the problems raised by the regulations. The problems raised in my own old borough of Camden, for example, have already been raised. There is the problem of housing people not just in the lush end of Hampstead, but also in the not so lush end which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, knows better than I do.
It is not just the problem which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has already mentioned, the Church of Scotland is going to find with housing its own old people who are already at these levels. These are matters which go to the root of this particular matter.
The question has been raised, I think by my noble friend Lord Banks and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, as to whether the present limits for the elderly are indexed. It was produced with rather a flourish, I thought, in the announcement which we had previously that they would not be altered. The answer is—and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for writing to me on this matter—that they are not indexed. Therefore, that particular assurance is of no use whatever and, indeed, may be a matter of considerable worry and concern to a very great many elderly people in lodgings at the moment.
There are three special points about which I should like to ask questions—points which either have not been raised or, if they have been raised, have only just been touched upon. There is the question about the family with a 16-year-old child. When the child becomes 16 and the family is allowed to stay in the lodgings that they have, does the 16-year-old child have to start this peripatetic life, moving about every three or four weeks from area to area? Is this really so? If it is so, is that what the Government want? Is that how the Government care for the families among us? And, if not, what are they going to do about it? Then there is the question about young persons who are claiming supplementary benefit and who are studying part-time. This, again, is something which the Government, along with all of us, would surely wish to encourage. Of course, those young people must be prepared to give up their study if they are offered a job. But so long as they have not got a job, surely they should be encouraged as much as possible. If the young persons live in board and lodgings, they will be forced to give up the course and to move on to a different travel-to-work area after two, four or eight weeks, according to the area, or attempt to live on a non-householder's allowance. What this boils down to is that many young people will be denied the chance to obtain the extra education which is currently available to them. I cannot believe that is really what the Government want, but I suspect that that is what the Government have asked for.

387
Thirdly, and lastly as far as these questions are concerned, young people in part-time work whose earnings are topped up with supplementary benefit will also be adversely affected. If persons work for three days a week, they might sign on and claim unemployment benefit and/or supplementary benefit for the days of the week they are not working. Where the claimant lives in board and lodging, this will apparently no longer be possible. The person will have to live on a severely reduced income or give up the work and move on after two, four or eight weeks in order to find new board and lodging in a different travel-to-work area, thus to maintain the entitlement to a full board and lodging allowance. Again, it is impossible to believe that this is what the Government want.
We know that at the back of this there are real and deeper problems. My noble friend Lord Banks has already spoken (as have other noble Lords) about the real problem of housing in this particular context. At the back of this is a real need for a new housing policy. I say "a new housing policy" not implying that there is one at the moment, because there certainly is not a housing policy about building houses. That is for absolute certain.
I think we are getting to the end of this debate, but there is one last question which must be raised. It is—and it has been mentioned already—the constitutional point that your Lordships do not challenge regulations such as these if they have already been passed in another place. If orders come up in this kind of condition, the position will quickly become intolerable and impossible. Your Lordships cannot be asked to pass orders in the state in which speakers on all Benches have shown this one to be. It is a mockery of Parliament and of your Lordships' House.
I commend to all the Front-Benchers, and particularly those on this side of the House, that they take this problem aboard very seriously. Had it not been the tail-end of Maundy Thursday—what an unfortunate day!—and the last day before the Easter holiday, I do not think we would have had very much difficulty in finding enough Back-Benchers of all parties who would throw this out. Being the day that it is, and the conventions being what they are, I think it is probably just enough that we serve the strongest possible notice on the Government and on the authorities dealing with the procedures of this House that this is an intolerable order to have been put before us and that we will not put up with it.
2.21 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, this has been an extraordinarily impressive debate. I do not intend to prolong the debate or to dilute it but I think the Government must have taken note of the strength of feeling that has been expressed on all sides of the House. I personally do not recall a debate of this length or quality on social security regulations in your Lordships' House.
I have only three very brief points I want to make to the noble Baroness, since she was good enough to write to me. The first is a general point on the level of the maximum figures for the various types of home, which are £10 less than those which were in the consultative document. I have not yet heard any adequate reason
388
from the Government as to why they have chosen the lower figure rather than the higher ones which appeared in the consultative document.
Turning to the letter which the noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me on 1st April, I want to refer in the first place to the attendance allowance, which was very ably and knowledgeably touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I think I understood her to believe—perhaps she will correct me if I am wrong—that a supplementary benefit allowance equivalent to attendance allowance was going to be built into the nursing home figures. That I take it—perhaps she will again correct me if I am wrong—accounts for the difference between £170 in a residential home and £198.60 in a nursing home. Again, I understand that is a flat cut-off rate and there are no arrangements for topping-up of the type referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Is that the case?
What is to be the position in the case of homes where the top limit is £110 and, in another type, £138.60? Is it the case that both types of home attendance allowance, where conceded, would be deducted from the amount payable for that elderly person? If that is the case, is it going to be possible for those elderly people to stay in those homes?
Finally, an important point was touched on by my noble friend Lord Beaumont, and it is a point to which the noble Baroness also referred in her letter: the transitional protection for existing claimants. In her letter to me, and, I think, to my noble friend Lord Beaumont, the noble Baroness wrote:
"There are no plans to index-link these payments. We regard the new limits we are setting as reasonable and sufficient to allow people to find the accommodation they need."
I thought I heard the noble Baroness say in her speech that the current levels will be left in place for 12 months with a review before November 1986—
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, was she referring to that particular arrangement for existing claimants? Is it the case that the position will be reviewed before November 1986, and would it be the Government's intention to introduce index-linking from that date? If that were to be the case, there would be some alleviation, although the present sums would have run for some 18 months and might well have fallen behind the rate of inflation. However, we must be thankful for small mercies, and, if that is what the noble Baroness is saying on behalf of the Government, I should like to have her confirmation of it.
Lord McNair: My Lords, may I have half a minute in which to support with all the force that I can what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, about the refugees? Also, may I put to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, what may be the easiest question that she has had today? As she is well aware, the way we look after refugees and asylum-seekers is a Home Office matter. Has there been consultation between the DHSS and the relevant Ministers in the Home Office and the British Refugee Council? If there has not been such consultation, can she please promise that there will be before these regulations come into force?
2.26 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I thank those of your Lordships who have been kind enough to say nice things; but quite obviously the honeymoon is over. May I also say that when this act finishes and the curtain goes down I return for Act II. Therefore, I may be forced to write to many of your Lordships, because I have a sheaf of paper equivalent to a five-hour debate on this subject. However, I really understand the deep feelings that this whole subject gives rise to as expressed in your Lordships' remarks and questions. I too feel very deeply on this subject, and I totally reject, despite the nice things which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, his remarks about these regulations and about the Government's allegedly over-hasty production of them.
If I may turn immediately to the questions, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, my noble friend Lady Macleod and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked: would there not be, as the SSAC report, the possibility of creating a homeless and rootless group of young people. I understand the concern that has been expressed, but this argument rather suggests that there are no social problems created by the present arrangements. The present rules have given the wrong signals to many young people, effectively encouraging them to leave their families and spend long periods in expensive bed and breakfast accommodation in areas where they have not been able—and occasionally have not wanted—to find work.
What we are proposing would not hinder the genuine job-seeker. The periods we have allowed are reasonable to see whether work is available. The exemption categories and the hostel provisions give protection for those who need to be in board and lodging. The proposal is to restrict the period of payment as a boarder. At the end of this period, claimants may not necessarily decide to move to another area as a boarder. Some will no doubt be able to stay in the same accommodation and be assessed at the non-householder rate or even as householders. Some may decide to return to their parents or live with relatives or friends. Some may find rented accommodation and some, one hopes, will find work.
It was said that four weeks is not long enough. As we indicate in the Government's response, the experience of the Manpower Services Commission is that clerical or manual work, where available, can be obtained within a week, and casual work can be claimed within a matter of days. We have set what we believe are quite reasonable periods for exploring the jobs market in a particular area. We want to avoid the position of young people settling down on a long-term basis in expensive board and lodging, which they could not possibly afford if they were in work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked what had caused the increased numbers. My reply to them is that the number of young people claiming supplementary benefit for board and lodging had increased by 60 per cent. in 1983, with estimated rises of over 50 per cent. in 1984 and 1985. These increases cannot be explained on the basis of rising unemployment or increased homelessness. But it is clear that supplementary benefits have been attracting claimants to that form of
390
accommodation, and indeed these payments have encouraged landlords. For example, 100 new establishments have opened in Reading in the past six months or so. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked: why the cut-off point at age 25? We were concerned about numbers in board and lodging and we did not want to disturb those who had settled long-term in board and lodging. The consultative document did not specify any particular age cut-off. We looked at the position carefully and after much consideration decided that an upper age limit of 25 would be appropriate in all circumstances. This limitation was welcomed by the Social Security Advisory Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked whether the new limits will apply to the home or to the individual claimant. Under the new registration arrangements each home will be required to identify the number of places it provides for each of the following client groups—the elderly; the mentally ill; those dependent on alcohol or drugs; the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped. Local offices will shortly be seeking information on this. Where a home provides for more than one type of client the limit payable to the individual claimant will be the one appropriate to his or her client group. If the status of the client was uncertain, we would expect the local office to check the details with the proprietor of the home or the local health authority as appropriate.
I was asked about multiple handicap. The proposed new limits are intended to follow the new registration arrangements and reflect the client groups identified for registration purposes. The limit payable for a multiply-handicapped person, for example, would he dependent on whether the home in which he lived was registered as a home for the mentally or the physically handicapped. It has been the department's aim to follow the classifications agreed by the proprietors and social services departments rather than to require DHSS staff to make difficult decisions about claimants with special needs. Although individual assessment of this type would probably be the best solution to this problem, our local office staff are not competent to undertake it.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said that surely the best solution would be to fit the payment to the needs of the individual. Obviously, as I have said, an assessment system which identified the type of care appropriate for the individual and whether the amount being charged for care and accommodation was reasonable might well be the solution. But I have to repeat that our local staff cannot have the expertise to perform this type of assessment.
The question of topping-up for the elderly was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. There are no plans at present to allow this provision for those in homes for the elderly, although this will be kept under review as the SSAC advised. There is in the main adequate local authority provision for this group. The concession that we propose for the younger client groups is in recognition of the need for higher cost care, sometimes above the level which supplementary benefit can cover.

391
The nursing homes supplement is mean, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The nursing home supplement reflects the average difference between residential and nursing homes, but it will be kept under review. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked what the DHSS does to stop payments to landlords advertising for claimants. Payment is made to the claimant, not to the landlord, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The DHSS cannot refuse benefits simply because the landlord is advertising for claimants. This is why we are acting in this way—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Exceptional, my Lords?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I could hear the noble Lord, Lord Graham, saying "exceptional". I can think of cases where the benefit might disappear into the "local" the same day it was received. I leave that to the imagination of the noble Lord.
My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred to the blind. I am aware of and understand the points that have been made by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. As my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox had noted, my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security indicated in another place that he would look closely at the representations now being made by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. I hope that both noble Baronesses will be happy with that.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we shall see.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked why it has been decided to restrict the limit for the physically disabled to those whose condition arose before they reached pension age. It was always our thinking that the limit should apply to the younger client group; to those, in effect, who are significantly disabled, rather than those who have become increasingly frail as the natural accompaniment of old age.
Coming to the question of refugees, raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I am aware of the work done by the British Refugee Council, and particularly the projects at Camden and Brixton. The council has written to my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security and he hopes to reply shortly. Under the regulations the British Refugee Council's two main projects would be subject to the new hostel limit of £70, with some cases, at least, eligible for the extension of £16.15. I understand that the council considered that this may cause difficulties. It is not our intention to harm the worthwhile work of hostels where this can be avoided. We have already indicated that we will carefully monitor the impact of the proposals on the financial position of hostels. While I clearly cannot make any promises, we shall look very closely at the circumstances of the council's hostels.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as an officer of the British Refugee Council, may I ask whether the noble Baroness or one of her colleagues would be prepared to receive a deputation in order fully to understand the very real problems which the council faces and which have been touched upon in this debate?
Baroness Trumpington: Gladly, my Lords; I wish to find out as much as I can on that subject, as on every other subject. I am attempting to learn as speedily as I can. However, I have not quite finished on this important question of the refugees. I believe that the British Refugee Council took part in the Social Security Advisory Committee's consultation process. Nevertheless, I should be glad to meet a deputation.
As regards exemption categories, where a person has entered board and lodging under the guidance of a voluntary body such as the British Refugee Council as part of a programme for rehabilitation or resettlement, the boarder restriction does not apply.
I am unable to answer the last point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, but I shall write to him. If he has any other points which I have not answered—and this applies to all noble Lords—I hope he will let me know.
The question of inspection, which I agree is important, was raised by my noble friend Lady Macleod and by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. Local authorities have a wide range of powers and some duties relating to the enforcement of standards in houses in multiple occupation. They have powers to require improvements in the management and physical conditions of HMOs. They can require the provision of standard amenities and adequate means of escape from fire and can limit the number of occupants in HMOs. They can make a control order which allows them to take over the management of a HMO to protect the safety, welfare and health of persons living there. That is a very important point.
Index linking was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, as was the question of taking account of inflation. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, I have written to him on this point saying that it will not be index-linked, but the new limits may, as I have already made clear, be uprated within 12 months of coming into operation.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, does the noble Baroness mean uprated, or does she mean reviewed?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have tried to cut this short. The amount to be protected will be that in payment on the date the changes come into operation. This will last until payments under the new limits become more favourable. There are no plans to index-link these payments. We regard the new limits we are setting as reasonable and sufficient to allow people, even in the area of residential homes for the elderly, to find the accommodation they need. Therefore, we do not think that it would be reasonable to increase payments which have been made in excess of those new limits. The new limits will be reviewed within 12 months.
Pressing on, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Macleod for her welcome of our proposals for the hospices. She asked whether other proposals were not hitting the unemployed when it was not their fault. We

393
are concerned that the benefit system should not encourage or entice young people to move away from their families before they are ready to do so. We want to prevent high board and lodging payments—in some cases £80 or more a week—acting as a work disincentive. It is no service to trap impressionable young people in this type of accommodation. We are concerned to secure greater equity between those on benefits and other young people in work. We want to ensure that board and lodging payments go to those who need them. That is why we have drawn up wide exemption categories and we have allowed reasonable periods for people to find work in particular areas. I think that I shall write to my noble friend on the other points that she raised.
I must just pick up the point about the tourist trade which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friend. I understand their concern, but I would point out that much of the accommodation has been specifically made available because of the availability of supplementary benefit payments for many young people. We believe that that accommodation will still be available at the new limits. What has to be recognised is that the DHSS has a major influence on the charging practices of the market.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about the attendance allowance and the nursing home supplement. I am grateful to my noble friend for his warning. I shall probably have to reply later to other points that he raised, but there seems to be some confusion over the attendance allowance and nursing home supplement. As I have already explained, attendance allowance will be taken into account for those in residential care and nursing homes. The supplement of £28·60 which is added to the new residential care limits to make the new nursing home limits is not connected in any way with attendance allowance, except that the amount is the same. There will be no need to claim the nursing home supplementary separately, as it will form part of the normal supplementary benefit assessment for those in nursing homes.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend may recall that I asked her whether it would be necessary for those physically disabled people in voluntarily run homes who are not currently in receipt of attendance allowance to claim it, or can that be done in bulk for all of them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the answer is, no. I think that 19 minutes in reply is enough to try your Lordships' patience. I shall write to noble Lords. It has been an extremely interesting debate. I said in my original remarks that a review would be carried out. We realised that there was concern. The Government must save money in order to put it to better use in other services. If certain things turn out not to be exactly right, no doubt the Government will look at them
again.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1985
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st March be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin I beg to move that the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 18th March this year, be approved.
As the order is mainly technical, I shall be brief, but I shall be happy to answer any detailed points that may be raised. The present order provides no substantive innovation and only amends the 1979 formula to take account of the effects of the general revaluation which has taken place in Scotland this year. This has been done in a way that ensures that except for the effect of the changed trading circumstances at any particular harbour, harbour undertaking rateable values will rise at the revaluation in line with the average for other subjects and hence in real terms the status quo is maintained. Given this, the provisions of the present draft order have been broadly accepted by the parties directly concerned and I trust they are equally acceptable to this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th March be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1985
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1985 laid before the House on 28th February 1985 be approved.
With the leave of the House I should like to speak to the other three Merchant Shipping Regulation orders standing in my name on the Order Paper. These regulations will implement in part the first set of amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS 1974) which were adopted in 1981. For ease of reference, I shall refer to them as the amendments.
The 1978 Protocol to the 1974 Convention required that no more favourable treatment in meeting the requirements of the Convention—and that includes amendments to it—be given to ships of non-convention countries. It is in this context that these

395
regulations apply certain of the amendments to ships of all other countries while they are within the United Kingdom or our territorial waters. Implementation of the amendments in respect of such ships will be completed when regulations for the carriage of grain, for fire prevention and for radio installations are made. They are to be laid in the House after the Easter recess. Separate regulations have already been made under negative procedure to apply all of the amendments to United Kingdom ships.
The House may find it helpful if I give a brief summary of each regulation. I shall commence with the Merchant Shipping (Application of Construction and Survey Regulations to other ships) Regulations 1985. In this field, regulations already applying the amendments to United Kingdom ships built on or after 1st September 1984 are: the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1984, (SI 1984/1216), and the Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1984, (SI 1984/1217).
This statutory instrument also applies those two sets of regulations to new non-United Kingdom passenger and cargo ships respectively; that is, ships which were built on or after 1st September 1984. However, in the case of non-United Kingdom passenger ships, it applies the requirements for watertight doors and the openings in the shell plating required by the amendments only, and not the stricter standards which will apply to all United Kingdom passenger ships.
I shall now move on to the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction) (Amendment) Regulations 1985. At present, the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction) Regulations 1980, (SI 1980/535), apply to United Kingdom ships built before 1st September 1984 and to all non-United Kingdom ships regardless of their date of build. This new statutory instrument will bring United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom ships into line by amendng the 1980 regulations so that they will apply only to those ships both United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom built before 1st September 1984. All passenger ships built on or after that date will be required to comply with the Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1984 (SI 1984/1216), except, as mentioned earlier, that non-United Kingdom ships will not be required to comply with the stricter requirements for watertight doors and the openings in the shell plating.
The more stringent standards which it is intended to apply to United Kingdom passenger ships for watertight doors, results from actions taken following a recent shipping casualty. I refer to the collision between the passenger ferry "European Gateway" and the "Speedlink Vanguard", a cargo ro-ro ship, at the entrance to the port of Harwich in December 1982. In that collision, the hull of the "European Gateway" was badly breached and the ship sank with the tragic loss of six lives.
Subsequent investigations into the cause of this incident and loss of the ship revealed that a number of watertight doors giving access between machinery spaces were open at the time of the collision. Unfortunately these doors, while complying with both
396
national and international requirements, could only be closed by manual means. Although strenuous efforts were made to close two of them, it was not possible to do so. Under the amendments and the then existing national regulations, the need to provide power operation for the watertight doors fitted in passenger ships arises only when more than five doors of the type which can be opened at sea are fitted with only three such doors.
Following a formal investigation into this casualty, the court in its report made a number of recommendations, one of which was that:
"The power operation of watertight doors in passenger vessels should be made mandatory".
As a result of this recommendation and following detailed discussions with United Kingdom shipowners it was agreed that our national regulations should be amended accordingly. Consequently, it is now necessary to ensure that in all United Kingdom passenger ships all sliding watertight doors which may be required to be open at sea are power operated and capable of remote control.
As regards the other topic—that is, openings in the shell plating—this relates to improved means of drainage from the enclosed spaces in all types of ships. Here, the opportunity has been taken, after full consultation with the General Council of British Shipping, to introduce measures which were agreed and recommended for adoption in 1982 by the International Maritime Organisation.
The next regulations are the Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1985. At present, the Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981/572) apply to United Kingdom ships built before 1st September 1984 and to non-United Kingdom ships built before and after that date. This statutory instrument will bring United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom ships into line by amending the 1981 regulations so that they will apply only to pre-1st September 1984 ships, both United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom, and Statutory Instrument (1984/1217), the Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship Construction and Survey) Regulations 1984, will apply to United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom ships built on or after that date.
Additionally, these regulations require non-United Kingdom ships built pre-1st September 1984 to meet the appropriate requirements in the amendments for steering gear and surveys. These are requirements which pre-1st September 1984 United Kingdom ships are meeting under the 1981 regulations as previously amended.
Finally, I refer to the Merchant Shipping (Navigational Equipment) (Amendment) Regulations 1985. These regulations apply to non-United Kingdom ships the provisions already made for United Kingdom ships in the Merchant Shipping (Navigational Equipment) Regulations 1984 (SI 1984/1203). Additionally, provision is made for depth-sounding devices in United Kingdom passenger ships not engaged in international voyages.
In the case of navigational equipment, such equipment installed in United Kingdom ships is

397
required to meet national specifications—Regulation 2(9) of these amending regulations. The amendments require that all equipment fitted in compliance with Regulation 12 of Chapter V of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974 shall be of a type approved by the administration—Regulation 2(2) of the 1984 Regulations. The United Kingdom specifications incorporate the operational standards set out by the International Maritime Organisation together with the methods for testing the equipment and the results required. This arrangement provides the means by which the United Kingdom Administration approves the equipment. I commend these safety regulations to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February be approved.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
2.53 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the care that he took in explaining the amendments. I thank him also for having the courtesy to send me the details of the proceedings of the Statutory Instruments Committee held in another place. As the noble Lord will be aware, statutory instruments are frequently highly specialised. The distinguished members of the committee, representing all parties and Parliament itself, looked at the matter carefully. After reading their comments and having spoken to one or two of those who served on the committee, I feel that there is little I can say except that the amendments appear to make life at sea that much more safe for most people.
There is one small point that I should like to raise, and it may be that I missed it when reading the regulations. I do not expect the noble Lord to answer me now but perhaps he would be good enough to consider the matter. We refer to "British ships" and "non-United Kingdom ships". I assume that this will apply to ships flying flags of convenience? As I have said, I do not expect the noble Lord to answer me now. But I hope that he will be able to let me know the answer later. Other than that, and in view of the fact that I have received no representations from either the shipping companies or the National Union of Seamen, I wish God speed to these regulations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his reception of these measures. I think that the answer to this question is, yes, but if I find that that is not so I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Application of Construction and Survey Regulations to other Ships) Regulations 1985
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February be approved.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ship Construction) (Amendment) Regulations 1985
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February be approved.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Navigational Equipment) (Amendment) Regulations 1985
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th February be approved.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1985 (SI 1985, No. 326) National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1985 (SI 1985, No. 353) National Health Service (Dental Charges—Variation) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985, No. 352) National Health Service (Increase of Dental Charges)(Scotland) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985, No. 334) National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations 1985 (SI 1985, No. 371) National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1985 (SI 1985, No. 383)
2.56 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the National Health Service (Chages for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1985 (S.I. 1985, No. 326) be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name and, with the leave

399
of the House, I wish to speak to the other five Motions on the Order Paper. My main object in tabling these Prayers is to draw attention to the peacemeal, contradictory and—I am choosing my words—disingenuous method the Government have chosen to diminish the cost of the National Health Service. I shall also suggest that, taken together with other measures, the Government's emerging strategy appears to be the emasculation of primary health care as an integral part of the National Health Service.
First, let us look at the financial picture for 1985–86. We have already had to digest the limited drug list on which the Government planned to save £100 million a year. We argued at the time that they might have some hope of saving this sum with the full collaboration of the professions concerned, but they missed their chance and admitted that they expected to save less on their revised list—some £75 million on their estimate. This seemed, and seems, optimistic. But, even if we accept it, it must be presumed that the department has pledged £100 million to the Treasury and there are £25 million missing to be found.
I turn to the charges that we are debating. The Government have said—and the Secretary of State said it on the 11th March in the House of Commons, at col. 22—that the total saving from all the charges embodied in these regulations will be about £40 million. If the new prescription charges raise £19 million, as predicted, that leaves only £21 million to make up the total. Yet when we turn to the dental charges we find from a comparison of last year's with this year's supply estimates—which I have here in my hands—that these have been raised by a whopping £49 million from £173 million last year to £222 million this year. That is a figure that neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister of Health has mentioned in any speech of which I am aware. I shall refer later to the obvious adverse effects on dental care but for the moment I want to stick with the macro figures.
How then do we square the Secretary of State's projected savings of only £40 million from all these charges with the extra £68 million he will be getting in from the pharmaceutical and dental services taken together? The clue lies in the optical charges. Looking further down the pages in the supply estimates, we find that the department expects to take in only £7 million this year under the heading "Charges retained by opticians" as against £43 million the previous year, a shortfall of £37 million, which it appears is to be largely made up from the massive increases in dental charges.
We are not against the liberalisation of the supply of glasses, provided a safety net is maintained for the elderly and visually handicapped. However, it seems to us quite wrong that the cost of this policy should be offloaded on to another service—particularly when the general ophthalmic service, according to the same supply estimates, is expected to show a net decline in cost from £128 million to £124 million without any such fudging of the books. My point is that if savings of this kind are to be sought on the ophthalmic service, and from the limited list, they should be treated as a separate exercise. Indeed, there is no other way of monitoring how well they are working. To clobber the dental service to make up for any shortfall resulting from policies in the other areas is really inexcusable,
400
and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, will have a good deal to say on this when he comes to speak.
Let us now look at the prescription charges which are going up by less than the 25 per cent. being inflicted on the dental service, but still by a substantial 14 per cent., or nearly three times the rate of inflation. The Government constantly tell us that this really will not affect many people, because 70 per cent. of the prescriptions are exempt from charge in any case, but this percentage is misleading because it refers to prescriptions and not to patients. The elderly, as might be expected, account for a larger number of prescriptions per head than the rest of the population, but, taken together with children, they represent only 39 per cent. of that population. The likelihood, therefore, is that even if we allow for other exempted categories such as those on supplementary benefit, a good half of all patients will be confronted by this leap from £1.60 to £2 per prescription. It is also likely that many of these people will be on low pay or only just above the supplementary benefit level which would qualify them for exemption. So to brush this aside as a matter of little consequence is to be wilfully blind to social realities.
There is also a serious anomaly affecting the increased prescription charge. There are quite a number of cases in which the prescription cost will be less than the £2 charge and this applies to some drugs which are in constant use and in the top 100 league of prescribed drugs. I have some examples. Twenty penicillin tablets of 250mg cost the NHS £1.10. However, this is a prescription only drug, so the pharmacist cannot sell it over the counter or prescribe privately on a NHS script. Thus, the patient is giving 90p to the NHS on that prescription. I could go on. There are other examples. Hydrocortisone ointment costs the National Health Service £1·50, but the patient will have to pay £2, thus presenting 50p to the National Health Service.
In reply to the Question of my noble friend Lord Winstanley for Written Answer on 28th March 1985 the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, indicated at column 1277 of the Official Report, that if the cost was below £2, the pharmacist could sell the drug over the counter at the cheaper rate. The noble Baroness stated:
"If he does so and the patient buys the item, the prescription is, obviously, not dispensed. We believe it is right to leave the decision to individual pharmacists. We do not consider it necessary to issue formal guidance on this to pharmacists".
This is simply dodging the issue. If the item can be sold only against a prescription, the patient will have to go back to his doctor for a private script, which will consume time and probably money if transport is involved. This is likely to arise with frequency as most of the preparations which could previously be sold over the counter are on the black list. Also, the extended use of generic drugs will lead to a wider range of prescriptions costing under £2. It does not seem right to me that those whose treatment demands the cheaper products should be made to subsidise the more expensive prescriptions in this way. I should, therefore, like an assurance from the noble Baroness that this anomaly will be corrected, either by authorising pharmacists to refund the difference or by some other means, which I am sure the ingenuity of the Government can easily devise. The present situation is both unfair and ridiculous.
I have already spoken of the way the Government have indulged in creative accounting over the dental charges, and I shall leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, with his first hand experience, to deal with the actual effects on dentists and their patients. I believe that my noble friend Lady Robson will have something to say here. I only want to say in passing that all the evidence I have seen convinces me that there will be a drastic decline in dental health if the Government persist in these swingeing charges; that the advances made over the past 20 years or so will be put into reverse; that people will avoid dentists like the plague rather than commit themselves to open-ended courses of treatment whose eventual cost to them cannot be predicted; or that they will limit their visits to emergencies and go increasingly for the cheapest option, which is extraction. If the Government want a toothless nation, they seem to be going the right way about it.
Perhaps the Government will change course in time, and we hope to hear from the noble Baroness that they are thinking again. I understand that the British Dental Association saw Mr. Kenneth Clarke on 20th March and that he gave them some assurances that he would think again if statistics could be provided to prove any decline in dental health as a result of these measures. However, that is something that could take years to assess, and what we want, and what the British public want, is action now. It is up to the noble Baroness to reassure us and, more importantly, the general public. This is a great opportunity for her to get off to a good start in her new post—about which I join in congratulating her—and she should not lose it.
My noble friend Lady Robson is going to deal with charges for private beds in National Health Service hospitals, a subject about which she has great knowledge, so I shall not pursue it myself. However, I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, about income from overseas charges. She kindly wrote to me on 2nd April saying that £4 million had been collected since October 1982. This does not seem a great deal. I seem to remember that something like £6 million a year was originally mentioned. Can the noble Baroness say anything about the administrative costs of this operation and whether it is worthwhile continuing at all?
I recognise that in criticising these charges I might be asked to state where I, or we, would go for savings in the National Health Service. In the first place, it is worth putting on record that the much-publicised mounting cost of drugs is not in fact fully borne out by the figures. Between 1983 and 1984 the increase in prescriptions was only 1.67 per cent., which is rather low when one considers the demographic pressures on the health service.
The ingredient cost per script showed an increase of only 2.68 per cent. in 1984 over 1983, and the prescription price index after discount showed an increase of only 2·7 per cent. In the light of these figures one wonders why the Government had to rush into these draconian measures as though there were a wild escalation in high percentages of the cost of drugs to the National Health Service.
However, I think we all recognise that it is desirable to make savings where they can be made in order that
402
the money can be reapplied elsewhere in the service where it is needed. I have stated in previous debates, and I shall not repeat it here in detail, that we believe that greater savings could have been achieved on drugs by a combination of generic substitution with the proposals of the Royal College of General Practitioners for responsible prescribing and of the pharmacists for reducing waste.
If we are looking for savings there is another area which ought to be looked at, and that is the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. The Government have recently striven to reduce the allowable return on capital to the pharmaceutical industry on NHS business from some 25 per cent. to some 17 to 18 per cent. This profit target is based on submissions made by some 65 companies supplying the NHS who are permitted, as I understand it, to define their own capital base on which the margin of profit is allowed.
This clearly gives a lot of leeway in accounting terms. As the department's analysis of the returns has a built-in time lag of two years, it cannot be said that the Government are exercising a full and thorough control of cost through the PPRS. We are sympathetic to the industry's claim for a longer period of patent protection of innovative drugs, but there is a grey area which requires further effective scrutiny. I want to ask the noble Baroness whether the Government will take this into account in their review of the PPRS. They may well find some useful savings here.
Dental charges, prescription charges, the reduction of the general ophthalmic service, the limited list and the black list are all, I suspect, straws in the wind. Taken individually they may not seem to be of vast significance, but taken together they undoubtedly represent a creeping erosion of NHS primary health care. Since the Secretary of State now directly determines the appointments to family practitioner committees, these bodies will inevitably become his tools and implement his policy. It would be nice to know what that policy is.
The seemingly interminable delay in the publication of the Government's Green Paper on primary care and the continuing refusal to publish the Binder Hamlyn report can only lead one to suppose that there are radical proposals in the pipeline but that these are (how shall I put it?) the subject of disagreement in Government circles. If that is not so, I cannot think why the Government have not unveiled their proposals by now.
This delay is bad. It means that we are faced with the sort of ill-thought out and unco-ordinated measures we are debating today. There is no overview of the role of primary medicine, no Government commitment to it as the bedrock of the National Health Service, and no philosophy within which the National Health Service group practices can develop their potential, for example by taking on more ancillary staff to extend the range of work they handle, thus relieving the burden on hospitals and tackling ills at their source. All that is held up while the Government flirt with this and that type of privatisation and wonder which they can introduce with the least possible political storm. It would be far better if the Government, instead of toying with all these ideas, were to concentrate on helping to improve what we already have, which

403
could, with a little help and a little imagination, produce a superb service for the whole community, without introducing first, second, third, fourth leagues in family medicine.
I therefore hope to hear three things from the noble Baroness this afternoon: first, that the Government will immediately remove the anomalies created by their £2 prescription charge; secondly, that they will also reconsider the ill-advised and deeply damaging level of dental charges they are proposing to implement in these regulations; and, finally, that they will not dismantle or severely cripple the family doctor service by encouraging the expansion of the private sector, supposedly to lift the burden on the public sector. This would be gross folly and would lead to guerrilla warfare between NHS practices striving to defend their terrain and private medical centres aiming to poach their patients to the point where the NHS practices become no longer viable. The principal sufferers, as in all civil wars, would be the citizen, the patient. If the Government do destroy family medicine in Britain, I can assure them they will live to regret it.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations be annulled—(Lord Kilmarnock.)
3.12 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for giving us this opportunity to discuss these regulations and, at the same time, welcome my noble friend Lady Trumpington to her new position on the Front Bench. Both my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and I are away from our practices this afternoon, which, I assure your Lordships, must mean that we and our profession are taking this matter very seriously. I have spoken many times now on the question of dental charges and the harm that the rising charges are doing to dental health. I wish it were not necessary for me to do it again, but I should like to consider what has been happening.
On 11th March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made his announcement. He began rather well. He said that in the next financial year the health service plans to spend an extra £800 million, bringing total spending up to some £17½ billion. This is an increase of over 20 per cent. So far so good: it is confirmation of the Government's continuing support for the National Health Service. He then said that the Government believed there should be some increase in the contribution from direct charges and that they were seeking to raise an extra £19 million from prescription charges.
The Minister then went on to mention dental charges. He announced that charges for specific treatments—crowns, bridges, inlays and dentures—would increase by between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent., and the maximum charge for any single course of treatment would increase by just 4½ per cent. Then there was the bland statement that in future patients would pay the full cost of routine treatment up to a maximum of £17, rather than the present
404
£14.50, as it was before 1st April, and would also have to pay two-fifths of any cost above that level. The Minister ended his speech by saying that the total income from charges next year would be increased by some £40 million. It might be thought that increases of 6 per cent. to 10 per cent. and 4½ per cent. in dental charges do not sound too bad. But the Minister's speech omitted some very crucial facts.
In England the DHSS proposes to collect £221 million in a full year of the new dental charges. In 1984–85, under the old dental charges, the figure was about £172 million. This represents not the comparatively small increases of 4½ per cent., 6 per cent. or 10 per cent. mentioned by the Minister, but an awesome 28 per cent. rise in revenue in a full year. In fact, this £49 million is more than the overall revenue increase of £40 million mentioned in the 11th March Statement.
Part of the increase is the result of growth in the service—and that is good—but the pure price effect is something like 23 per cent. Not only did the Secretary of State not mention this 23 per cent. increase in revenue from dental charges, approximately five times the current rate of inflation, but he also omitted to say that if the cost for specific treatments rises by 6 per cent. to 10 per cent., then the cost for routine treatment must be increased by about 40 per cent. to make up the proposed 23 per cent. increase in revenue. I repeat that the cost for routine treatment will have increased by about 40 per cent. under these new charges.
These increases in dental charges can do nothing but harm for dental health. The dental profession has been trying for many years to encourage people to visit their dentists regularly. It is an understatement for me to say that these increases win dissuade them from doing so. Indeed, in 1981 the Government's own Dental Strategy Review Group concluded:
"There can be no doubt that any charge to patients will deter some from seeking the treatment they need. The level of charges should therefore be set as low as possible".
What a pity, my Lords, that the Government cannot take their own advice.
A few weeks ago I spoke about the appalling statistics of increases in dental charges. I have no reason to take back these words. In fact, they are even more applicable today than they were when I first said them. I think I speak for my profession when I say that we have serious doubts about the practical aspects of collecting these new charges. Successive Governments have all used the dental practitioner as an unpaid tax collector but, under the new system, the dentist is under a legal obligation to give the patient an estimate of the cost of treatment. In many cases this will be difficult or impossible, with the prospect of under-collected amounts being unrecoverable and over-collected amounts needing to be refunded. This will cause extra administrative costs to most practices.
The new system also takes no account of fees that are at the discretion of the Dental Estimates Board, details of which are not available to practising dentists. I should appreciate the comments of my noble friend the Minister on the view that it is now high time that these discretionay figures were made available to the profession.

405
When I last spoke on this subject I gave my noble friend Lord Caithness evidence which, in my opinion, clearly showed that the increase in charges was affecting the groups of the population most at risk. I think that my noble friend Lady Gardner may have something to say on this. The Minister was very prompt in his reply, with contradictory figures which I am afraid I find hard to understand. I very much regret that the situation has now arisen whereby it is no longer possible to accept such figures and statistics from the DHSS on trust. I feel that perhaps unwittingly the department have manipulated the figures to suit themselves. I am sorry to have to say that, but my right honourable friend the Minister of Health's recent statement, when he averaged the charge revenue over all adults of working age rather than just the adults actually receiving treatment, is an example of this more-than-simple political adjustment.
Finally, I ask the Minister to tell us what steps her department proposes to take to monitor the health consequences of these new charges, and I ask her for an assurance that the charges will be reviewed as soon as evidence emerges that dental health is being damaged.
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock in the Motion before the House. I am delighted that he should have enabled us to discuss the very real problem that now faces us. As my noble friend said, I am going to speak mainly about private patients and private beds in hospitals, but I should like to re-emphasise and support his concern about the increased prescription charges, particularly for those drugs that do not cost £2. It is very easy to suggest that you go back to your general practitioner and get a private prescription, for which you pay £1.10 or £1.50. But how will that affect people who live in rural areas where there is not always a chemist round the corner from the general practitioner's surgery? I believe that not only is it going to cost the patient something extra to get the private prescription but it is also going to cost an enormous amount of time and effort. This is what I find unforgivable.
We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, his thoughts on the effect of the increased charges for dental services. I came to this country in 1939 from a country which is well known for its good teeth: Sweden. I was shocked when I arrived here to see young people of 21 years of age with a set of false teeth; that was not uncommon pre-war. My concern is that the new, increased charges, particularly as they affect the age group between 18 and 25, are going to put us back into the same position. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said that there is a 40 per cent. increase in the cost to a person who wants to have his teeth dealt with properly. A young man or woman in the age group 18 to 25 who, at the Government's urging, is prepared to take a reasonably low-paid job (because that is the only way to get a job these days if you are in that age group) is going to opt, if he goes to the dentist at all, for the cheapest form of treatment.
I have here an example of the difference; it was supplied to me by the dental association. If he goes to
406
the dentist and just has his tooth extracted, it will cost him £3.30. If he goes to have proper treatment it is going to cost him £36.10. In the past he would have had to pay only £14.50. Under the present system, with the £17 maximum plus 40 per cent. of the rest of the charges, he will pay £26.64. That is a rise of 70 per cent. in what he is asked to pay. I wonder whether noble Lords believe that a young person between the ages of 18 and 25 is going to have the money to pay the £26.64, or whether he or she will not opt just to have a tooth extracted. If that happens, we are going back almost to pre-first World War conditions; and I would hope the Government will think again.
I said that I wanted to talk about increased charges for private patients in hospitals, which have gone up by 14 per cent. under the new rates. This is a much greater increase than one would have expected, in view of the fact that inflation was not 14 per cent. last year. But whereas the first two regulations are aimed at saving money, one would assume that the increased charges for private patients was an attempt to earn more income for the National Health Service from private subscribers. At the time of the Statement in this House on the new charges the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, stated that the income from private patients to the NHS was £62 million per annum. That is quite a sum of money and is something that is very much welcomed by health authorities, particularly in these days of what I would call cuts in the financial position of the health service.
I very much regret the previous Administration's decision to phase out private patient's beds from National Health Service hospitals, because I believe that they have been, to a large extent, responsible for the growth in private hospitals. I was always against queue-jumping for operating theatres, but it would not have been beyond the wit of man to think up an alternative way of running private hospital beds in NHS hospitals. I have before me the new set of charges, which means that we in the NHS have to charge for a London teaching hospital £166 a day, for a provincial teaching hospital £137 a day, and for a London special health authority hospital £183 a day.
It is no secret that for many years I was connected with Queeen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital for Women, but the private beds in Queen Charlotte's are all maternity ones and, as your Lordships know, private insurance is not mad keen to insure you against the risk of pregnancy. So any patient in Queen Charlotte's will have to pay out of her own income £183 a day. I do not believe that that will increase the income from private patients in Queen Charlotte's Hospital, because I do not believe that they will be able to afford it.
When you compare charges for teaching hospitals, both provincial and in London, with the average charge per day in a private BUPA hospital, which I have been informed is between £120 and £130 a day, you see that there is a big difference. Not only is there a big difference in charges; the facilities that are put at the disposal of a patient in a private hospital are, in most cases, immeasurably superior to those that we can provide in the NHS. Many people would prefer to be private patients in a NHS hospital, but they will not be if the difference in charges is so great that they would be economically better off by going to a private hospital.

407
I have made it my business to make some inquiries from a number of district health authorities in close proximity to private hospitals, and they estimate that with the new charges they will not be gaining income. They will be losing between £100,000 and £200,000 a year of their private patient income. So the aim of the Government, which one assumes was to increase the income to the NHS, in my view will not materialise.
There is another point about private beds in NHS hospitals. I would plead with the noble Baroness to plead with the Secretary of State in the other place to think about this point. It concerns the blanket charge for private beds. When I was a governor of University College Hospital we had a private wing, and the charges were the same for whatever room you had in that private wing. This does not help to fill all the rooms because if a patient comes to have a look and you happen to have a room which has a bathroom—that will cost £166 a day—the patient will choose that room. If she then has a look at a room at the back which does not have a private bathroom and has no outlook and the price is the same, the room will stay unused. The patient who cannot be accommodated in the good accommodation which exists in the NHS will go to a private hospital.
That fault has existed as long as I can remember and I think it is about time that we had a graded charge for NHS private accommodation. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will bring this to the attention of the Secretary of State.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on her new post. I should like to reverse the line of speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, because I intend briefly to comment upon her subject of hospital charges and then go at much greater length into the dental aspect. I was very interested when the noble Baroness referred to the charges for private patients in NHS hospitals, because I am still a member of a special health authority. I understand that our health authority, which happens to cover the National Heart Hospital, is specially bracketed at a high level. At the meeting the other night, I thought the figure of £250 a day was quoted.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, yes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, people were not particularly unhappy about the charge of £250 a day, although I am very aware of the point the noble Baroness makes that one wants a room of first quality for that price. Although the hospitals are pleased that they are now able to charge more—a few years ago the charges were so low that we had a constant influx of foreign visitors because it was so inexpensive to come; now hospital treatment is a more realistically priced item—their concern at the moment is that you pay the same no matter what treatment you are having. If you come in for major heart surgery you are still getting quite a bargain at £250 a day because that is all in—there are no extras whatsoever.
If you go to one of the private hospitals you will find theatre charges, charges for drugs, and all sorts of extras that are added on, which make a difference. But
408
if, on the other hand, you go into the National Heart Hospital for a minor investigation, it is a very expensive thing to have done there. So they believe it is necessary to have some right to vary charges according to the complexity of the treatment given and the costs of the treatment being provided. I should like to make that point in this speech so that it will be on record for the Minister to consider.
I should now like to go back to the dental charges, which are much more directly in my line. I must declare an interest as a general dental practitioner. I think that these new charges are wrong in principle and hopeless in terms of practicality. In terms of principle, we were told when a Statement was last made—I think it was in November—that we were to expect increases in line with inflation; "roughly in line with inflation" may have been the term used. As I understand it, this Government are extremely proud of their record on lowering inflation. Therefore to me it is quite impossible to accept that a 25 per cent. increase is in line with inflation.
I can understand one of the motives behind the change of structure. I think it must have been brought in as a deterrent to over-prescribing, because in recent times we have had quite a lot of evidence of a few bad dentists who were doing unnecessary work for patients. Because the patient is going to pay a proportion of the charge he will certainly be policing—if I may use that word—every bit of treatment that is carried out as it is hitting his pocket directly. That may have been the motive behind it, but it is not going to produce the desired result. Instead, all those people who are in difficulty meeting charges will be in much greater difficulty.
If the DHSS carried out an analysis, it would find, because this is certainly the common word in the dental profession, that at present the most expensive treatments—crowns, bridges, all sorts of elaborate and expensive treatment—are carried out in areas of perhaps high unemployment but certainly of high priority classes. They are the many young people who pay nothing, the many unemployed who pay nothing, or people in categories which are not liable for charges. When these people attend the dentist they can be offered any form of treatment, no matter how expensive or elaborate. There is no ceiling, and many dental treatments now cost over £1,000. If the patient does not have to meet any charge, the dentist need not think twice about carrying out his idealistic dentistry, which we should all like to be able to afford.
On the other hand—and this is commonly the case in my practice—where people have just enough to live on, the patient will say, "I cannot manage to meet these dental charges. What can I do about it?". You reply, "There is a special form. It is this pink form F1D. You can complete this form and apply for assistance with your dental charges." That is a very desirable situation. But the F1D form is, sadly, far less desirable. It is extremely complicated. The dentist must sign Part 1. He must sign where it is stated:
"I have undertaken"—
not "I am willing"—
"I have undertaken to provide the patient with dental treatment/dentures under the National Health Service".
That, of course, immediately places the dentist under an obligation, even though the patient might have

409
come in with a preliminary inquiry to ask about assistance and might not even wish to go to that dentist after receiving permission to get treatment free of charge. Therefore, it is wrong that the dentist should be placed under an obligation at that point. I think the dentist should be able to sign a declaration stating, "I am willing to undertake treatment for the patient" and the contract between dentist and patient should come at a later stage.
We then come to Part 2 of the form which is headed:
"To be completed by the patient except when the charge is incurred by a married woman living with her husband when it should be completed by her husband".
I find that an interesting point. I understand that that is not in the normal procedures of our law, though tax law still looks upon the wife as a chattel of the husband. The form goes on to state:
"All references on this form to a married woman, a wife or a husband, should be regarded as applying, as appropriate, to other persons living together as man and wife".
I know of cases where the husband regularly completes the form. I know of many fewer cases of people living together where the form is taken home and the other party completes it. Either the whole thing is beyond people or they do not wish to know about it.
There then follows nine questions to be completed in claiming fir remission of charges on grounds of income. The usual information is required, such as name and address and those in the household. It is then stated:
"Do not include sub-tenants paying you rent".
Very few of these people hoping to receive assistance have many sub-tenants paying them rent.
You then have to declare that you have no dependants, or that you are married and have dependants, and complete all sorts of details. Having gone through all the easy questions, you then get down to those relating to rent, rates and mortgage repayments. You have to declare whether you pay them and how much they are each week; whether there are any rebates and whether payments include heating. You have to state:
"My rent and rates without rebate would be…"
—or, "I own the house but make a payment of so many pounds a week".
I have often tried to help people complete these forms, but they cannot answer many of these points even when they want to. Declarations on the form include:
"I live as a member of someone else's household. I am a commercial boarder".
It then goes on to savings:
"Total savings and investments of myself and my dependants, other than my owner-occupied property, are £
If none, write 'none'.
Weekly income:
Current weekly income for self and dependants from all sources is"
There is then a list of about 10 different categories.
"My occupation is",
and it has to be listed all again.
Then there is this nice statement:
"After deducting from the gross amount any income tax and, in the case of earnings, national insurance contributions and fares to work".
410
That is an interestng one—"fares to work"—because they are not normally allowable on any form, but they are on this one.
"If earnings vary from week to week, enter an average figure"
If you have not understood at all, have a guess!
Then:
"Hire purchase payments:
Other expenses such as special diet, domestic assistance, life insurance".
There is a declaration at the end and a big warning that false information will leave you liable to prosecution.
It means that this new scale of charges will require thousands more people to apply for this pink form, F1D. It will involve the DHSS in a great deal of work looking through those forms. I believe that the forms should be simplified in such a way that people can answer them more clearly and they can be assessed more rapidly.
From the time when the patient comes in and asks for the form any amount of time can elapse—three or four months, or even longer—before an answer comes back, sometimes saying that a patient can meet all his own charges, at other times saying that he can meet up to the first £25 and at yet others saying that he is exempt from everything. But in each case there is a long time lapse. There is no way that one can phone and get a quick answer for people.
A patient may arrive in pain, with no money, and want help through one of these F1D forms. Do you send him away in agony or do you carry out the treatment for him? I believe that every dentist would carry out the treatment, but it is done out of the goodness of his heart, because he may never see a penny for that work. If the answer comes back that the patient should pay, he is certainly not going to bring back the form, nor come back himself, because he has said that he does not have the money whether or not he is assessed as being liable. The dentist carries that burden.
I think that there should be provision within the treatment scale for emergency relief of pain for patients who have no money and who have applied through these F1D forms. It is impossible to ask them to wait in pain. It is equally unfair to ask a dentist to wait all that time and then perhaps never get a penny.
There are other practical points which I think are wrong. One horrifies me personally. Few people probably will realise this, but I have read the little thing that comes out about the new fees. It says that in calculating the amount—the first £17, plus 40 per cent. thereafter—you should round your answer down to the nearest penny. That means that you have to take a bag of small change with you every day to the surgery. You have to be like a small shopkeeper, working out whether the change is 1p or 4p. We had a similar situation in 1970 when Sir Keith Joseph was Secretary of State. There were so many complaints from the profession that we were assured that we should never again be put back to the small shopkeeper status, with a bag of small coins—yet here we are again.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is the same Government, my Lords.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is even more difficult this time. Last time it was 50 per cent. and most people

411
can divide by two. For 40 per cent. you need a calculator. You will probably have to try to employ an even more skilled chair-side assistant. She no longer has to be able to do just the physical work required in a surgery for the low fees that are paid by the health service; she has to be able to get out her calculator and, with the scale of fees, work out every penny.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn mentioned the fact that we are expected to give our patients an estimate in advance. That is totally hopeless. There is no way you can give your patients an estimate in advance—it will be difficult enough to work it out after you have done it. That is another important point.
Then the bad debts will abound because it is up to the dentist to collect the money. If you do not collect it, that is your loss. It still goes through your National Health payment schedule on the basis that you have had it. You meet your superannuation on the basis that you have had it. You are also assessed in terms of calculation through the DHSS as to what net income you are earning. It is presumed that you have had that money, and if you have not had it that is out of your pocket and it is just bad luck.
There was rather a lack of notice and there was certainly a lack of consultation. For example, the General Dental Practitioners' Association, who have over 2,000 members, were very disappointed that there was no consultation with them. They point out that for the maximum charge now of £115 for routine work you would have had to have had £262 worth of treatment. A very real problem exists in cases where the fee is unknown. This applies in many cases, particularly surgical ones. A patient comes in and may ask to have his tooth extracted on the basis that the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, mentioned. Such a patient may say "I cannot afford to have anything else. I shall have the tooth out."
The tooth then breaks. It is brittle, or it has been root filled. There are many reasons why a tooth breaks, including perhaps the nature of the bone. You find yourself instead having immediately to carry out a surgical operation to remove the segments. You cannot leave the patient walking around with half a broken tooth, an exposed nerve and in great pain. Therefore you carry out that operation. Remember that I am talking of the patient who could not afford to pay more than the £3.30 and that is why he asked to have his tooth out. That operation may represent £20, £30, £40 or £50 worth of work. There is no way of knowing because the Dental Estimates Board assesses it afterwards when you send in the X-rays and the history of what time it took you. What happens then? That patient has already told you that he either cannot or will not pay more than the £3.30. Presumably you will just do that work for 60 per cent. of the fee that is agreed. There is no way you will see that other 40 per cent. Therefore I think the bad debts will be a real problem.
I have discussed the whole matter in a great degree of detail. I do not see any reason why I should say any more on this our last day before Easter. However, I hope that I have made clear that in two ways I think that these charges are wrong. One is the principle that it is not in line with inflation, and the other is the practicality aspect; that it will be extremely difficult to
412
operate. We have been told that the Minister will look at it again if it proves difficult. My concern there is how long it will be before you can prove anything and what damage can be done in that time.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Baroness is to be congratulated not on the length of her speech but on the depth of feeling that came through. I hope the Secretary of State will read not only the speech of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, but also others. However, the speech from the noble Baroness was really a cri de coeur. If I was now thinking of changing my profession, she does not encourage me to apply to become a dentist. However, maybe that is not a problem.
Turning to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench, when she dealt a little earlier today with supplementary benefit regulations, every single speaker from all parts of the House was extremely critical of the regulations. The only nice thing that the speakers had to say to the noble Baroness, as I wish to say, was to congratulate her on having taken on her job—or, rather, the wisdom of someone who appointed her to her job. If I may say so, if we look at this afternoon's debate, not a single word has been said in favour of what the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has to justify. I think quite clearly the DHSS needed a tough Minister to knock some sense into today's ministerial team. I am certain that, whatever else we feel, we wish her well in her monumental task.
I want to start in a slightly reverse order. I want to start with the question of charges for overseas visitors. I do this because I want to put down a series of questions, the answers to which will not automatically be within the vivid memory of the noble Baroness. However, I thought I should bring them up first in order that she may be able to answer them in the course of time.
I want to ask the Minister what is the total revenue from these charges for overseas visitors, both inpatients and outpatients, in the year just ended? How much will we have brought in? Secondly, what is the anticipated additional income as a result of these regulations? Thirdly, to how many people do these charges apply? Fourthly, does the revenue go to the district health authority or is there some system of central control over the revenue? I put these questions, as I said at the beginning, in order to give some notice to the noble Baroness. I hope that she will accept my pleasure, having once had responsibility for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, that it is now to be exempt—and that is the last nice thing that I shall say about any of the regulations we are discussing.
I move now to the question of dental charges. Much of what I might have wanted to say has been expressed from the heart by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. It is a tremendous advantage to have people with this professional experience to enlighten and inform our debates. Patients who are not exempt from National Health Service dental charges will be paying most of the cost of their treatment for the very first time. For millions of courses of treatment the service will be

413
paying nothing, or next to nothing, towards the cost. Charges for dental treatment are rising, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, by 25 per cent. If we add this to the increase in prescription charges, to which I shall come, and the ending for most people of NHS spectacles, it is really inevitable that people, and certainly dentists, are saying that for many dental patients the service has now become virtually a privatised service. This is what concerns us.
Little by little in the primary health care service, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, there is a biting away. We are not seeing this within the context of the Government's White Paper on primary health care or the Binder Hamlyn Report, which for months we have asked to be published. These new charges have been roundly condemned—and I think reasonably—by the British Dental Association. Dentists fear that the new charges will encourage people to have teeth extracted rather than conserved because extractions are cheaper. The British Dental Association—the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, also mentioned this—has issued a warning that the charges will set dental health care back a generation. I believe that to be true. For millions of courses or relatively routine treatment, patients will pay the full cost. For many of the more complex and lengthy treatments, the National Health Service contribution will be extremely small. For others, the proportion that the NHS pays will vary widely and have no clear logic.
I notice that Mr. Ralph Followell, the immediate past chairman of the British Dental Association council, said that some patients who have been paying £14.50 could now be picking up a bill of£30 or £40. He went on to say that when an extraction costs a patient only £3.30 and a root filling and rebuilding a tooth could cost £30, a lot more teeth will be sacrificed that could be saved. I really think that the Government have to think again about the nation's teeth. It may be that, in general, dental health is improving. But by this decision of the Government, we are putting all this progress into reverse. I thought that the Daily Mirror hit the nail on the head when it stated in a leading article on 13th March:
"The new dental charges will be beyond the pockets of millions who are not entitled to free treatment …
When it is much cheaper to have a tooth out than a tooth saved the purpose of the NHS is lost. We will be come what we were before the NHS began, a nation with rotting teeth".
That is roughly what the noble Baroness said earlier in the debate.
Many concerned dentists do see this as a further step towards ending the National Health Service dental service in the same way as we heard in an earlier debate that many opticians see that National Health Service being phased out of their profession. We should not underestimate the strength of feeling which exists among members of the professions who are dedicated to the National Health Service and the cause of the professions which they serve.
I turn, thirdly and finally, to the new level of prescription charges. The new £2 fee is a tenfold increase over the 20p rate which existed when this Government came to power. They have in the course of six years—I was about to say six short years, but as far as I am concerned they have been six damned long years—multiplied by 1,000 per cent. the cost of
414
prescription charges. Why have they done that? It certainly cannot be justified with regard to the rate of inflation. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that we are talking about 3 per cent., but my percentage is rather different. I think that it is a 25 per cent. increase compared with 5 per cent. on the rate of inflation. Therefore, whether it be 3, 5, 4 or 8 per cent., in no way can it be argued that it has been done to keep pace with inflation.
Moreover, it cannot be justified in terms or the increase in drug costs. We do not need to go into the detail of this matter because this House has many times debated drug costs. The Government are dealing with drug prices and drug profits in two ways: through the limited list system, by which they hope to save £75 million, and by further adjustments to the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS). I hope that the noble Baroness when she comes to reply—and if she cannot include this matter in her reply I hope that she will write to me—will say what progress is being made in the review of the PPRS which is now being carried out. In any case, does the noble Baroness accept that half of all £2 prescriptions—and this issue was referred to by both the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—will cost more than the cost of the ingredients? My information is that the cost of half of all prescripions dispensed will be either equal to or more than the actual cost of the ingredients. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that point.
The Government's only explanation or excuse is that this is a way of paying for the National Health Service. None of the other arguments applies. The Government's conclusion is that we should constantly find ways of increasing the burden placed on those who need treatment. Time and again I have argued from this Dispatch Box, not only from my own personal view but on behalf of my party, that we believe, as we did when the health service was created, that basically it should be a service provided free at the the point of delivery. We are moving very rapidly away from that point; we are increasingly putting the burden of treatment for sickness not on the generality of the population but on the sick themselves. It is this Government's policy in issue after issue to bring in charges, and they are all charges on the sick—charges on people who need treatment, charges on people who need to go to the dentist, charges on people who need prescriptions because they have been to the doctor, and charges on people who need spectacles because they have been to the optician. It is they who have to pay, according to this Government, and not those who are fit.
Before the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was moved—I was going to say to another place; I do not know whether he was moved to a higher office—he asked me on 11th November how I would pay for increases in the cost of the National Health Service. My answer is absolutely clear, and it is that the National Health Service should be paid for by the taxpayer and not by putting increased charges on to those who are unfortunate enough to be sick. I hold this as a deep principle.
I believe the Government would get a vote of confidence from the electorate if they were to spend more on the National Health Service. Of all the

415
services, it is quite clear from opinion polls that the National Health Service is the most popular; and whenever the public are asked whether they are prepared to see more money going to the National Health Service they say, "Yes". If they are asked what, if there is to be more public expenditure, should have the highest share, they say, "The National Health Service".
All tests of opinion prove that this should be done not by heavier increases in charges on the patient, on the sick, but by taxation itself, spreading the burden across the whole nation. This was the concept of the NHS and it is being undermined by the Government. If the Government want more money nationally for the NHS then there are of course many ways. I will give only one example. They might tighten up on the cheating by some consultants for the benefit of their private patients. When recently the Government audited just one-sixth of district health authorities in England and Wales they found that corruption was responsible for a £10 million loss to the National Health Service. On that basis, if one assumes that that one-sixth of the district health authorities was a fair sample, £60 million could be saved simply on stopping fraud—more money than is to be obtained by the regulations that are before your Lordships' House this evening. That would be a far better way of doing it. Let us get rid of any dishonesty and let the patients get the best that there can be for them.
Just in conclusion before I sit down, I must say that there is a certain sense of frustration that I discern today, first, that the rules governing the proceedings of this House deny us the right to vote against the regulations. I understand this and one just has to accept it; but, secondly, it is frustrating that your Lordships are sitting, with all the skill and experience which has been demonstrated today, to debate regulations which came into effect four days ago. I really think that our business managers—and I hesitate to say this in the presence of the Opposition Chief Whip—and the Government ought somehow to ensure that, if your Lordships are to be taken seriously—and I believe every one of us believes that we should be—we should be able to debate issues like this before they actually come into effect.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I first of all thank those noble Lords who have welcomed me to this particular hot seat. I must say that I have wondered during the course of this afternoon: with noble friends like those behind me, who wants enemies? Today we have been debating, at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, five sets of regulations with one thing in common. All of them are concerned with raising revenue for the National Health Service, and the Government's policy is quite clear. We believe that it is perfectly fair and reasonable to raise a modest proportion of the money which we need to run, and to continue to improve, the National Health Service from patients who can afford to pay. I would add that people who cannot afford to meet these charges will not be expected to do so.
In the 1985–86 financial year, patients' charges will account for some 3.2 per cent. of total health service spending. This is a modest figure, and it is in line with
416
the proportion which has prevailed at certain times in the past. For example, in 1969–70, when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, was Prime Minister, patients' charges accounted for 3.5 per cent. of national health costs; but that modest percentage amounts to a considerable sum of money. For England alone in 1985–86, charges will bring in some £460 million. I have listened carefully to noble Lords opposite, and I have read what was said in another place when these regulations were debated, and I can only say that, first, I still have no clear idea exactly what the policy of the Opposition parties is as regards charges; and, secondly, I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation of how they would make good the revenue which would be lost if they failed to continue to raise money from charges at the present levels.
I think that the policy of the Social Democrats (whether or not they speak also for their partners in the Alliance I do not know) is to increase charges in line with inflation. Their spokesman in another place said that 1979 should be taken as the base year. Again, whether he meant that the charges were about what he would like them to be before or after we put them up in 1979 was not clear. I hope it was the latter, as the Labour Government had failed to increase prescription charges at all while they let inflation rip, and had left dental charges unchanged since 1977. In any case they would, so they say, have raised charges a lot less than this Government have done, and I have to ask them whether this means that they would have spent less on the NHS than we have done and, if not, where they imagine they would have got the money from.
We are not making any change whatsoever to the arrangements which exist for enabling people receiving supplementary benefit or family income supplement, or who have a low income, to obtain free prescriptions and free or reduced charge dental treatment. People who cannot afford these charges do not have to pay them. There are also other wide-ranging arrangements for exemption from charges so that, for example, 72 per cent. of prescription items are dispensed free.
Let me now turn to as many as possible of the various points raised by your Lordships. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. He raised the point that many drugs which patients could buy over the counter from chemists are now black-listed. Any drug which was previously available for counter sale in a pharmacy is still available. The selected list makes no change. The noble Lord also wanted an assurance that the Government will not dismantle general medical services in favour of private practice. The Government are on record many times as saying that the National Health Service is safe with us. It is entirely consistent with that promise for those people who can afford to do so to make a contribution to the cost of their treatment. These contributions are to the benefit of the National Health Service at large, on which this Government's expenditure is constantly increasing.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also said that although £2 is less than half the average cost of a prescription item, some items actually cost less than £2. There is nothing new about this. Even when the last Labour Administration froze the prescription

417
charges at an absurdly low level some items cost less than the charge. It is inevitable when a flat-rate charge is fixed to cover a large number of items that some of these items will cost less than the charge. Others, of course, will cost considerably more. But we have to look at the charges in the round. The total income received from the charges goes to offset the total national health drug bill and reduce the financial burden borne by the taxpayer. I certainly cannot give the noble Lord any assurance that we shall change that situation.
The noble Lord also raised the point that pharmacists should advise patients of drugs prescribed but available at less than the prescription charge. I do not think one has to persuade pharmacists to do this. I should have thought this simply followed a natural desire to sell. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked whether charges have been increased to recover the £25 million lost on the original estimate of savings through the selected list. The original estimate of £100 million a year was only a rough estimate and it will take a year or two for full savings to build up. The shortfall is temporary and may not occur if doctors prescribe sensibly across the whole range of drugs. Certainly the revised estimate of savings from the selected list played no part in the setting of this year's prescription and dental charges.
With regard to overseas visitors' charges, and whether the administrative costs make collection worthwhile, there is no convincing evidence that administering the scheme, as recommended in the department's guidance, carries significant costs. We are aware that two authorities which earn substantial income from the scheme—over £100,000 each in 1983–84—employed an additional member of staff, but there is no evidence that authorities with smaller incomes have employed extra staff. By adding one simple question to those which all patients have to answer when first attending for treatment it is possible to identify those who are more likely to be charged.
Several noble Lords suggested that prescription charges deter people from seeking the treatment they need. That does not square with the facts. The number of prescription items dispensed has increased from 300 million in 1981 to an estimated 320 million in 1984; it is unlikely to drop in 1985. I have said before, and I shall say again, that there are wide exemption arrangements. Over 72 per cent. of prescription items are dispensed free. Pre-payment certificates are available for people who need a lot of prescriptions and 6 per cent. of prescription items go to holders of pre-payment certificates. These arrangements ensure that nobody is denied medication on financial grounds.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimarnock, also asked about the percentage of people exempt as distinct from items which attract no charge. He referred to the percentage of the population which is exempt from prescription charges. The percentage is misleading. What is relevant is the percentage of medicines which are required by the population which are exempt from charges. This is about 72 per cent. of all items dispensed.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also suggested that the loss from optical charges has been loaded on to dental charges. This is not the case. The savings
418
from the changes to the general ophthalmic service more than offset the loss of income from optical charges. The noble Lord also asked when the Green Paper on primary health care will appear. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has said that the Green Paper will be published in the summer. The review of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme is not strictly related to the regulations we are debating.
Returning to the dental side, many nobleLords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, my noble friend Lord Colwyn and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, suggested that the change in the charging system will lead to people choosing cheaper forms of treatment, such as extractions, rather than more expensive treatment which will enable them to keep their own teeth. I would say first of all that it is only people who can afford the charges who have to pay them. It is right that people should be able to choose what they spend their money on. There is often a choice between various types of treatment; and patients, guided by their dentist, should be able to weigh up the clinical, aesthetic and cost considerations and decide for themselves. But I see no reason why certain forms of dental treatment should be more heavily subsidised than others. Secondly, all the evidence is that people are choosing to retain their natural teeth—lucky things!
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and my noble friend Lord Colwyn suggested that these increases will deter people from going to the dentist. All I can say is that there is no evidence that increases in charges deter people. On the contrary, the number of courses of dental treatment in England and Wales has risen from the figure of 28·5 million in 1979 to 32·6 million last year.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn, as he said, was kind enough to give me notice of the points that he wished to raise. Time is going by, the hour is very late for this particular day just before Easter. If I undertake to read the answers to his points, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I leave the dental situation there. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to some of the same matters.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I have a copy?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, of course. My noble friend referred to the actual increase in dental charges. He rightly pointed out that the actual increase in the charge varies, and varies considerably, with the type of treatment given. We estimate that the average charge will rise by about 23 per cent. from £14.90 to £18.30. As regards the charges for routine treatment, there will be no increase at all in about 60 per cent. of cases because the patient is already paying the full cost. In about 15 per cent. of cases, the increase will be less than £5; in about 12 per cent. of cases, it will be between £5 and £10; and in about 10 per cent. of the cases between £10 and £20. In only about 3 per cent, or 4 per cent. of cases will the increase be more than £20.
My noble friend Lady Gardner also referred to the substance of the next part of the question by my noble friend Lord Colwyn. My noble friend referred to the administrative costs of the new scheme. I accept that

419
there will be some additional administrative burden on dentists but I do not think that these costs will be as great as perhaps my noble friend suggested. As I have already said, only about one-fifth of visits to the dentist are affected by the new charges and some of these will only be affected by the new charges and some of these will only be affected by the rises in the set charges. I appreciate that dentists will only be able to give their patients an estimate of the cost before starting treatment and that they may have to tell them at least in broad terms of any increases resulting from additional treatment which they find it necessary to undertake. But, as charges are paid only by people who can afford to pay them I believe that in the overwhelming majority of cases patients will accept the treatment their dentist proposes and pay the charge, as they undertake to do when they sign the dental estimate form.
I think that we need to bear in mind the purpose of the change, which is to have a system which is fairer to patients. I think that the new system should be given a chance to work. My right honourable friend the Minister for Health has told representatives of the profession that, if they can come up with a system which is fair to the patient, easier for the dentist to administer and capable of raising the sums of money required, he will certainly consider it for the future.
My noble friend Lady Gardner, again in part of her speech, also referred to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Colwyn. In the course of his comments on the administration of this scheme, my noble friend referred to fees which are at the discretion of the Dental Estimates Board. The scheme does take account of them. These fees are for treatment which is subject to the prior approval of the board and therefore the dentist will normally know the fee and hence the appropriate charge before starting treatment. It is only in cases of emergency when the board turns a blind eye to the regulations that a problem may arise, the most common case being what appears to be a simple extraction, for which there is a set fee, turning out to be more difficult than expected. In most cases, the dentist will know from experience the size of fee which the board is likely to approve and therefore will be able to charge the patients a safe but not unreasonable amount, refunding any difference when notified of the fee by the board.
My noble friend suggested that the discretionary fees should be published. If they were published, they would no longer be discretionary. I can say, however, that we are always looking for ways of reducing the number of discretionary fees. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about statistics on dental health, and my noble friend Lord Colwyn really accused the Government of manipulating figures to suit ourselves. I resent this very much and I hope he will withdraw the remarks he made, particluarly the remarks about being unable to trust the Ministry. I think that those are the most unhelpful remarks which have emerged from these Benches for a very long time and I hope that he will see fit to take them back.
Finally, my noble friend asked for an assurance that the charges will be reviewed as soon as evidence emerges, as he said, that dental health is being damaged. We have, as I have said, no evidence of that
420
but my right honourable friend the Minister for Health has agreed to a proposal from the British Dental Association for a joint review of the available statistics to see whether it is possible to reach a joint view of the effect of increasing dental charges. I hope this will prove to be the case, if only to avoid the kind of sterile argument about statistics which has echoed through our debate today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the need for people to have private prescriptions as a result of the introduction of the selected list. I think I have already dealt with that side of things. Referring to the increase in charges, the noble Baroness said that she doubted whether the overall income would be increased. These private patient charges are fixed by the Secretary of State's determination and not by the regulations, and so they are really irrelevant to what we are talking about.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes made a great many rather unpleasant remarks. As regards the expensive treatment which is given free to people, we know of no conclusive evidence of this, although it is true that the average cost of treatment given free to adults is somewhat higher than that for those who save to pay. My noble friend Lady Gardner also mentioned a statement by the Government that dental charges would only rise in line with inflation. No such statement has ever been made. My noble friend also mentioned the intention of changing the structure of the dental charges to discourage unnecessary treatment. That is not so. The intention is to make the system fairer.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, among many sweeping statements talked about patients paying the full cost. There is nothing new in this. Before 1st April, people whose routine treatment cost up to £14·50 paid the full cost. Now people whose routine treatment costs up to £17 will be paying the full cost. When the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was Secretary of State, it was a case of paying the full cost of up to £5; he put it up from £3·50. The noble Lord asked also where the money from charges to overseas visitors goes. It goes to add to the health authority's resources.
Lord Ennals: How much?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not have the figure for that, but I shall of course write to the noble Lord.
Quite honestly, I think the time has come when I must say that I shall write to other noble Lords. I am sorry that all this has taken place so late and that other noble Lords have spoken for so long, thereby preventing me from doing full justice in giving them answers. However, there is just one point I should like to finish on. We have no intention of changing things; we are committed to the National Health Service. We will defend the National Health Service, and these increased charges will help us to continue to improve the health service. I commend them to your Lordships.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am afraid that before withdrawing this Motion I have to say to the noble Baroness that I found her reply most disappointing. I think that some noble Lords will resent the

421
implication that they have spoken at excessive length on these very important matters, on which they have a right to expresss their opinion. In her speech, the noble Baroness introduced one or two moments of hilarity, for which I suppose we ought to be grateful to her. In particular, I was glad of her pledge of the Government's continuing support for the National Health Service family doctor service. We shall certainly be holding the Government to that when the Green Paper is finally published and we discuss these matters at greater length.
I was amazed to hear the noble Baroness say that there is no evidence that an increase in dental charges had ever deterred patients from going for dental treatment. That may very well be the case when there is an increase of 5 or 6 per cent., or an increase in line with inflation. But, to the best of my knowledge, people have not so far been faced with an increase of 40 per cent., which I think was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, for certain types of treatment. It is simply unbelievable that people will not be deterred by massive increases of that kind.
The noble Baroness told us that optical charges are not a factor, and I was very glad to hear it. If that is so, and the Government are not concerned to recoup what they have lost, there seems to be even less of a case for hiking the dental charges by this enormous amount. In fact, the noble Baroness seems to me to have scored an own goal there. I also find it absolutely amazing that she should dismiss as "unpleasant" the extremely sensible and practical remarks which were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on the basis of very great personal and day-to-day working experience of these matters.
By convention we do not press Prayers such as these to a Division, but I am glad to say—and I can certainly guarantee it through a number of people to whom I have spoken—that people who are interested in these matters will read the report of this debate with close attention and will draw their own conclusions from it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1985 (S.I. 1985, No. 383)
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I do not propose to move the remaining five Motions.

Motion for the Adjournment
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I should just like to say this. We sometimes have our political differences between the sides of this House, and sometimes even between Benches on the same side of this House, as has been apparent today. But it is right that at 4.30 on a Maundy Thursday all these political differences should go into Recess, as we shortly hope to do. I should like on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House to wish all noble Lords in other parts of the House a very happy Easter. Also, on behalf of the Whole House I should like to wish all those who work for us and serve us so well throughout the year a very happy and restful Recess and a very happy Easter.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Lord the Chief Whip in wishing all members of the staff, who serve this House so well, a restful Recess and couple with that, as he did, the wish that all other noble Lords also enjoy a restful Recess. As the noble Lord said, we have our political differences. However, in wishing the Government Chief Whip a restful and happy Easter Recess, I hope that the fact that his noble friend and my noble kinsman Lord Mersey has, with a little help from this side of the House, inflicted the third defeat on the Government in the course of this week will not cause him any loss of sleep during the Recess. We hope to continue with this winning streak when we return on 15th April for the Local Government Bill.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to wish noble Lords in all parts of the House a very happy and well deserved Easter Recess. In particular, I should like to join my remarks to those of the other Whips in wishing the members of staff who make our deliberations possible a restful Recess. We must apologise that on this Maundy Thursday afternoon we have gone on perhaps a little longer than was originally intended, but we are grateful to them for the way they have held on and for looking after us as they always do. My Lords—a happy Easter!
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at half-past four o'clock until Monday, 15th April next.

  NORTHERN IRELAND WORK PROJECTS: EC FUNDING
  NORTHERN IRELAND WORK PROJECTS: EC FUNDING
  BELFAST CROSS-CITY RAIL LINK
  BELFAST CROSS-CITY RAIL LINK
  OPPORTUNITIES FOR VOLUNTEERING SCHEME: NORTHERN IRELAND
  OPPORTUNITIES FOR VOLUNTEERING SCHEME: NORTHERN IRELAND
  TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS: EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS: EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS LEGISLATION: ENACTMENT
  REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS LEGISLATION: ENACTMENT
  EUTHANASIA
  EUTHANASIA
  EC: INTERNAL MARKET COUNCIL PROPOSALS
  EC: INTERNAL MARKET COUNCIL PROPOSALS
  WAGES AND TOTAL EARNINGS: STATISTICS
  WAGES AND TOTAL EARNINGS: STATISTICS
  MR. STEPHEN SPENCER-CHAPMAN AND MR. ROBERT AVERY
  MR. STEPHEN SPENCER-CHAPMAN AND MR. ROBERT AVERY
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES COMMISSION: FUTURE ROLE
  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES COMMISSION: FUTURE ROLE
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT DECLARATIONS
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT DECLARATIONS
  HEROIN AND COCAINE SEIZURES
  HEROIN AND COCAINE SEIZURES
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: CLEANING AND RESTORATION
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: CLEANING AND RESTORATION
  EMPLOYMENT: COMPARATIVE STATISTICS
  EMPLOYMENT: COMPARATIVE STATISTICS